What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[andyandy]

Whether or not we should shoot and eat monkeys?

as long as the orangs are left alone I don't mind

Or, the difference between "random" and "unpredictable"?

well "unpredictable" could be

1) non deterministic

2) chaotic

3) deterministic but unknown

4) deterministic but unknowable by humans

5) random process as a probability distribution

you could make a case for any of these to be "unpredictable" - it would again depend on how you chose to define your terms. Is knowing the probability distribution distinct from predictability (5) ? Is unpredictability solely a claim on human capability (3) or inherent property (4)? Is unpredictability an apparent feature which masks inherent determinism (2)? Is it simply just any non deterministic system (1)?

Again there are no "right" answers and no "wrong" answers - the vagaries of the English language do not fit neatly into mathematics.

 

[Vorticity]

...when the probabilities are uniformly distributed, repeated sampling from the same distribution causes convergence towards the mean value of the distribution with decreasing variance as the sample size increases. This result is called the central limit theorem...

Actually, that's the Law of Large Numbers, not the Central Limit Theorem.

The Central Limit Theorem states (very roughly) that the distribution function of the sum of n independent and identically distributed random variables converges for large n to a Gaussian.

 

[JoeEllison]

Again there are no "right" answers and no "wrong" answers - the vagaries of the English language do not fit neatly into mathematics.

The thing is, we're using English... so we need to resolve the issues in English, I think.

Speaking of intentional misleading, and kind of making my point, orangutans are apes. I made a reference to shooting and eating monkeys, knowing full well that you would incorrectly assume I was referring to your orangutan avatar. And, heck, you walked right into it... so thanks!

There's a sense that someone can frame an issue in such a way that they are technically correct, from a very narrow perspective, and are still grossly misleading. Do you see what I mean?

 

[andyandy]

The thing is, we're using English... so we need to resolve the issues in English, I think.

To really understand modeling you need to get used to maths - otherwise you will have nothing more than a useful approximation.

Speaking of intentional misleading, and kind of making my point, orangutans are apes. I made a reference to shooting and eating monkeys, knowing full well that you would incorrectly assume I was referring to your orangutan avatar. And, heck, you walked right into it... so thanks!

yes i know orangs are apes. Look it even says "anthropomorphic ape" above my picture. It was a throwaway joke - I don't care about monkeys, just don't shoot orangs. Surely that doesn't need spelling out does it? Obviously it does. Othewise you will claim a rather far fetched Machiavellian plot that will stretch the credulity of anyone who hears it. If this is the level of discourse, then it is suddenly quite apparent why this thread has lasted 2500 posts.

There's a sense that someone can frame an issue in such a way that they are technically correct, from a very narrow perspective, and are still grossly misleading. Do you see what I mean?

it depends on who the audience is and how intelligent they are. If you don't understand a topic then you can be easily mislead.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The Central Limit Theorem states (very roughly) that the distribution function of the sum of n independent and identically distributed random variables converges for large n to a Gaussian.

I was going the fact that the Central Limit Theorem says the Normal (or Gaussian) distribution has the form:

[latex] $N(\mu,\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}})$[/latex].

Therefore as the sample size [latex] $n$[/latex] increases the standard deviation approaches 0. This may be a result of the Law of Large Numbers, but it is also obviously intimately connected to the Central Limit Theorem.

 

[JoeEllison]

yes i know orangs are apes. Look it even says "anthropomorphic ape" above my picture. It was a throwaway joke - I don't care about monkeys, just don't shoot orangs. Surely that doesn't need spelling out does it? Obviously it does. Othewise you will claim a rather far fetched Machiavellian plot that will stretch the credulity of anyone who hears it. If this is the level of discourse, then it is suddenly quite apparent why this thread has lasted 2500 posts.

Huh?

 

[cyborg]

I would argue that this was not just unpredictable but determinsitic, but also truly random.

This strictly cannot be true of a finite system.

The point about the nozzle example is that the selection is not random, it fits a criteris, so will be more effective (i.e. faster) than a probabilistic selection that would occur in nature.

I seem to recall before that you seemed to agree that the selection criteria in nature is not random either...

Now what you seem to be mixing up here is the distinction between a static selection critereon and a dynamic one.

Artificial breeding (artificial selection) is nonrandom, designer deity selectively breeding humans would be nonrandom, actual natural selection is probabilistic.

No jimbob. No. I told you this before: it is a very common occurrence for the population of species A to affect the evolution of a population of species B in a general sense.

You cannot place humans outside the system: we are part of it, not beyond it no matter how much one would otherwise proclaim otherwise. The concept of 'artificial' is, in a sense, quite artificial too. You cannot have it both ways and that is what you are trying to do here.

If you can see why 'artificial' selection by some agent which might be said to be 'purposefully' moving a population towards some allele frequency then it should be clear that one can make just as clear an argument that it is just as 'purposeful' for other such occurrences.

As such there is a wide spectrum of such observable techniques developed by species to affect such beneficial changes - and it happens quite 'naturally' simply because it is beneficial.

It is therefore just as 'natural' when humans do it - even before we were quite aware of just what it was we were doing.

Either that or you should be happy to think of other similar examples in 'nature' as being 'artificial' selection.

Articulett, how would you attempt to answer my numerical questions? I am still not sure if your complaint is that "probabilistic" is wrong or just "overcomplicated".

The main problem here would be that you're being inconsistent.

 

[Meadmaker]

And I've found Articulett a very effective answerer of questions.

I can't even get her to ask them.

 

[articulett]

You know, and maybe I'm way off on this... but it seems to me that no one would call poker "random". "Random" implies that it is all luck and no skill, and that every player has an equal chance of winning. We could describe roulette as random, because there's about an equal chance of the ball landing in any one of the slots. Poker, though? Would anyone honestly describe that as "random"?

If not, why would anyone describe evolution as "random", and not expect to be called out on it?

Bingo... BUT if you didn't want someone to understand the game of poker--you could call it random and make a big to-do about the probabilities and make it sound so damn complicated that people would think they could never understand it and that you must be a genius.

That's what Behe is doing. And it's not really "wrong" or a "lie"-- it's just the muddling tactic of a defense attorney with a guilty client. You just never can nail down what these guys are trying to say-- and they aren't really saying anything-- just muddling understanding. The goal isn't to clarify, because clarification makes them and their "intelligent designer" look a tad incompetent-- it's to obfuscate and sound like they are saying something meaningful.

Mijo's definition of random makes Poker the same as Roulette... and evolution on par with a tornado going through a junkyard creating a 747 (favorite creationist strawman). He doesn't distinguish between the two either because he can't or because he's like Behe. And yet he insists on emphasizing the word random--just like Behe. So you figure it out. Why would someone insist on using such an ambiguous word and go out of their way not to mention how natural selection works-- the non-random-- fixing aspects of it?-- Especially someone who asked for a peer reviewed article saying evolution was not random-- and he got one? And why do you think the same old apologists come by to prop up his claims by saying nothing at all? Look, I'm flattered to be insulted by them... they insult Dawkins and I cut and pasted quotes of him specifically addressing this question and why-- I feel I am in quite good company.

(And Jim-Bob-- Gould was good, but he's been dead for some time, and our explanations have evolved... even still he's tons more eloquent than you, and not nearly so garbled sounding. Why not try using his terminology instead of making a case for your own. I'm telling you-- it's like you are describing Poker by only focusing on the randomness and assorted probabilities while missing what the game is really about--strategies and such. You don't even need to use the word random or probable to give people a very good understanding of the game. And yet, you guys are fixated on using words in a way that multiple people have told you are unclear and misleading and need to be defined tighter and in relation to something if you are going to use them.)

 

[articulett]

Jim Bob-- listen to Cyborg--

Truly in artificial or natural selection-- the process is the same-- the environment chooses the replicators for the next generations-- everything in it that acts on replicators (organisms) in any way is part of the selection process.

Lots of stuff comes into play-- does it look like something poisonous; can it fight off parasites; can it attract a healthy mate with good genes; can it survive the rainy season; can it gain nutrients from it's environment; can it blend in with it's surroundings-- anything that helps it become a successful replicator has a chance of getting passed on when it replicates-- anything that hindered it, lessens the likelihood that it will appear in future generations.

Artificial selection may be faster and more focused and the goal may be "it tastes good to humans" or something else we are aware of-- but it's the same program running in nature... the goal is the same-- make more copies of the best copiers.

 

[andyandy]

[edit]

this thread deserves to be studied by anthropology students.

basically,


1) mijo's uses the word random
2) articulett and JoeEllison think this is suspicious.
3) 2500+ later...nothing further has been established


how so little can be said for so long....i'm done with this craziness already - i'll pop back in a couple of thousand of posts and see if anything else has been resolved.

 

[articulett]

You mean that you will pop in to say more nothingness and offer more apologetics while not addressing the OP yet again... and call all those who disagree with your apologetics, "bad guys"...

Yes, andyandy... it has become as predictable as mijo insisting evolution is random and meadmaker insisting Behe is honest and you insisting that you and others do not have a blatant Christian bias that evey one else find glaring.

 

[andyandy]

You mean that you will pop in to say more nothingness and offer more apologetics while not addressing the OP yet again... and call all those who disagree with your apologetics, "bad guys"...

Yes, andyandy... it has become as predictable as mijo insisting evolution is random and meadmaker insisting Behe is honest and you insisting that you and others do not have a blatant Christian bias that evey one else find glaring.

apologetics of what exactly? Do you actually disagree with my comment?

The two interpretations being used here are

1) A random process requires that each outcome has an equal outcome

2) A random process is one which follows a non-deterministic probability distribution.

neither are "wrong," neither are "right" - (1) is how lay people general understand the term (2) is how it is understood in mathematics and modeling.

If you want to communicate to laypeople (1) is preferable to avoid confusion, but if you want to actually understand the modelling behind evolution then (2) is preferable.

I thought that you agreed that (1) is generally best to use to avoid confusion. That 2500 posts later you're still saying it is neither here nor there.

Also I wasn't aware there was any "good guys" or "bad guys" split necessary over a rather tedious discussion of the semantics of randomness.

and which christian bias is that? First you try to pretend I disagree with everything that dawkins says - even after i say that i'm in most parts a fan, next you try to pretend i don't think that religion does any harm, so i list many ways in which it can, next you try to shift to just a christian bias.

• the christian church must be attributed a good level of culpability for the deeply unpleasant homophobia through the ages - continuing to this day.

• The Catholic church must be attributed a good level of culpability for their absurd contraceptive policy which undermines african (and developing world) efforts to fight HIV

• the christian church must be attributed a good deal of culpability for fostering anti-semitism throughout europe especially from the middle ages onwards - which was a factor in producing the european climate of hatred responsible for the Dreyfus affair, Russian pogroms and Austrian racism - a climate which helped shape Hitler's views.

• Mother Theresa was a deeply unpleasant individual who did a great deal of harm through the misrepresentation of her actions, and her actions themselves

• american fundamentalists challenge scientific learning, threaten abortion rights, stand in the way of life saving research on stem cells, and have far too much influence in american politics.

• Christianity has provided motivating factors, exacebating in group/out group splits, moral justifiers over a wide range of conflicts and atrocities commited throughout the ages.

i could go on and on - i dislike many aspects of christianity. But the facts don't actually matter do they? Because of the cardinal sin of
1) Not agreeing absolutely with everything that Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens says on religion
2) Not agreeing with absolutely everything that you say on religion

you have to cling to your comfort blanket "with us" "against us" division where you can dismiss any criticism by pretending people hold positions wholly diametrically opposed to your own. It's truly bizzare. I feel sorry for you - i genuinly do. It must be hard to be so hate filled and to have to invent reasons to vent that hatred on the internet against other non-belivers as a way of building up your self esteem whilst all the time being too scared to actually stand up to the evangelicals in your back garden.

I was raised with religion, and I wouldn't do it to my kid--and I'm glad Dawkins speaks up, because I am afraid of theists and their bullying ways

It's classic bullied kid syndrome - you've been bullied by evangelicals, but rather than stand up for yourself in the real world you look for another target to get your own back on - to build up your self esteem, becoming a bully yourself in the process. And it doesn't matter if you have to invent your cause - all that matters is that you delude yourself that it matters. Look at the harm religion has done to yourself - it's left you a hate-filled bully. And that's rather sad.

 

[Meadmaker]

[edit]

this thread deserves to be studied by anthropology students.

basically,


1) mijo's uses the word random
2) articulett and JoeEllison think this is suspicious.
3) 2500+ later...nothing further has been established


how so little can be said for so long....i'm done with this craziness already - i'll pop back in a couple of thousand of posts and see if anything else has been resolved.

articulett and Joe are latecomers. They were just taking up where claus left off.

ETA: Although, once his misimpression was corrected, he dropped it. But then this thread was off and running.

 

[JoeEllison]

You mean that you will pop in to say more nothingness and offer more apologetics while not addressing the OP yet again... and call all those who disagree with your apologetics, "bad guys"...

Yes, andyandy... it has become as predictable as mijo insisting evolution is random and meadmaker insisting Behe is honest and you insisting that you and others do not have a blatant Christian bias that evey one else find glaring.

The sad part is that, as a relative newcomer, I'm inclined to give these people a chance... one that they simply aren't worthy of.

 

[andyandy]

articulett and Joe are latecomers. They were just taking up where claus left off.

ETA: Although, once his misimpression was corrected, he dropped it. But then this thread was off and running.

and running and running....

 

[andyandy]

[delete post]

 

[Taffer]

Dodge noted.

No dodge, a simple fact. I've stated my feelings on the subject a long time ago, and reached what I considered an adequate solution. I see no point in furthering the discussion.

Then you might want to address how the quotes from Kimura and Bell, which deal with population genetics and call evolution a stochastic process, fit in with evolution being "non-random".


Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution

Semantics. Doesn't change how evolution works. I fail to see your facination of this argument, to be honest. Unless you have another goal in mind.

So would care to explain how how saying something is "non-random" (i.e., not based in probability) and then using probability to explain it and saying "[r]andomness of a phenomenon is not itself 'random'" are good explanations of the aspects of evolution?

Yes, I would.

 

[JoeEllison]

Semantics. Doesn't change how evolution works. I fail to see your facination of this argument, to be honest. Unless you have another goal in mind.

That "other goal", and the lengths that a person will go to in order to achieve that goal, is why this thread interests me so much.

 

[articulett]

Yes, I would.

Well, I thought Myriad did it really well-- it even got a TLA nomination-- but to no avail: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92007

And many forums members have dropped by and given very careful explanations as have multiple links and peer reviewed sources and Dawkins. But he's impenetrable-- as are his cheerleaders--who seem to think they understand the question and the answer, but can't convey it to anyone but themselves.

I cut and pasted pieces of Dawkin's review of Behe's book where Behe does the same weird overemphasis on random along with Dawkins explanation of why it's misleading and bizarre-- which is a direct answer from an expert on the subject and a direct indictment of those who have this weird desire to emphasize the "randomness" while ignoring that which brings the appearance of design--the "ratcheting"-- the order. Like Kleinman and Behe, though, Mijo doesn't want an answer to any of his insincere questions--he can't hear the answer just as Behe can't compute that the things he calls "irreducibly complex" (more word games), aren't.- Mijo just wants to infer that he HAS the answer and from what I can tell, it's indistinguishable from Behe's blatherings: "scientists think all this complexity came about randomly" and/or "there is no evidence for evolution being "non-random"-- (whatever that means.)

There are many intelligent people out there eager to share the facts with anyone who asks-- but my creationist sensors blink red when I hear insincere questions loaded with ignorance and inference coupled with a complete lack of curiosity about the answers... drawn on for pages ala Kleinman and Behe.

And it's sad, because they insult those who would go out of their way to educate them... so bewared of getting in the mud unless it's for entertainment purposes. I was given the heads up long ago by a fellow forum member, but I had to learn the hard way.