What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

mijopaalmc said:
A deterministic process (which is what I think of when I here "evolution is non-random") is by definition a process where identical inputs yield identical outputs. In the case of evolution, this means that every individual with a certain allele (or collection of alleles) would either survive to reproduce and pass on its genes to the next generation or die before it could reproduce and therefore not pass on its genes on to the next generation. Since this the claim that I think that people are making when they say "evolution is non-random", I am asking for evidence of that claim.
Click to expand...

As I said, the nature of selection and the nature of how 'nature' follows selection are not the same thing.
 
Taffer said:
Y'know, I am not a believer in an underlying "free will" to the universe.

Colour me a determinist.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me that absence of free will leaves determinism as the only option. If every outcome is the result of underlying randomness, it means that we all may stumble through life, responding accidentally to an endless series of accidental occurrences.

Still no free will, but indeterminable in advance.
 
kjkent1 said:
It's not clear to me that absence of free will leaves determinism as the only option. If every outcome is the result of underlying randomness, it means that we all may stumble through life, responding accidentally to an endless series of accidental occurrences.

Still no free will, but indeterminable in advance.
Click to expand...

Yes, good point. Underlying randomness in the universe excludes free will. Perhaps it is better to say that I am a "no-free-will-ist". :D
 
mijopaalmc said:
A deterministic process (which is what I think of when I here "evolution is non-random") is by definition a process where identical inputs yield identical outputs. In the case of evolution, this means that every individual with a certain allele (or collection of alleles) would either survive to reproduce and pass on its genes to the next generation or die before it could reproduce and therefore not pass on its genes on to the next generation. Since this the claim that I think that people are making when they say "evolution is non-random", I am asking for evidence of that claim.
Click to expand...

But there is another factor in determinism, and that is the use of the word identical. You can have causal factors that are deterministic but also appear probablistic.

Back to identical, it depends on how identical you want to get. You can have simple completely deterministic processes that still produce chaotic expression of characteristics.

Which is where the chao/random/pseudorandom thing gets hairy to the extreme.

Whne you say 'identical' it matters if you are reffering to the genome of the individual, the physiology of the individual, the history of the individual, the enviroment and the history of the enviroment.

There can be totaly determined systems thata re simple but produce 'chaotic' patterns absed upon 'sensitive dependance upon initial conditions".

Which is why I mention the identical in reference to "the physiology of the individual". If we were to use Ian's Duplicator and just create an identical copy of an individual, then the two systems that represent the individual are likely to diverge physiologicaly rather quickley. the individuals will not be identical after just about any period of time. Even though they start with the exact same history and exact same makeup. This also means that just physiologicaly an individual will vary from themselves if we run them through atime machine loop, so an individual can't really be said to be deterministic in that sense.

Each time we rerun the time machine loop the individual will diverge from themselves during the trial run.

So I am not sure that the deterministic defintion you are using will be able to be met, under any situation where we put an individual in the exact same situation.
 
Anything in an organisms' DNA that gives it an edge over it's competitors regarding survival and/or reproduction, will be preferentially passed on--(by virtue of the fact that these genes are the ones in the most reproductively successful organisms.) This includes plants and fungi too--much of what evolves are defense mechanisms against other life forms that might consume a plant or animal before it creates the next generation.

There is a very interesting story about the evolution of hot peppers that I will save for another time. Though hot peppers can confer benefits to those who consume them...the hotness evolved because it kept most animals from being able to do so.
 
Oooh...something just published...and it says it so much better than I did:

The process of acquiring beneficial mutations, many of which will add up in effect to cause a population of organisms to evolve, depends on a second factor – the process of natural selection. Not all the organisms are hit by deleterious mutations. Some are lucky enough to have beneficial mutations – random changes that happen to make them slightly better suited for reproduction. And exactly because they reproduce a little more than average, there will be a higher fraction of organism in the population with that particular change in their genome in the following generations. This is natural selection, and it precisely explains how complexity can increase by the process of random change. Natural selection transforms the random process of mutation into a deterministic process.
Click to expand...

It says what I was trying to say when I said selection is a "derandomizer"--hence, the opposite of random. Mutations are more or less random...selection transform the pool of randomness into a deterministic process.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=052907_evolution.htm

And, Meadmaker,... this "complexity from randomness" is once again referred to as a big creationist canard--despite your bizarre belief that this isn't a real issue. I hope this clarifies the evolutionary process for you mijo, but somehow, I doubt it...
 
articulett said:
Anything in an organisms' DNA that gives it an edge over it's competitors regarding survival and/or reproduction, will be preferentially passed on--(by virtue of the fact that these genes are the ones in the most reproductively successful organisms.)
Click to expand...
I have understood that this is not accurate enough: anything that does not confer a disadvantage is preferentially passed on! Most mutations have no effect either way or another, and some are just minor variations, like colour.
 
articulett said:
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=052907_evolution.htm

And, Meadmaker,... this "complexity from randomness" is once again referred to as a big creationist canard--despite your bizarre belief that this isn't a real issue. I hope this clarifies the evolutionary process for you mijo, but somehow, I doubt it...
Click to expand...

Again, articulett, just because natural selection biases the passing on of non-disadvantageous (i.e., neutral or advantageous) collection of alleles to the next generation doesn't mean that it is an inherently deterministic process. "Disadvantageous" collections of alleles still get passed, especially if they are recessive and the heterozygote expresses a mildly advantageous phenotype (e.g., malaria or cholera resistance). Nonetheless, natural selection remains an inherently probabilistic process because not every individual with an advantageous collection of alleles succeeds in passing their genes and not ever individual with a disadvantageuos collection of alleles fails to pass on their genes. It is true that natural selection does "de-randomize" the effects of mutation in so far as it skews the probabilities of passing on a given mutation to the next generation in favor of those mutations that do not put the individual at a disadvantage of passing on its genes to the next generation. However, this does not mean that natural selection is a deterministic process.
 
articulett said:
And, Meadmaker,... this "complexity from randomness" is once again referred to as a big creationist canard--despite your bizarre belief that this isn't a real issue.
Click to expand...

Over in the "annoying creationists" thread, though, kleinman sounds a lot like you. He absolutely refuses to discuss the randomness of the selection process, because he believes he has proven that multiple selection pressures cause evolution to get stuck at local optima.

You can easily get out of those local optima by introducing a bit of random noise, but kleinman wants no part of that. It's deterministic for sure, and it proves that evolution is "mathematically impossible", according to kleinman.
 
The opposite of random is deterministic, i.e. the evolution of humans (as homo sapiens)was inevitable.

That sounds like the sort of viewpoint that could appeal to deists; the creator would only neeed to "light the blue touchpaper" 4.5 billion years ago and it would inevitanbly get some worsh[rule8]ing humans later on.

I know that this isn't what articulet means (from articulett's posts here) but...

Isn't this similar to a discussion between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould?

Random with "memory" of past success. Success in this case means reproducing.

On a seperate point; in a stable environment, mutations probably would be more likely to be deleterious than advantageous, as the norm would be pretty optimal. If the environment (including predators and food) changes, then the probability of a random mutation being beneficial increases, as the norm is no longer so well optimised. Environmental change drives evolution.

Jim
 
Meadmaker said:
Over in the "annoying creationists" thread, though, kleinman sounds a lot like you. He absolutely refuses to discuss the randomness of the selection process, because he believes he has proven that multiple selection pressures cause evolution to get stuck at local optima.

You can easily get out of those local optima by introducing a bit of random noise, but kleinman wants no part of that. It's deterministic for sure, and it proves that evolution is "mathematically impossible", according to kleinman.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's your social skills. I'm not against discussing randomness in the selection process. But the question was about non-randomness, remember? I think the Biologists and biology sources have given the consensus that your way of describing evolution is uninformative and possibly misleading. You and Mijo and other engineers seem to want to discuss the "exceptions to the rule" when mijo hasn't even got the basics down. When teaching about gravity, you teach the basics, before you teach about air friction. By the most common scientific explanation, mutatins aren't truly random even.

But the principle of evolution rests on natural selection--those stretches of DNA that give an organism a "survival/reproductive advantage" over its competors drive evolution, speciation, and sexual dimporphm. It's not deterministic in any Lamarkian way--it's just that some stretches of DNA are more frequent in those with the greatest reproductive success usually because they confer benefits to the possesser or lie close to genes that do.

That's it. Learn the basics, then fill in the details. It's amazing that the nonbiologiss think they have a more comprehensive way of communicating about evolution, though no evidence seems to suggest that is the case. Moreover, the original question was about the non-random aspects of evolution that drive change. And despite all denials by the ignorant, this very issue is the most common error in undestanding evolution as both Dawkins and the Berkeley site and all experts in the field will attest too. But once people grasp it, the rest is easy.

I am well aware on chance factors that affect selection; and I've often discussed it with fellow biologists. But I am aware of their definition and understanding of the word. I know of no-one that describes it in terms of diminishing probabilities or whatever it is mijo is saying. Most would role their eyes to hear you sum up evolution in it's entirety as random. But still some people love to cling to certain words no matter how poorly they communicate whatever it is they are trying to say...no matter how much feedback they get that nobody really seems to hear them conveying any useful information.

You need to learn the basic rules and priciples before you learn the exceptions. Of course, we know that mijo is not really interested in learning anything new or specific--his interests lie in defining evolution as random with whatever that meaning has to him. I find it utterly bizarre that you are such a poor communicator and yet you have cast off the communications of people who are successful in teaching this concept to the masses--including Dawkins and The Berkely Site and Talk Origins! I don't think you've managed to educate a single person on the topic from what I can tell. You can't even answer the question as to what aspects of evolution are "non-random"--the original question asked!

And that makes you the person who is the most like Kleinman, not me. I don't have problems engaging in dialogue nor communicating biological concepts. You do. Mijo does. You are the one insisting on using a word that at least 10 people have told you is a poor word choice due to the ambiguity of the term. And why are you so damn curious about the components of natural selection that are "random" and not equally curious as to how mutation is not truly random in the strictest sense of the word. You are interested in one particular "exception to the rule", and not the other equally valid exception?

In the world of biology--the opposite of random is not "determined"--but directed--not having equal probabilities--not defined by a series or pattern.

Our lives most certainly were not inevitible, but evolution sure was once the mechanisms of imperfect inheritance and natural selection were in place. I wouldn't describe the fact that our blood is red as random either. It doesn't confer a selective advantage, but there are known reasons for it's coloration and they involve the physical world blood filled organisms evolved in. What process is not random by your definition, btw--and if no process that has random components can be describes as non-random--then what the hell do you think is being communicated by your use of the word? If you mean purposeless--or not inevitible and you want people to actually understånd you-- I suggest you use those (or other more specific) words.

Other than that, I don't care what you think or how fabulously you think you know and/or describe evolution. I prefer to spend my time with those who actually want to understand it and/or to be able to pass on that knowledge to others. I prefer to discuss the finer details with those who speak the same language and use terms the same way--not those who think they are clear and know all about creationist snafus, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I also think you are a lot like Kleinman in that you never cede a point and you don't apologize when you are mistaken, unclear, or arrogant--
 
Meadmaker said:
Over in the "annoying creationists" thread, though, kleinman sounds a lot like you. He absolutely refuses to discuss the randomness of the selection process, because he believes he has proven that multiple selection pressures cause evolution to get stuck at local optima.

You can easily get out of those local optima by introducing a bit of random noise, but kleinman wants no part of that. It's deterministic for sure, and it proves that evolution is "mathematically impossible", according to kleinman.
Click to expand...

Dawkins and Gould differed over punctuated equilibrium--and Dawkins alluded to the fact that Gould's way of explaining change seemed, in some ways, Lamarkian (deterministic), but it was really more of a misunderstanding. Dawkins is more correct--but it's weird, because a single gene mutation or translocation can have a huge effect--and eons can go by without any observable affects to a phenotype...but with our analysis of DNA we now see quite a bit has been going on in genomes. Those that reproduce the moste, preferentially pass on their genes--including those genes that aided their survival and reproductive success. And there are tons of things that happen to genomes that the environment can cull from.

The opposite of random as it applies to evolution (which, isn't truly random in the strictest definitin of the word) is guided or directed or based on past events-- Random is seen as a single occurrence not connected to the past or future with all such events similarly probable. I don't know of anyone in biology who would confuse the major principle of evolution (natural selection) by summing it up as random. The environment is the selector--the derandomizer--it depends on all that has evolved up to the point of selection.

The way the non-biologists are trying to describe evolutin to a guy who asked about the non-random aspects of it seem akin to teaching a kid who asked to learn about the vowels all about how the letter y could sometimes be a vowel and how there are sometimes 6 vowels...even 7 in some cases-- You need to be able to sum up the basic principle first before moving to the exception. Because "random" seems to be a poor choice of words to convey understanding to certain people on this topic, I am putting my hat in with the biologists and going with the tried and true definitions. They work. And they make sense. And they're easy.
 
The Natural Selection and the Evolution did not appear simply at random. All it is consequence of the Lex Vitae, the Universal Law of the Life. In last instance the life would evolve to such degree that some species would conquer the last level in the Evolution; Creative Intelligence.

The survival necessity allowed us to reach the last level in the Evolution; the Creative Intelligence is a gift of the Nature...

In other words, if the Dinosaurs were not extinct, one of the species would evolve until conquering the level of creative intelligence.

This process is repeated indefinitely in the entire Universe...

My Words in:
http://lexuniversalis.blogspot.com/2007/05/natural-selection-evolution-and.html

The intention of the Law of the Life is to Create more Life, this Universal Truth estimates the existence of the Life like something natural [for the eclectic ones; divine]

Nevertheless to continue with the Creation it only can be work of intelligent beings, beings who are able to assimilate the magnitude of this miracle and to preserve the life of all the living beings.

Our intelligence was the strategy more ingenious than it found the Nature to preserve the Miracle of the Life. If we acted against the Law of the Life we will be acting against the same Life and will be condemning us to our own extinction, nevertheless, when acting to favor, we will be deserving to call Intelligent Beings to us...
 
When discussing evolution with a teenager who has a mind pretty much like a blank slate on the subject, there is probably a very best way of explaining it in such a way that they will be most likely to understand.

When discussing evolution with someone who has some preconceived notion about evolution, or who has read some of the debate about evolution and wants something clarified, there will not be one, single, best way to discuss it. First, you would have to figure out what that person actually thinks, and tailor your discussion to guiding him around his preconceived notion or concept he wants clarified.

Or, you could take the tried and true approach that has been shown effective by American tourists for at least a century. Say the same thing over, but say it slowly and loudly.
 
I agree Mead maker. To me Mijo's question sounded something like this.

What evidence is seat belts saving lives?
The title of the thread says it all. I understand that seat belts can keep you from smashing your head on the windshield, but, as I understand it, there are lots of times when people would have been better off not wearing a seat belt--like when they are unconscious, and then the car catches fire after an accident. A rescue worker would have a harder time getting them out of the car in time. Thus, it is possible for one individual who is not wearing a seat belt to survive while another individual who is wearing a seat belt doesn't.

If mijo wanted an actual answer to the first question, then all sorts of methods could be employed. Data comparing death rates of seat belt wearers versus non seat belt wearers--Data showing fatality changes after seatbelt laws were implemented, comparing lives saved and or lost most likely due to seat belt use versus lives saved or lost due to lack of a seat belt etc. The principle would be the same. Your odds of surviving a crash are better if you are wearing a seat belt. This doesn't deny the fact that there will be people who will actually die because of the seat belt. But bringing up those examples does not answer the question unless the questioner wanted the answer to be that no-one understands seatbelt probabilities and therefore, one (him) is just as likely to be injured wearing one as not. Such a person would have the goal of obfuscating not clarifying. And if that was the case, I'd make no effort to accumulate seatbelt statistics for such a person once I realized that was the aim. In fact, I might not care if Darwinian natural selection removed such a person from the gene pool. I might even say, "you're right--nobody can give you the exact number of lives saved or lost due to seat belt usage, therefore whether they save your life or not is 'random' "
 
articulett said:
I agree Mead maker. To me Mijo's question sounded something like this.

What evidence is seat belts saving lives?
The title of the thread says it all. I understand that seat belts can keep you from smashing your head on the windshield, but, as I understand it, there are lots of times when people would have been better off not wearing a seat belt--like when they are unconscious, and then the car catches fire after an accident. A rescue worker would have a harder time getting them out of the car in time. Thus, it is possible for one individual who is not wearing a seat belt to survive while another individual who is wearing a seat belt doesn't.

If mijo wanted an actual answer to the first question, then all sorts of methods could be employed. Data comparing death rates of seat belt wearers versus non seat belt wearers--Data showing fatality changes after seatbelt laws were implemented, comparing lives saved and or lost most likely due to seat belt use versus lives saved or lost due to lack of a seat belt etc. The principle would be the same. Your odds of surviving a crash are better if you are wearing a seat belt. This doesn't deny the fact that there will be people who will actually die because of the seat belt. But bringing up those examples does not answer the question unless the questioner wanted the answer to be that no-one understands seatbelt probabilities and therefore, one (him) is just as likely to be injured wearing one as not. Such a person would have the goal of obfuscating not clarifying. And if that was the case, I'd make no effort to accumulate seatbelt statistics for such a person once I realized that was the aim. In fact, I might not care if Darwinian natural selection removed such a person from the gene pool. I might even say, "you're right--nobody can give you the exact number of lives saved or lost due to seat belt usage, therefore whether they save your life or not is 'random' "
Click to expand...

The fact is, articulett, your accusation of my obfuscating the directionality of selection by calling it "random" isn't as simple as you would like it to be. There are publications by reputable scientists (or at least published in reputable academic journals) that refer to natural selection and, by extension, evolution as a statistical or stochastic process. One of the more recent ones seems to be The application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology, which, according to the Science Citation Index and my examination of the citing articles' abstracts, has been favorably cited eight times since its publication in 2005. This seems to indicate that there is a relatively active and somewhat well-respected area of research concerning the statistical nature of natural selection. Furthermore, the article also cites a 1945 paper by Sewall Wright, The Differential Equation of the Distribution of Gene Frequencies, which discusses quite explicitly how probability theory can be used to model natural selection. Thus, the statistical nature is neither novel nor fringe, having its genesis in the research of major contributors to the Modern Synthesis in the late 1920's and early 1930's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom