What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

Yeah...cause mijo has ignorant creationists that depend on it, and you (meadmaker) and Schneibster seem to be the only ones able to provide him edification...

If you think that I don't understand natural selection as you think I should, why don't you take some time to explain it to me?

 

[articulett]

My explanation of evolution through natural selection as "random" may not be simpler or easier to understand, articulett, but it is correct. Calling it "random" doesn't mean that I don't think it can happen. In fact, many apparently ordered natural process are at their most basic stochastic process. For instance, the van der Waals Gas Law describes the orderly and predictable macroscopic behavior of gases, while on a microscopic level, the movement of individual gas particles is described by a probability distribution. Similarly, a nuclear fission chain reaction can be predicted when the mean free path of the unbound neutrons in the material (i.e., the mean distance a neutron has to travel before it strikes another nucleus) falls below a certain value, but the free paths of all neutrons a described by a probability distribution. Diffusion is also dependent on the mean free path of solute molecules.

The mistake in the "747 in a tornado" straw man is the assumption that order cannot arise from random processes, which is what evolutionary biologists seem to be responding to when they say that evolution is non-random. As I have said before, even though evolution function through probabilities on the individual short duration level, it is the mean of the probabilistic selection processes over many individuals and many generations that causes evolution to take on its deterministic appearance, just like gases, nuclear fission and diffusion.

No not really...you are using a lot of words to say nothing much at all. This is not an explanation about how evolution is non-random that will help your hypothetical creationist protege understand anything. Gas molecules don't live and die, nor do they alter much in fitness--yes, environment factors in, but it doesn't weed out. What evolutionary biologists are saying when they say evolution is non-random is that it is directed by that which preceded and the environment with which it finds itself in. You seem so vague on this. You do understand the basics about how phenotypes compete and are refined through time? How you can get a horse, a zebra, and a donkey from the same ancestor...because the ancestors of these 3 found themselves diverging in environment and "what worked" through time? As I said--you have the random down fine--but you are really vague, shaky, clueless, confused, and obfuscating when it comes to selection. It's much less random than mate selection--and it's on a huge scale in a game of average where the failures don't stick around. You miss this vital last part to repeatedly draw the vague conclusion that you want "evolution is random" when the fact is, it is not. Random components do not a random process make. It is confusing and non-informative for the same reason "mate selection is random" is non informative... Even "rivers spring up randomly" is more accurate because they are not alive the "selection" is totally environmental. The way you are describing random means that any process could be described randomly because it has random components--taxes are configured randomly because you just randomly choose the program you are going to use to figure your taxes. Birth is a random process; we don't have much control over it and can't predict our own though we have some degree of prediction success with our offspring but not completely...etc. You muddle with your explanations.

And what you say does nothing to address the Deepak Chopra very common mistaken notion "To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane." You've done nothing to address this thought snafu and meadmaker can't seem to accept that it exist though you are demonstrating it in spades and meadmaker is to flattered by your acceptance of his explanation that he can't see how neither of you are really saying anything at all.

Why don't you guys just answer this (simply--avoid the obfuscating words...the ones ripe for semantic games): How is Deepak wrong? (No peaking at Pharyngula's answer.) Truly, this is important...people have trouble with evolution because of this "complexity from randomness" idea--the only way to clear it up is by emphasize how selection is not-"random" even though it has relatively tiny random components. When you make a choice about what to eat or what to write it is not "random"--and saying it is doesn't convey meaning. Random elements may come into play...you have random spin on the electrons in your body--BUT...your choice is "the opposite of random" in that the choice narrows the randomness down to a probability of one. The choice is the "anti-randoming" process.

So boys, once again, let's stay on topic: Why is Deepak wrong when he says this:

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."


(keep it simple, you are trying to convey understanding to creationists, remember...)

Really, mijo, if you want to continue in academics in regards to biology, you have to be a lot clearer. You have to actually say something with your words. You and meadmaker should quit digressing-- just explain why the above is wrong. (Maybe it will even clue you into why saying "evolution is random" is ridiculously uninformative, obfuscating, and ripe for abuse.)

 

[articulett]

If you think that I don't understand natural selection as you think I should, why don't you take some time to explain it to me?

Many already have. You're a creationist; Those who have pegged it already know the futility involved. It's like telling Behe that there is no such thing as "irreducibly complex".

Your problem is your insistence on saying "evolution is random" and your assertion that it's "correct" to say so. It isn't really. It's misleading and wrong. You can't seem to hear this...just because something has a random component doesn't mean that the process is random!. You keep repeating "selection is random" over and over like a mantra and never seem to differentiate how the random factors involved in the selection process are not, at all, the same kind of "random processes" we are talking about in the mutation process. You don't understand that the environment is choosing--when there is selecting--the word "random" goes out the window...even if there are random components involved in choosing.

Meadmaker, the reason he insists that "evolution is random" is because he aims to obfuscate. And that is why you shouldn't have thrown him this bone. It doesn't change evolution any. But like all creationists, he believes he has come to know something when he knows even less than when he asked his original loaded, insincere question. And he is certainly not able to address or clue in the hypothetical creationists in his OP. To him it always boils down to "evolution IS random"; he argues for that being THE correct way to describe it...even though it says nothing of value and is the supposed crux of the creationist argument that he is "supposedly" trying to address. Do you think he understands selection? Put your flattered ego and hurt pride (over the FACT that this is a well-worn creationist wedge strategy obfuscation idea) aside and tell your new protege how you'd answer the Deepak Chopra assumption.

If you still doubt he's a creationist, try to sum up or make cogent sense out of his many words. They all boil down to, "evolution IS random" or maybe the softer, "I'm unconvinced that evolution is non-random". Can you not see that he's using huge numbers of words to say nothing at all? He's just leading you to the answer he wants. He's not looking for the answer to address the supposed creationists in the example. And he did that on the fossil thread too. Just because people sound like their words are saying something, doesn't mean they are, you know.

 

[articulett]

Come on mijo: show us what you learned. What would you tell Deepak when he says:

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, articulett, you basically think that order cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

 

[articulett]

If you think that I don't understand natural selection as you think I should, why don't you take some time to explain it to me?

I think you don't understand probability as it applies to selection. There are two good links here. Plus a link about why scientists get so angry in dealing with ID proponents (other than their dishonesty and semantic games and attempts to spread the ignorance of course.) http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/rosenhouse.html

This time, try not to read what you are looking for. Try to read to find the answer to Deepak's claim...a similar claim in the hypothetical creationist you are trying to educate per your opening post. A claim that very few if any one has answered for you except those who agreed that if you put it through the right semantic filter, you could call evolution random, but it was misleading and didn't convey any information.

(And Meadmaker, you haven't the slightest clue when it comes to misuse of probability....words like random...and the dishonest semantic games "intelligent design proponents" engage in. They KNOW to avoid words like creation and god, but you learn the doublespeak pretty good. You can pick them out in how they say a lot of words that don't say anything at all and they all seem to boil down to some vague "non-statement" like "evolution is random".)

Saying evolution is random is about as descriptive and useful as saying gravity is random. It's like saying all choices are random if any element in the choice can be found to be random in any way. It's useless. Continuing to bleat that evolution is random shows how very little you understand selection and the very important way it hones the randomness of mutation through time.

Ugh.

Mijo, be honest here...do you believe on some level that complexity of the sort you observe could not have arisen by chance? And by chance, I'm talking without any plan--? Or do you believe that life must somehow have been "intelligently designed" even if that "designer" lies outside of nature like Francis Collins' god? I just think your blind spot and the questions you avoid and the way everything always boils down to "evolution is random" makes the answer obvious.

(Meadmaker: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-two.html

CAN PROBABILITY THEORY BE USED TO REFUTE EVOLUTION? (PART TWO)

By Jason Rosenhouse
[read Part One here]

Arguments based on probability theory are a mainstay of creationist literature. There you can find elaborate calculations purporting to measure the probability that a given complex biological structure (an eye, say, or a hemoglobin molecule) could have evolved by natural processes. Such calculations invariably include a tiny number at the end, and from this number we are meant to conclude that evolution has been refuted.

Sure, the word "random" isn't used...but I haven't got all day to prove what everyone else is telling you...This is from csicop... And in my experience it is all too true. Admit defeat, here, buddy...I know it's humbling to have been fooled by a creationist...and to have Paul be right--but skeptics are glad to be edified, right? Have we ever lied to you?)

 

[articulett]

So, articulett, you basically think that order cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

You digress with semantic games. It's selection that you are weak on. Let's try again:

Come on mijo: show us what you learned. What would you tell Deepak when he says:

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

If you asked Deepak "so you basically think that order cannot arise from disorder through a random process?", I'm guessing he'd say, "of course not"--now tell him how it can.

 

[Dancing David]

So, articulett, you basically think that order cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

The process is not random, the interaction of the different causal processes is pseudo random.

Abiogenesis could have occured through the random actions of the players. However once you begin to have self catalyzing aggregates, there are processes that are not wholly random in nature. That begins once you have catalysts in the precenses of precursors, you will begin to get more of a particular product in those situations.

So there is constrained variability.

And again, those who are opposed to your use of the random (I am not one of them) have a coherent argument. they state that while certain parts of the various processes occur in a random fashion, other parts of the processes are not random. Hydrogen will combine with oygen, when the two meet randomly in the right proportions.

But you are also using one of the really, really , really loaded words when you start to use the word 'order'. talk about a trigger word on these bulletin boards, that is one of them. You can have the appearance of order at a macro-scale, that does not mean order actualy exists.

 

[Dancing David]

And yes , the apparent order of life can arise from the random action of the players in abiogenesis. In that the meeting of the players may be based upon probability but the causal actions of the players when they meet can be determined and probablistics.

So answer your own questions Mijo

Do you think that order can or cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

I have made my argument that the random motions of the chemicals can lead to the apparent order of life implied in abiogenesis. But the random motion of the molecules is what is random. the bonding of chemicals will be more probabalistic, and I have made this argument many times. It is the do-hickey argument.

What is your belief?

Please answer your own question.

Do you think that order can or cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

 

[articulett]

Note the last sentence. Sounds an awful lot like mutation and selection to me. I think you'll find that a lot of people in the creationist camp are perfectly willing to acknowledge the role played by selection, or by "lawlike regularity", but they still reject evolution.

Finally, a warning: If we continue down this road, what you will see is that I think there is a subtle distinction between what the creationists are actually saying, versus what you think they are saying. I've read some of the threads around here, and participated in many, and subtlety is often overlooked. It's so much easier to just tell someone what they are saying than to try to appreciate a subtle distinction. I've seen it happen often enough that, statistically, it seems likely to happen again, but I'm always curious if this time it will be different.

Clarification:

The quote wasn't from the wedge--but the letter sent with the document (regarding "random"), and the quote you had from answers in genesis was a scientific claim that answers in genesis refutes with:

Origin of information

Chapter 2 deals with the need to explain the presence of information in the biological world. Most people recognize that many processes, such as a seed growing, healing of a wound or communication among foraging bees of where to find nutrients, demonstrate purposeful, and non-random processes.

They want to hear that scientists are saying "evolution is random", so they can show that it's a ridiculous conclusion...therefore it was obviously "designed". You haven't explained any subtle distinction and your protege has only obfuscated the issue. He seems less clear on the distinction than you and far more likely to conclude that the hypothetical creationists he's supposed to be addressing per his opening post are "correct" from what I can see. He asked for peer reviewed articles showing evolution is "not random"--what sort of bizarre request is that for someone who actually wants to understand the role non-randomness (natural selection) plays in the process? It bespeaks ignorance in the asking. Would you ever ask such a question? And I know you think you are patting yourself on the back for sticking up for a non-creationist, but you are clearly very unfamiliar as to how they learn to sound exactly like mijo to impress guys like you...to be taken seriously. They are very careful with their words...Dembski is a total clown, but you should have heard him sound all sciency as he tries to get textbooks in Texas to present evolution as some shadowy "theory". I'm sure you would find him as credible as mijo and be arguing for his "subtle distinction" or whatever too if he flattered you a bit. Since Dover killed I.D.in science class, the new goal is to re-do the wedge; make scientists and evolution look doubtful and untrustworthy and controversial is their new goal.

Please explain how you've divined that his obfuscation and randomness isn't on par with the hypothetical creationists he's trying to address. And when I say creationist--I throw a wide net--all proponents of any kind of "intelligent design"--that is, purposeful, top down, design. At least Francis Collins doesn't get into random until he invokes the goldilocks universe--and he's a biologist, not a cosmologist. If they think that scientists are dealing with a "theory" that claims complexity sprung from "randomness" (the un-nuanced kind), then they can mock that staw man and insert their designer. I know you think you are wise and that Mijo isn't this sort of person--but you are admittedly unschooled in these types of arguments. I hear them almost every day. I have a radar to this crap. My brother (Catholic) spews it. It's meaningless blather which ends with the thinking "scientists can't explain everything, therefore, my god, preacher, new age guru, etc. can.) Random, is clearly a very easy word to abuse. You hear nuances that aren't there--mijo insists that saying "evolution is random" is accurate and correct and means something. It does only in the sense that it's not completely non-sensical... like "cities spring up randomly" (random like zits?)--(random like getting 10 heads in a row?) It's so vague and interpretive that it becomes meaningless if the goal is to convey information.

But be my guest...if you feel like sticking up for a creationist and lending him your goodwill--feel free. But I think he burned Dr. A. pretty bad on the last thread for doing the same. I think maybe YOUR woodar needs adjustment--you seem a little over-confident in your conclusions from my perspective. I am starting to delight in seeing you jump through mijos semantic hoops.

 

[Dancing David]

The problem here is with the multiple uses of "random", which are all correct in some way, but when applied across the board become incorrect. Probably the most common is the usage in the phrase "random sample". Random sampling is based of the idea that every individual in the population should have an equal chance of being selected to be in the sample and therefore the probability distribution for the attribute of "being sampled" is uniformly distributed.

Not really , if youunderstand what a random sample is a t all. the random selection from a population pool is to insure that there is not a bias in teh selection process which skews the sample in some way and throws in false positives in the correlation. But the universal distribution of the properties in a sample will occur only over multiple samples from large pools over a large period of time. I would say that you don't expect universal distribution of traits across a random sample. You just hope that there is not a bais in the sample collection that messes up the data.

The data collected from a random sample (i.e., the "random variables", such as height, weight, income, age, etc.) , however, are most often not uniformly distributed, but are nonetheless referred to as "random" in standard statistical parlance.

Only if the random samples are drawn enough times to level out the scatter effect of random chance. You can flip a coin ten times in a row and get heads each time, it is only when you sample the coin toss for a large number of trials that you expect the distribution to even out.

Both of of the preceding usages of "random" have the fact that whatever is being described is based in probability. The third usage is the way I use "random" to describe evolution. Needles to say, using "random" in such a way says nothing about whether I believe that order can arise from disorder or not.

This is why I am baffled as to why people, particularly you, make the assumption that I am a creationist, especially since I have made it painfully clear that I understand that order can arise from disorder and that such a situation does not violate any fundamental laws of nature.

I would still state that if you patiently answered all the questions that people post to you then the probability of a false conjecture would be lowered. It still seems as though you pick and choose which questions you respond to, which will cause some to wonder.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you think that order can or cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

I thought he already answered that with a 'yes'.

 

[Dancing David]

I thought he already answered that with a 'yes'.

It would appear so, but so far there has been a skewed sample of response, and it is sort of vauge in nature.

I assume that there may be a translation barrier in interpretation. So it could be a language usage issue that leads to the confusion.

However i do feel that Mijo is coy in thier choices of where and when to respond to questions and that they largely ignored most of the questions directed towards them. Then Mijo goes and repeats some major subplot which has been hashed in this thread and acts as though Mijo is oblivious to the whole conversation.

I am not sure what leads to the odd use of language and the apparent ignoring of questions. I do not think Mijo is a creationist, but has a language barrier of somesort. Either that or they are getting us to write thier term paper for them.



When Mijo starts to answer the questions and is more transparent and stops with the indignant posturing then I will believe that they are sincere.

Mijo you still have yet to answer the basic question of what parameters yous et on the term non-random in the OP.

This quote from the OP is somewhat indicative of the opaqueness of Mijo's posts:

They all seem to be more interested, as is most of the literature on the internet that doesn't specifically deal with non-random genetic processes such as mutation and unequal cross over, in refuting the creationist straw man that holds that organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance.

And instead of explaining the OP when asked, Mijo has pointedly chosen to ignore the repeated questions.

In that one statement Mijo ignoresd what has been presented as evidence and dismisses it and is the first one to bring in the creationist straw man.

Just as when Mijo kept ignoring the evidence and discussion in this thread. Taffer and others have stated quite clearley what they consider to be non-random.

 

[articulett]

Once again, Mijo and Meadmaker...

How do you answer Deepak's claim in a way that the hypothetical creationists can understand?

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

or even mijo's question reiterated by Dancing David...

Please answer your own question.

Do you think that order can or cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

Remember, you are trying to explain it to the hypothetical creationists in the first post who think that it's all too complex to come about by random chance.

You can argue,dis me, and digress later --

Let's just address thet original post, shall we? To refresh, the thread title is: "what evidence is there for evolution being non-random?". And this was asked to help disabuse creationists of a mistaken conclusion.

Go.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Once again, Mijo and Meadmaker...

How do you answer Deepak's claim in a way that the hypothetical creationists can understand?

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

or even mijo's question reiterated by Dancing David...

Please answer your own question.

Do you think that order can or cannot arise from disorder through a random process?

Remember, you are trying to explain it to the hypothetical creationists in the first post who think that it's all too complex to come about by random chance.

You can argue,dis me, and digress later --

Let's just address thet original post, shall we? To refresh, the thread title is: "what evidence is there for evolution being non-random?". And this was asked to help disabuse creationists of a mistaken conclusion.

Go.

Maybe because Dancing David just mentioned term papers but answering Deepak Chopra strikes me as an excellent test question, Articulett. Have you ever used this in the classroom?

 

[Schneibster]

As I have said before, even though evolution function through probabilities on the individual short duration level, it is the mean of the probabilistic selection processes over many individuals and many generations that causes evolution to take on its deterministic appearance, just like gases, nuclear fission and diffusion.

I'd have said deterministic character. It's not just an appearance, any more than it is in quantum mechanics.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'd have said deterministic character. It's not just an appearance, any more than it is in quantum mechanics.

My mistake. However, this deterministic character only arises over large ensembles of systems. That is why I say that the deterministic character of evolution is only obvious when the stochastic processes of mutation and selection are averaged over many individuals and large periods of time.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My mistake. However, this deterministic character only arises over large ensembles of systems. That is why I say that the deterministic character of evolution is only obvious when the stochastic processes of mutation and selection are averaged over many individuals and large periods of time.

Yes. And since evolution is the view from averaging many individuals over large periods of time (change in allele frequency), wouldn't it also be correct to say the process has a deterministic character?

 

[Schneibster]

Once again, Mijo and Meadmaker...

How do you answer Deepak's claim in a way that the hypothetical creationists can understand?

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

The most obvious answer is, "The analogy is false, because there is nothing that makes the jet plane parts stay in the right place when they attain it." The more subtle answer is, "Well, actually it could, if it blew long enough, but that's not how evolution works, see the first answer."

Let's just address thet original post, shall we? To refresh, the thread title is: "what evidence is there for evolution being non-random?". And this was asked to help disabuse creationists of a mistaken conclusion.

Go.

The direct answer is, "The fact that novel characteristics are subject to selection pressure." A primary argument by creationists is that novel characteristics come about only through mutation; this ignores recombination and the injection of novel DNA sequences through the action of viruses. They claim that the requisite number of changes cannot accumulate in the given period.

 

[articulett]

The most obvious answer is, "The analogy is false, because there is nothing that makes the jet plane parts stay in the right place when they attain it." The more subtle answer is, "Well, actually it could, if it blew long enough, but that's not how evolution works, see the first answer."

The direct answer is, "The fact that novel characteristics are subject to selection pressure." A primary argument by creationists is that novel characteristics come about only through mutation; this ignores recombination and the injection of novel DNA sequences through the action of viruses. They claim that the requisite number of changes cannot accumulate in the given period.

Great. But that is a far cry from Mijo's claim that evolution is random. Moreover it doesn't really address the way selection builds complexity in a very "non-random" way.

I think mijo is a creationist because he does what every creationist who comes to skeptic forums does. He started a post with a loaded kind of question and seems very very uninterested in having that question answered. Plus he dismissed "swaths" of skeptics (on the other thread), alleged a "skeptic conspiracy", claimed that no one answered his question and uses a lot of words to say nothing. He boiled every answer on this thread down to, "nobody answered my question, because evolution IS random..." just like he boiled his last thread down to, "the scientists really can't explain the discontinuity in the fossil record." Plus, he's avoided certain questions and attempts to clarify and digressed with nonsense questions and digressions.

So, mijo--lot's of people have stuck up for you. Don't let them down. Show us something. Tell us how this conversation and all your supporters help you understand the non-random aspects of evolution so you can educate the hypothetical creationists in the original posts. Or give it your best shot for the Deepak claim. How is your understanding of random different than his?

You've accused many of us of making straw men and not answering your question--so show us what exactly you wanted. I maintain that you wanted to satisfy yourself with the conclusion that the hypothetical creationists and Deepak are saying what you believe to be true. I don't think your understanding of random is at all nuanced with what Meadmaker alleges (but has failed to describe.)

(Ich, I only found the quote last night in doing a quick google search for the word "random" abused by proponents of "a grand plan"--exams are next week...)

Evolution builds magnificent complexity--but it's hardly efficient--it's wasteful and cruel and takes eons to build genomes. It would be the work of a very bumbling designer if one was evident, but the fact that it arose from unintelligent selection cobbled together through time is humbling and well worth understanding.