What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[sphenisc]

My mistake. Let me revise.

Many outcomes have probability 0. Other outcomes have some probability less than 1. The outcomes in the latter category all share certain characteristics (which we lump together as "fitness"). So, the probability that the final outcome will involve something "fit" is 1.

As with die rolling - an outcome of 7 as probability 0. Other outcomes have a probability of 1/6. The outcomes in the latter category all share certain characteristics (which we lump together as integers between 1 and 6). So, the probability that the final outcome will involve something between 1 and 6 is 1.

None of this makes die rolling non-random.

 

[jimbob]

Then you get to talking about evolution over the history of life on Earth, and the outcomes are certainly random. Many different "solutions", lots of feedback loops, chaotic systems allowing for true quantum randomness to be magnified, and the odd masteroid and supervolcano.

Toba nearly wiped out humanity.

I like probabilistic, as hopefully, "mutations are random and selection is probabilistic" highlights the difference.

 

[articulett]

Most of the discussion has been over my head, but this is not how I have understood articulett.


This is exactly how I have understood the thread right from when it was branched out from another thread. The 'Tornado and junkyard" example has been quoted early, and this is about how to counter creationist arguments. I think this is what articulett has tried to get through, but I will leave it to herself to say so ...

Exactly. Calling evolution or natural selection random is such an ambiguous term that really says nothing about what natural selection is, that nobody uses it--mijo is quoting old research from a time when we didn't know what we know now. Dawkins gives a great talk on this, though mijo won't listen to it because he does not want to understand, here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1345,Lecture-on-Neo-Darwinism,Richard-Dawkins
(Mijo, he also addresses your silly discontinuous fossils record and Haldane, Kimura, et. al.) Mijo is mixing things up. Selection is biased towards reproductive fitness. Genes are the information passed along in genomes--consequently, you get the good with the neutral...but, as mentioned before, the more important a gene is, the more conserved it is throughout species...whereas, junk DNA or less important DNA gathers more mutations through time. It's a very easy concept. Dawkins has no problem explaining it to his audience. Some even have questions like mijos. But no matter how carefully it is explained to a creationist, they will still boil it down to "evolution IS random". Mijo can not or will not distinguish the randomness of mutations from random environmental components that have an effect on organisms that carry the information. This makes his definitions and models useless except as a creationist tool.

If you are actually interested in this subject, click on the above link, because Dawkins is very clear. And you will understand why definitions and models suggested by mijo are either out-dated or incorporated (Kimuras studies are about changes in DNA--whereas natural selection is about how the DNA changes entities that carry them and how the environment, in turn, acts on these changes). We use Kimura's studies all the time in determining which mutations were essential in forming new species and which ones came along for the ride. Truly, the way mijo is trying to describe evolution is like saying Algebra is random because it contains random variables. I hope you watch the Dawkins lecture. It was given on a trip to the Galapagos, and now I want to go so badly...

Listen to the Dawkins lecture, and see how simple it is and see why creationists want to obfuscate the understanding of natural selection and why random is not a useful term to describe it at all. You don't need to be an expert to understand it. The random talk just obfuscates understanding as far as I'm concerned. I can't imagine anyone understanding natural selection with such vague terminology.

Oh, and here's the blind watchmaker video I saw (under 10 minutes...with music...uses an algorithm to show just how effective natural selection is): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Here's the one mentioned by another poster http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848
(about 45 minutes)

Mijo, you could actually spend your time learning something instead of inventing arguments to call natural selection random... a better use of your time-- at least you will be on the same page as those in the know instead of having to pretend that there's 85 years of research saying that natural selection is random.

 

[cyborg]

we're not trying to determine "fitness" by what we consider "fit".

Yes you are - you do it in the next paragraph in fact. Fitness is defined by the survivors; you are trying to define it as the history of the survivors.

 

[jimbob]

A few questions,

Firstly, although this doesn't realy address the argument, could someone point me to "the discontinuous fossil" post of mijo?

Secondly, mijo, I apologise for being really dense here, but do you agree that evolution is all that is needed to explain humanity, i.e. no supernatural intervention?

Thirdly articulett,

Do you see where my viewpoint is? No species was inevitible, because of the probabilistic nature of selection, and especially the random changes in the environment since life started on Earth.


Fourthly articulett,

Isn't it feasible to perform statistical analyses and properly designed experiments to see how long/how many generations it takes for particular traits to evolve from similar starting populations?

I could think of the odds of specified bacteria evolving an antibiotic resistance within a certain number of generations, given initial concentrations of these antibiotics. (Or the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria).

This is where accepting the statistical nature of natural selection is useful, as one can do the experiments and make predictions, which can then be tested.

fifthly artiulett, Do you see what I am trying to convey by, "random mutation and probabilistic selection"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Firstly, although this doesn't realy address the argument, could someone point me to "the discontinuous fossil" post of mijo?

It is in the Fossil and Evolution thread. I was having trouble understanding how evolution could be represented as a continuous "morph" from one form to another as often portrayed is visual media such as in this The Simpsons opener:



I wasn't doubting evolution but I also wasn't clear that the question was only about representations and not the object represented.

Secondly, mijo, I apologise for being really dense here, but do you agree that evolution is all that is needed to explain humanity, i.e. no supernatural intervention?

YES!!!!

I am not frustrated with you for asking. I just wanted to be absolutely clear that what I am saying about evolution is not meant to undermine the theory in all its naturalistic beauty in any way.

 

[articulett]

A few questions,

Firstly, although this doesn't realy address the argument, could someone point me to "the discontinuous fossil" post of mijo?

Secondly, mijo, I apologise for being really dense here, but do you agree that evolution is all that is needed to explain humanity, i.e. no supernatural intervention?

Thirdly articulett,

Do you see where my viewpoint is? No species was inevitible, because of the probabilistic nature of selection, and especially the random changes in the environment since life started on Earth.


Fourthly articulett,

Isn't it feasible to perform statistical analyses and properly designed experiments to see how long/how many generations it takes for particular traits to evolve from similar starting populations?

I could think of the odds of specified bacteria evolving an antibiotic resistance within a certain number of generations, given initial concentrations of these antibiotics. (Or the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria).

This is where accepting the statistical nature of natural selection is useful, as one can do the experiments and make predictions, which can then be tested.

fifthly artiulett, Do you see what I am trying to convey by, "random mutation and probabilistic selection"?

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

3. Yes, I agree. But once it happens it's set in stone...every event becomes closer to inevitable (further from random) until it occurs.

4. Yes--see Kimura

5. Yes, I think it's far better than calling natural selection a random process or saying "it's related to a probability curve". I think you were hung up on "fitness" for a bit. I hope you understand why it's vague, at best to call natural selection random no matter what definition you are using. I also hope you see that there is no singular definition of random that the scientific commmunity agrees on. There are degrees of randomness, but because of the ambiguity of the word, it doesn't help anybody understand evolution to call natural selection "random"--in fact, it seems to help clarify when people say it is "the opposite of random" or it's biased or use the term "preferential selection".

It's not that there are not "random" elements involved in the selection process, but the definition presumes that most stuff will die--whether by meteor or never replicating--so what doesn't copy itself is not important to understanding natural selection--only what DOES get copied...that is the only definition of fitness that matters.

Natural selection can only act on DNA that gets into an organism (replicator)--and it can only have an effect to the extent on future generations such that the DNA codes for something that gives a survival/reproductive advantage in it's possessor. Beneficial mutations spread widely and are widely conserved--neutral ones spread too, because they don't confer a survival/reproductive disadvantage (red hair, for example)--and junk DNA accumulates all sorts of mutations that allow us to mark time and see how closely animals are related. Junk DNA accumulates mutations at a predictable rate--but not the highly conserved essential genes--mutations are too deleterious to potential organisms, so they are eliminated from the get go (e.g. having an extra chromosome #1 in humans--we never see it because such fetuses spontaneously abort before any pregnancy signals are noted.).

And click on his name and any of Mijos posts if you want to see example after example of him insulting scientists, atheists, Dawkins, careful explanations, etc. and apologizing for religion. He asks questions he does not want the answer too...read the last few pages of the fossil thread and come to your own conclusion as to whether any of the extensive and wonderful information given to him was absorbed. And if not--why not. In fact, the people having the biggest problem understanding how evolution can be described as "non-random" or why that's misleading are the very people defending creationist museums in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85338&page=6

To me, the connection is obvious. Something about religion makes it very hard for people to understand the relatively simple concept of natural selection. Watch the Dawkins clip and see how easy it is to understand and why he is describing the natural selection part of evolution as "non-random". That was what mijo's OP question was supposed to be about, right? So why doesn't he still understand. In fact, why doesn't he ever even acknowledge links that answer his very question?

 

[mijopaalmc]

4. Yes--see Kimura

Wait a minute, when I say "neutral theory of molecular evolution" it's "creationist obfuscation" but when you say "Kimura" it's a valid scientific argument?

You are cherry picking again, and it is unbecoming of someone of your supposed intellectual stature.

Please explain how neutral theory supports the description of evolution as "non-random".

 

[articulett]

Wait a minute, when I say "neutral theory of molecular evolution" it's "creationist obfuscation" but when you say "Kimura" it's a valid scientific argument?

You are cherry picking again, and it is unbecoming of someone of your supposed intellectual stature.

Please explain how neutral theory supports the description of evolution as "non-random".

I already did! So does the Dawkins link (which of course you'll never look at)...you just can't hear it because you are bent on saying natural selection is random. Kimura (though often used by creationists) is just about DNA--including junk DNA, neutral alleles, etc. Natural selection can't work on DNA (the INFORMATION)--it can only work once it is in a vector (organism)--Natural Selection is entirely about whether the DNA makes an organism that copies the DNA in it. Damn, you are so dense on this point. Really, anyone who is not a creationist should understand this easily--and especially after seeing the Dawkins clip. Yes, there's junk all through our DNA and recessive deleterious genes and neutral alleles and fossil genes--but they didn't get there randomly--they got there because they were copied along in a genome that had a reproductive advantage in the organism containing it! They were selected by being part of the blueprint of a successful reproducer...NOT randomly.

Is there anybody else on this forum that doesn't understand that...or who looked at the Dawkins link at doesn't understand why selection is described as biased--"not random"? Not "based on a probability distribuiton"--?

And mijo, it's not cherry picking--I'm describing things in a way that makes a concept understandable instead of lumping everything that could be somehow construed as having to do with probability under the label "random" (your persistent and uninformative technique). As far as I can tell, you are unsuccessful at communicating anything of value about natural selection or even understanding the answer to your own loaded question in the OP --though tons of people have tried to help you understand.

I know I understand it and that I can successfully convey the information to others. Can anyone say the same about you?

 

[articulett]

The stuff on Kimura is mentioned at about 42:50 of this lecture:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4633079169415752395

Mijo,
--Learn something so you can actually know what other scientists including Kimura know. Molecular genetics are about DNA changes...Natural Selection can only act on phenotypic (changing the body) changes...Natural Selection is blind to anything that doesn't affect the phenotype (organism carrying the genome).

Not even Kimura calls selection random...however creationists quote kimura and try to insinuate that... You are so completely incurious as to the questions you ask and the experts you supposedly quote--Why? Even you can understand this stuff...

I think this stuff is so interesting that I can't imagine why anyone would be as vague and incurious about natural selection and the newest info. coming to light as you are. And if you really want to understand the "discontinuous fossils" per your last post that you claimed wasn't answered sufficiently--this video has it. Natural Selection is too slow to observe (though now we have...especially with the finches)--but relatively fast in the world of life on this planet. The video shows exactly how this is so. So does the shorter blind watchmaker video above. Do you really want to know the answers to the questions you ask?--Or do you just want to go on presuming that scientists don't have the answer?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I am currently watching the lecture right now, but I would like to note that it is a lecture by Dawkins so it contains Dawkins' views on Kimura and not actually Kimura's ideas. Seeing as that Dawkins is adamantly opposed to describing evolution as "random" it is hardly an unbiased source. I also think that it is interesting that the works by Rouzine and his coworkers and the McKane review have been summarily dismissed because I am "misinterpreting" them and I intent to "obfuscate" with them.

 

[articulett]

I am currently watching the lecture right now, but I would like to note that it is a lecture by Dawkins so it contains Dawkins' views on Kimura and not actually Kimura's ideas. Seeing as that Dawkins is adamantly opposed to describing evolution as "random" it is hardly an unbiased source. I also think that it is interesting that the works by Rouzine and his coworkers and the McKane review have been summarily dismissed because I am "misinterpreting" them and I intent to "obfuscate" with them.

Um...I thought you wanted to know why Dawkins called natural selection non-random. I think this lecture answers that question. Moreover, Kimura and Dawkins are not at odds. You just don't understand the difference between the information and the organism the information builds. And Dawkins is not biased...facts are the same for everybody...remember. He tells you exactly what Kimura is talking about--and though creationists try to use his arguments, he is far from a creationist, and I don't think he describes evolution as random. DNA copies and mutates and recombines relatively randomly--but it can only be selected if it creates an organism and features which the environment can act on. Junk DNA and neutral DNA get copied along with everything else in successful genomes--because they overall package (all DNA--especially particular genes) confer a survival and reproductive advantage to the organism.

What is this talk of bias and non bias. Science is factual, remember? When Dawkins calls selection non-random it is to distinguish it from the creationist canard and from the randomness of mutations, recombinations, etc. It is to help people understand what natural selection is. Kimura does something similar, but he is tracking the information changes through time and biologists track how the information changes the vectors (organisms) that carry them. They are talking about different things but they both understand and agree with eachother. DNA "changes" are relatively random (Kimura)--the organisms they make are selected--not the DNA--the organism that the DNA codes for. It's like Kimura can notice a change in "font"--but that doesn't change the story. You just can't seem to get this because you have a strong need to sum up natural selection as random. I don't think any modern scientist in any field would find that useful, informative, or valid.

See, that's how you are dishonest. You said you wanted to know why Dawkins calls "natural selection" non-random. And you presume he's biased for doing so?! He's not biased. He's much more informative and exact than you--and he knows he's topic...you are just trying to obfuscate understanding. Did you actually want to understand why natural selection is referred to as "non random" or why calling it random is uninformative. Or did you just want to pretend you are right and that it means something to sum up evolution as a random process. Really. Read Kimura. Facts are the same for everyone--really. Just because creationists use Kimura, doesn't mean that Kimura or his studies support creationism or the notion that evolution is random. Yes, it's one of Behe's tricks...you seem to know them all...

But since you are still pretending you aren't a creationist...keep pretending and watch the video that answers your question completely. Quit assuming Dawkins is biased--there is no evidence that that is the case...and it's an ugly little creationist obfuscating lie.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know why Dawkins calls natural selection non-random and he is wrong, wrong, wrong when he does so. At its most fundamental, natural selection is a sampling method that preferentially chooses certain alleles over others and as such it is a fundamentally statistical process, and that is how it has been interpreted by the researches I have cited.

 

[cyborg]

Then you are determined to use terms in order to obfuscate rather than to clarify.

Good luck with that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Then you are determined to use terms in order to obfuscate rather than to clarify.

Good luck with that.

How is it obfuscating to refer to a biased statistical sampling process as a biased statistical sampling process?

 

[cyborg]

If you don't understand after 35 pages it is unlikely you will ever grasp why.

 

[articulett]

Then you are determined to use terms in order to obfuscate rather than to clarify.

Good luck with that.

Don't get sucked into answering his questions (except for your own amusement, of course). He has shown a complete and utter inability to understand the answers to every question he asks in every thread. He never once has changed an opinion from whence he started and, oddly enough, it is always identical to the "intelligent design" proponent point of view.

Moreover, like all creationists, he will just keep having "faith" in his rightness. (Notice his weasley way with words...where he implies something while not really saying anything."

All efforts spent on sincerely trying to get him to understand will end up with him flinging ad homs, moving the goal posts, claiming his rightness over Dawkins (as if) --and the usual "intelligent design" flummery you've come to know and expect.

They always hate Dawkins...usually without even having seen him or read him...they are rabidly certain he's wrong from the get go. Gee, I wonder why that might be?

 

[Meadmaker]

As with die rolling - an outcome of 7 as probability 0. Other outcomes have a probability of 1/6. The outcomes in the latter category all share certain characteristics (which we lump together as integers between 1 and 6). So, the probability that the final outcome will involve something between 1 and 6 is 1.

None of this makes die rolling non-random.

Agreed, although if someone were only interested in whether or not the result was a positive integer less than seven, one could say that the result is non random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Don't get sucked into answering his questions (except for your own amusement, of course). He has shown a complete and utter inability to understand the answers to every question he asks in every thread. He never once has changed an opinion from whence he started and, oddly enough, it is always identical to the "intelligent design" proponent point of view.

Moreover, like all creationists, he will just keep having "faith" in his rightness. (Notice his weasley way with words...where he implies something while not really saying anything."

All efforts spent on sincerely trying to get him to understand will end up with him flinging ad homs, moving the goal posts, claiming his rightness over Dawkins (as if) --and the usual "intelligent design" flummery you've come to know and expect.

They always hate Dawkins...usually without even having seen him or read him...they are rabidly certain he's wrong from the get go. Gee, I wonder why that might be?

Funny how this describes you perfectly too.

How have I supported intelligent design besides stating that there is a preponderance of research that supports the idea that evolution is a stochastic process?

 

[articulett]

Funny how this describes you perfectly too.

How have I supported intelligent design besides stating that there is a preponderance of research that supports the idea that evolution is a stochastic process?

You just called Dawkins biased and slam him every chance you get...without even reading him...and supposedly you were trying to understand why he'd say natural selection is "non-random". You slam skeptics and blame science again and again for people not understanding something that you yourself clearly don't understand due to identical creationist "obfuscations"-- if you want to actually know about the fossil record... Dawkins discusses that too.

It's only creationists that seem to have this knee jerk hatred of him without even having read him...or much of anything. YOU actually called him wrong. What are your credentials again? Who thinks you are good at explaining natural selection again? How many articles have you published and do you have a number one selling book?