What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

I'm not contending that probability theory can't model evolution--in fact much of what we've come to understand about the evolution of "morality" is based on game theory which involved maximizing probabilities for "the group". But let's not pretend that is what you are doing, Mijo. Your goal is to define evolution as "random" not define it in regards to probabilities...and your definition of random as fitting a certain pattern on a probability curve doesn't change the fact. When a probability chart shows "random distribution" it's not this "diminishing probabilities thing as you see to define it as. I can't tell what the hell you're trying to explain or understand. You use words so imprecisely that you just aren't saying anything at all. It's like the seat belt example. Every one agrees--there are times when a seat belt costs a person their life--however, if you asked a question regarding what evidence there was for seat beats saving lives-- none of the examples about the exceptions would be of issue until you clarified the basics. You are just so off on the very basics and use such confusing words that I don't think you've managed to convey a single useful fact about evolution to anyone nor do I think you could communicate anything useful about it to anyone. Using big words and valid studies doesn't make you right if you don't understand what the hell you are saying. Multiple times you have quoted sources as authorities who went out of their way to describe evolution and natural selection in ways far different than the word "random" suggest, implies, or the meaningless way you've defined it. By your definition, all processes that contain random elements, are themselves random. This would include food processing, artificial selection, and word processing. That makes it a useless definition unless your goal is to be able to think of evolution as "random" (with whatever connotation you want to give it.) That's fine. But you are only fooling yourself. You can say that when it comes to saving lives --it's random as to whether wearing seat belts helps or not--because by your silly inexact definition it is. However, I would hope you'd never be in charge of safety instruction with that limited understanding.

In fact, I would say your understandingregarding evolution is on par with most adults who think they understand evolution http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html

This is the case for most scientific beliefs. Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments.

Your understanding is different...but equally "off". You just aren't conveying any useful information nor have you actually sought to have your question answered--which many people and many sources did very well. Nobody can answer your question because you insist on using a word that you seem to be very vague on the definition of. Even if you say, natural selection isn't always deterministic--what the hell does that convey? How is that useful information? And how does that answer your question or lead you to the inane conclusion that "we don't know enough to say whether evolution is or is not random". We do. It's not. Unless you want to play semantic games which render all processes "random". Random coponents do not a random process make--unless you have a need to believe it does and want to play fast and loose with definitions.

Before you ask for peer reviewed evidence saying evolution is non-random (which peer reviewed scientists have definitely stated and you've been provided the links)--why don't you do us the favor of showing us one scientifically peer reviewed paper that actually uses that word ("random") in describing the entire process of evolution. Until then, the question is just another creationist loaded question in my book--it's not designed to elicit understanding, but to claim nobody "understands" because you can't. There is no definition of random that you or anyone has provided that involves diminishing probabilities. It only refers to fitting a certain probability distribution--that is, one that looks "random". Even the articles you quote are not supporting any notion of "randomness" that you or anyone else defined. In fact, the latter shows how even mutations are not random.

 

[articulett]

I'm sure I could invoke scientific articles that showed that show times when seat belt usage was implicated in the death of an individual. But that doesn't change the facts nor does it answer the question as to how we know that seat belts save lives. Nor does it mean that "nobody knows". Nor does it mean that someone citing such articles is making a valid point about seat belt use costing lives. This is what you are doing again and again and again. You have a conclusion that doesn't mean anything and you use as many semantic games and tangential cites to back up your useless conclusion.

Let me repeat--the cites you linked to do not support the premise that evolution is random. There is no definition of random that defines random as a set of "diminishing probabilities". Random can be defined in lay person terminology as "chance" driven, unpredictable, or purposeless. That is the only definition that I can think of that any scientist would give any credence to if someone were to say, evolution is random--and even then, it's far from exact and there are much better words. And it sure wouldn't be useful for convey the important details of natural selection and how it alters species through time.

Just because you seem to have confused some people with your gobbledy gook doesn't mean you are saying anything that anyone else in academia or anywhere else will find useful, valuable, "true", or descriptive. Truly, you are like a warrior for not using seat belts because deaths occur "randomly" (they fall on a distribution curve after all). You argument is of the same caliber. Your cites never support your contentions. Your insulting me rather than looking at your own dishonest motives doesn't fool me. Those who are eager to learn would rather find out that they might be wrong or have misunderstood something--they are not interested in taking attention off themselves to question the motives of those who actually took the time to answer their question--repeatedly.

And truly, I don't care about your use of the word random any more than I care about whether you wear seat belts or not. At one time, I had some concern for honest people who went out of their way to try and teach someone who wasn't quite so honest--I now feel every one on this thread has been forewarned, and I shall enjoy watching the battle. It can be Kleinmanesque. Sure, you are more polite--most "intelligent design proponents" are. But the game is the same. If the evidence isn't on your side, aim to obfuscate and play semantic games. Pretend you want information clarified when you really want a debate as though reality could be changed by appeals to emotionalism and pedantry. Obfuscate, ignore, answer obliquely, and deny. Same old game. I can't tell your strategy from Behes.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Let's look at things a different way. Consider the theory of evolution as a meme. What characteristics will the most successful strain of the meme have? Will it say that evolution is random or non random? Will it take a position at all?

From talk origins:
"The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

The author of the above statement is proposing that the evolution meme should contain the idea that evolution is non-random. The problem is that people who do understand evolution can't be convinced of this. People interested in spreading the meme of evolution should then drop this issue, acknowledge that there are random aspects to evolution, and work on the popular conception of random.

It takes five minutes and two cents to show someone that random events can work together to have a range of predictable consequences. Flip the two pennies repeatedly. Make sure the viewer notices that one heads and one tails is the single most likely result. Show them why, and you'll have given them the ability to move past randomness being a stumbling block to the understanding of evolution. That's my two cents.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I saw a great bumper sticker yesterday:

[photo of Bush] Intelligent design or random mutation?

~~ Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Did you actually read what provided, articulett?

You seem to be ignoring that there are reputable publications that do publish aritcles about stochastic and statistical modeling of evolution. Your apparent refusal to examine the evidence to I have provided make you seem like the very people you decry. I would like to see some intelligent criticisms of the information I have provided instead of the ad hominem attacks in which you seem to specialize.

 

[articulett]

Did you actually read what provided, articulett?

You seem to be ignoring that there are reputable publications that do publish aritcles about stochastic and statistical modeling of evolution. Your apparent refusal to examine the evidence to I have provided make you seem like the very people you decry. I would like to see some intelligent criticisms of the information I have provided instead of the ad hominem attacks in which you seem to specialize.

This from the guy who ignores every link provided to him that actually answers his question??!?

I am not ignoring it any more than you are ignoring the sites where peer reviewed scientists are saying selection is not random. I am pointing out that just because a peer reviewed article uses terms that you've extrapolated to mean random, doesn't mean that they are saying evolution is random. In fact, the second article shows how mutations aren't really "random" and the first is about applying statistical physics to evolutionary biology. Neither makes the claim that evolution is random. Neither article uses the term random or even stochastic as you are. Neither article answers your question or supports whatever it is you are trying to convey about evolution. None of your links or notions support any sort of scientific claim that "evolution is random" or that "having random components makes a process random". None of your meanderings explain evolution clearly nor do you show any understanding of how or why natural selection is considered non-random by biologists and others who understand it--unless, by random, you just mean--without a purpose. And if that is the case--use those words. THERE IS NO definition of random or stochastic that is defined in the nebulous way you seem to be defining it. You are using words to say nothing at all about evolution--moreover, you convey a complete lack of understanding of natural selection and zero curiosity about having your question answered. Your entire aim is to use science and semantics to boil everything down to "evolution is random" or "scientists don't know enough to say whether evolution is random or not" or "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random".

All of the above useless, uninformative, and misleading statements are conclusions you've drawn and you haven't progressed an iota from there. I understand your method--to you random means "non-deterministic" and "stochastic" which you've defined as a synonym for "random" which means something about diminishing probabilities on a probability chart. Your original question is dishonest because you want "peer reviewed scientific literature" which says "evolution is non-random" which is almost as goofy a phrase and as meaningless as saying it is. The correct way to explain the principle as many have said is, "random mutation coupled with natural selection". Natural selection is the "opposite" of random when compared to the randomness of mutation. That's it. Very simple for a non-creationist.

If you want intelligent honest discussion, why don't you show us an article that says "evolution is random"--or even that have random components makes a whole process random. Or that if there is randomness involved in selection, it's fine to characterize the process with same randomness as mutation even though they are on opposite extremes when it comes to randomness.

You aren't saying anything. Your point is meaningless. We all know random events can influence what survives and what doesn't. But no biologist would call the process of evolution random. It's just not informative and it's definitely misleading. Your explanation of evolution, your convoluted reasoning, your journal cites (which are good cites...but they don't support your claim) are not useful in fooling anyone except yourself. People might think your are not a creationist--or that you're smart and honest--but no one can tell what the hell you're saying, because you aren't saying anything.

Understanding evolution is not about semantic games. Get the basics and go from there. Your explanations are so tortured and reaching so that you can somehow define evolution as "random" that you aren't saying anything about evolution at all. Why not just say things simply. For example,

"Oh, I see--mutations are relatively random--that is they have a similar chance of occurring, but selection decides which of these mutations will live and thus have a chance at contributing their genes to future generations. Sometimes it's random events like meteors that decide, and other times it's small things like a preference for shade or the folding of a protein, but wherever there is a reproductive advantage to any organism, that organism's genome has a chance at writing evolutionary history--of being a player in the "game of life" of being part of the evolutionary process. I can see why calling that whole process "random" would cause people to misunderstand natural selection, and I now see what the Berkeley site, Dawkins, and all the biologists are talking about when they refer to selection as the opposite of random--the "de-randomizer". Thanks for answering my question and having the patience to help me understand the info. I needed to have my question addressed. I apologize for being an ass to the many fine people who tried to help me understand this simple principle."

But instead it's just all boils down to "evolution is random" with indignant accusations. By your very definition...whether one dies in an automobile accident is also random (after all it has random components), so I strongly encourage you not to bother wearing a seatbelt. After all, random just has to do with probability distribution and determinism and some people will die because of their seat belts... I'm sure I could quote you peer review papers that can back up my twisted logic and then accuse you of ignoring them when you fail to find the connection.

By the way, I've discredited your argument with facts--so calling you a creationist is not an ad hom. I don't call you a creationist to discredit your argument--I only note that you sound exactly like some of the more infamous ones. I'd love to be proven wrong...but alas--

You are just so predictable--it always will boil down to evolution IS random or some twisted version thereof with your own tortured definitions. Which is lovely, if that's the belief that makes you feel the best. It just doesn't convey any useful information nor does it clarify the process for anyone.

BTW, the cites you use are used by from the NCSE--which supports talk origins...which is one of the sites saying that evolution is not-random. Ahem. You also quoted a Berkeley source wherein the same thing was stated.

 

[articulett]

Let's look at things a different way. Consider the theory of evolution as a meme. What characteristics will the most successful strain of the meme have? Will it say that evolution is random or non random? Will it take a position at all?

From talk origins:
"The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

The author of the above statement is proposing that the evolution meme should contain the idea that evolution is non-random. The problem is that people who do understand evolution can't be convinced of this. People interested in spreading the meme of evolution should then drop this issue, acknowledge that there are random aspects to evolution, and work on the popular conception of random.

It takes five minutes and two cents to show someone that random events can work together to have a range of predictable consequences. Flip the two pennies repeatedly. Make sure the viewer notices that one heads and one tails is the single most likely result. Show them why, and you'll have given them the ability to move past randomness being a stumbling block to the understanding of evolution. That's my two cents.

As a person who teaches evolution I can tell you that your approach does not work and that Talk Origins and all the biologist who address this subject are on the right track. People are very very confused about random events and probabilities... they'll look at something after the fact and say what are the odds that me and my next door neighbor would have the same birthday or some other inanity (Sylvia thrives because of it) and not understand the better question of "what are the odds that any two next door neighbors at random have the same birthday" or even, "what are the odds that amazing coincidences will happen to me in my life"--or "what are the odds that people will finding meaning where there is none?"

When it comes to biological evolution, the key is "the selfish" gene idea--what has a good trick, asset, or luck that gets it passed on preferentially. Coins don't reproduce and they don't die. As my other link notes, even adults who think they understand evolution, really don't have the natural selection part very well. And here is more proof: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1216,TB-and-the-Question-of-Evolution,Deborah-Blum-Huffington-Post
I don't know why people who don't teach biology or evolution think they know better about teaching these concepts to people than those who do.

Who did you learn about evolution from and how? Does anyone consider you an expert on understanding or explaining natural selection? And why would you think you know better than the chorus of people who are more knowledgeable on this very topic than you are? And how would you answer the question in the opening post with your penny flip analogy? And has this ever worked on anyone?

You do know Dawkins has professional recognition for conveying scientific understanding and has made the concept understable to millions. Millions. He has furthered knowledge on the subject to an amazing extent as well. Talk Origins is no slack site either. And we're supposed to take your opinion on the topic more seriously, why again?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Dawkins has conveyed an understanding of evolution to nobody if he claims that there is no element of randomness to evolution.

Teaching the truth to people may be hard, but I don't think teaching them half truths is the answer.

 

[articulett]

Dawkins has conveyed an understanding of evolution to nobody if he claims that there is no element of randomness to evolution.

Teaching the truth to people may be hard, but I don't think teaching them half truths is the answer.

Dawkins doesn't claim there are no elements of randomness in evolution. Nor does the talk origins site. And I see you ignored everything else in my post. I don't think Dawkins teaches half truths.

And I doubt you or mijo understand evolution enough to convey it to anybody.

Repeat: evolution can be defined as "random (more or less) mutation coupled with natural selection (which is more or less non-random when using the word random as it applies to mutation)."

Repeat.

Also. "Having random components does not a random process make."

In this case random means having relatively equal probabilities--it refers to one time events not dependent upon the past or future events. Natural selection is entirely dependent upon that which came before...

So simple really. And then build from there and give nuances... answer questions--unless you are talking to an "intelligent design" proponent. In that case, nod wanly and assert that vehicular deaths are similarly random and therefore they shouldn't wear seat belts. I think old "intelligent design proponents" have lost the plasticity of the brain to actually understand evolution. Moreover, they cannot understand that they cannot understand it. Anasognosia. They are too arrogant to see their ignorance. Sad but true. Evolution will be learned just fine by the young as the old creationists die off --as Jerry Falwell just did. Species die the same species they are born as--it's the information (be it DNA or scientific knowledge) that is passed on and evolves.

One down...

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

If I were trying to teach evolution I wouldn't stand at the front of a classroom, tell the class to stay quiet, and yap my head off. It is as you say, any understanding of evolution has to be sensitive to its nuances. One has to show, not tell, if they want people to be able to think in the evolutionary mode. If I wanted to teach someone I'd play a game of EVO (it's a boardgame) with them. Anyone who is really learning evolution isn't just learning to regurgitate the theory, they have to learn how to challenge it.

I wouldn't go out looking for a stripped down, sanitized, streamlined version of evolution to teach. I would focus on getting the resources to teach what is a complicated, challenging, and changing theory.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Also. "Having random components does not a random process make."

In this case random means having relatively equal probabilities--it refers to one time events not dependent upon the past or future events. Natural selection is entirely dependent upon that which came before...

Of course, I and other proponents of using the term random have never suggested it meant having relatively equal possibilities, and in many instances lay people use random for non-equiprobable phenomenon (sum of 2 or 3 six-sided dice).

And I have never suggested it refered to "one time events not dependent upon the past or future events", and in many instances lay people use random for such phenomenon (your position on a monopoly board after three terms is random, but still dependent on the results of your first two turns).

You seem to be forcing random into a very narrow definition, more narrow than what the lay person uses. As far as I can tell it is only because of a bias in wanting to be able to say evolution is non-random.

Walt

 

[articulett]

Well, then I think the last two elements demonstrate that those commenting on how biologists describe evolution are the least fit to do it themselves. I don't really care whether the word random is used or not. I just want to be sure that people understand natural selection. I doubt whitey, mijo, or walter wayne could convey the simple principle of evolution to anyone, and I don't think they really understand it themselves. And yes, I do think that at least whitey and mijo are creationists because they use language in the same way to say nothing, insult people, and add nothing to the discussion. They ask insincere questions that are actually designed to promote a viewpoint--not clarify anything. I think whitey's mischaracterization of Dawkins shows that, not only has he not read him, that he might actually understand evolution better if he did. I have no idea what Walter Wayne is saying, and as far as I can tell no one else does either. I have no idea what mijo is trying to communicate except that it all boils down to evolution is random per his definition of random--and who knows what that means.

Yes, evolution is purposeless and created from the bottom up. The environment acts on organisms and acts as a filter "deciding" what lives and what reproduces and what thrives and which genomes get passed on.

Use whatever words you want. But if you your intent is to convey understanding, then use the words of the experts--the ones that have conveyed understanding to many. If your goal is to win some imaginary argument or semantic game then continue to do what you are doing.

And btw, since death is random, and wearing a seatbelt isn't 100% deterministic in regards to survival. I heartily encourage you to use your own stellar logic and ambiguity to refrain from seat belt use.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, articulett, what is the problem with describing evolution by natural selection as a stochastic process?

Scientists have been doing so for the past 85 years, yet you resist that the idea that the fact that evolution by natural selection can be modeled by stochastic processes means that it has a stochastic nature. Honestly, your continued recalcitrance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary reminds me of the stubbornness and stupidity of which you accuse me as a supposed representative of creationists.

 

[articulett]

So, articulett, what is the problem with describing evolution by natural selection as a stochastic process?

Scientists have been doing so for the past 85 years, yet you resist that the idea that the fact that evolution by natural selection can be modeled by stochastic processes means that it has a stochastic nature. Honestly, your continued recalcitrance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary reminds me of the stubbornness and stupidity of which you accuse me as a supposed representative of creationists.

There is no scientific paper--not even the one's you cite that say "evolution is a stochastic process". You have not even defined stochastic except to say it's a synonym for random. And you've defined random as "of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"
although that has no meaning in the context you use! A random probability distribution doesn't look like a "diminishing probability distribution".

Then you say that by random, you mean that it's the opposite of deterministic. Which is fine, I guess. But it means you are using a lot of words to say that evolution has no pre-planned goal. But your question was what the evidence was for evolution being non-random. I gave the scientific definition of random from a science dictionary and so have others. Many have taking the time to exactly answer your question and explain to you why your namby pamby playing with the definitions (like creationists) made it a bad question. This is on par with your other dishonest question/title thread. You seem to have your own definition...which is fine...but your OP was a dishonest question--you wanted to know how evolution is non-random. Do you know? You sure don't seem to. Does the fact that Dawkins who has explained evolution to Millions and is peer reviewed to the nth degree mean anything to you? If he says that calling evolution "a process of random chance" is misleading, why do you contend that somehow it's not --(if you have a certain round about meaning and plug in some papers that sort of seem to say what you want to say? )

Dawkins says it; Talk Origins says it; even the papers and sites you cite--say it. Many here have said it. It may be because you are inventing your own definition...but random as it applies to mutation is certainly not the same randomness as "random events" that affect the selection process. Moreover, despite your claims, there are not any peer reviewed papers saying that "evolution is random" nor "evolution is a stochastic process" even. It's not that it can't be twisted to be true if you play semantic games, but it just doesn't say anything at all. Saying that clarifies nothing about evolution or how natural selection changes species through time. It plays into the creationist canard quoted by talk origins and repeatedly quoted in many different ways here.

You don't understand the papers you quote. You don't want to understand why or how natural selection is non-random. Your opening post was a lie. You just want to presume that you understand evolution (you don't--even though it's simple for non-creationists...I teach troubled teens, and they have much less of a problem with the concept than you.) Any kid in my class could give a more informative less obfuscating description of the evolution than you.

You asked a question that you didn't want an answer to--you thought you knew the answer and that the answer is "evolution is random". All biologists tell you that it a very simplistic, misleading, and uninformative way to describe evolution and that your description of natural selection is wrong. You use language very poorly, and don't convey anything. And then you pretend that science or something is on your side when you don't even seem to have a clue as to what the articles you quote are saying. Where is the scientific paper that says "evolution is random"--or -- "evolutions is a stochastic process" or "having random components means that a process IS random"? Where? You know--the way you asked for peer reviewed papers saying "evolution is non-random". Where do you find anyone understanding the fine points of evolution with descriptions on par with yours? I teach and I'm telling you that your answer is so muddled that it would be hard to give your description a passing grade. You are not conveying your understanding of selection at all. I don't care what words you use--but if you are using nebulous ones--you ought to define them clearly. I can't imagine anyone understanding the simple concept of evolution with the definition you provide...or whitey...or Walter Wayne. I'd say that your explanations are on par with Behes or Kleinmans. They just make you sound like pedantic old fools to anyone who actually understands evolution. If you don't sound any different than a creationist...and you wander all over words and attempts to clarify and play semantic games and can't be nailed down-- I think it's safe to say that your leanings are obvious.

Instead of making up problems that I supposedly have, I think you ought to work on the details of your communication that make you sound as clueless and pedantic and arrogant and ignorant and dishonest and uninformed as a creationist. I answered your question as did others. But you didn't want the answer...you thought you already had it.

Your conclusions are inane. "We don't know enough to say whether evolution is random or not."

You don't.

The rest of us do. Even your fellow non-creationist randomites have told you that just calling evolution random is a pretty piss-poor way to describe anything. The same goes for "stochastic"--especially since you've told us that for you it's a synonym of random...which you have defined so bizarrely that I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about or why you are fixated on using such terms to describe an entire process.

I say that natural selection is the opposite of random because Dawkins' says it, and I understand exactly what it means. Old creationists can't. I tried. Young people have no problem--just don't let old creationists muddle their thinking with meaningless pedantic blather.

I think all the definitions of evolution (and natural selection) by biologists and scientifically literate people are better than the definitions by Mijo, whitey, Walter Wayne (did he even define anything?) or any creationist-- no matter what words are used. I would advise people to get their definitions from such people only if they wanted to see how creationists play word games or wanted to be utterly confused and not understand anything.

And remember--by your definition--death is a random process; no need to wear seat belts...the outcome of seatbelt use is not 100% predictable, and therefore, it's not deterministic which makes it random (per your definition) which makes wearing seat belts a random process as evidenced by the papers you cite and the definitions you use. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to drive unencumbered. I'm sure this is as clear and obvious to you as your words are to the rest of us.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why do you think that my definitions are meaningless, articulett?

You seems to ignore that "stochastic" has a much lexical range than "random", which is why is prefer to use it. Furthermore, "stochastic process" has a rigorous mathematical definition, which is the definition that mathematical biologists use implicitly when they propose stochastic models of evolution.

 

[articulett]

Why do you think that my definitions are meaningless, articulett?

You seems to ignore that "stochastic" has a much lexical range than "random", which is why is prefer to use it. Furthermore, "stochastic process" has a rigorous mathematical definition, which is the definition that mathematical biologists use implicitly when they propose stochastic models of evolution.

Because no one else seems to understand what you are saying. What you say conveys little if any information and doesn't explain the answer to your question at all. Moreover, it mischaracterizes the most salient factors of evolution--natural selection. I am saying that you do not convey an understanding of the answer to the question you asked nor an understanding of evolution.

Truly, the seat belt analogy is on par with what you are saying. Does it make any sense to say that whether wearing a seatbelt or not can save a life is a "random process"? Or scientists don't know enough to say if seatbelts save lives? Because everything you say about evolution boils down to that sort of nothingness. It has no value for conveying information. Everything in the environment that affects whether a creatures is reproductively successful or not--from meteors, to preferences, to gaudy plumage, to being foul tasting--is part of natural selection. No one is deciding what is or isn't fit. If it it has a reproductive advantage, it by definition is the most fit. If it dies before reproducing, it by definition, is the least fit. To the extent that genomes are acted on in any way by the environment, they are being selected for or against. Just like the fact that there will be times when wearing a seatbelt might cost someone therelife has no bearing on the statement the general principal that "seatbelts save lives". You don't teach about seatbelts and how they save lives by amassing data that shows the exception.

The fact that you have no answer to your opening question just like you never had an answer about the discontinuity in the fossil record coupled with the fact that these are known creationist misleading claims makes your intent obvious to me, if not anyone else.

Your definitions are meaningless because no one who understands evolution would convey the facts the way you do. But obfuscating creationists sure would. No peer-reviewed journals play the semantic games and use words like you do to convey anything about natural selection. The only non-creationists on this forum who seem to be using the word random to describe evolution seem to be using it only to describe being without a purpose...not the tortured definition that you seem to have that no one quite seems to understand. And quit playing semantic games...you've already said that "stochastic" is the same as "random" to you which you've defined so bizarrely that no one seems to understand what you are saying.

I mean I get the basic. You think that because evolution is described as random mutation coupled with natural selection--that you can define "natural selection as "random" because there are random elements in the environment that play a role in selection and then playing a sort of semantic game you can imply that the randomness of mutations is the same as the randomness of selection and therefore "evolutions is random" which you sort of sidestep and call "stochastic" which is meaningless, since you don't seem to know the meaning of that word much less the scientific definition of random and you've said on multiple occasions that you are using one as a synonym for the other.

Great. So it all boils down to the useless peice of garble--to mijo, he's not "unconvinced that evolution is nonrandom". Rest assured, you'll never be unconvinced. You are playing with your own set of definitions. I mean, forgive me, are you saying anything other than "evolution is random"? with whatever nutjob definition you've decided to give that word? And does anyone think you understand natural selection? Your fellow randomites? Has anyone ever learned anything about evolution with explanations as convoluted and so lacking in information as yours?

Do you understand Walter, whitey, kleinman, or Behe?--or are you guys all in your own little world when it comes to your creationist conundrums that you just can't seem to fathom. I'd say the problem is you. Non-creationists would say, "oh, I see how it can be perceived as non-random--and how calling it random is confusing and misleading--thanks for all who took the time to help me understand."

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Articulett, few times on this page you have advocated death for people who have an ideology different than yours (you think, with or without evidence). Your profile says that you live in Las Vegas, but, can I ask, is that by way of Salem?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Articulett, few times on this page you have advocated death for people who have an ideology different than yours (you think, with or without evidence). Your profile says that you live in Las Vegas, but, can I ask, is that by way of Salem?

That was uncalled for!!!

I'm not quite sure what "advocated death" means, but it seems that you suggested that she thinks creationists should die (not necessarily be killed, but die) because she disagrees withe them. What she is remarking on as far as I can tell with her Falwell comment is a well-known phenomenon called cohort replacement whereby ideological changes occur not because individuals change their ideologies but because the old ideology dies with the preceding generation and is replaced by a new ideology in succeeding generations.

It does you a disservice to make such blatantly inflammatory accusations.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Well, then I think the last two elements demonstrate that those commenting on how biologists describe evolution are the least fit to do it themselves. I don't really care whether the word random is used or not. I just want to be sure that people understand natural selection. I doubt whitey, mijo, or walter wayne could convey the simple principle of evolution to anyone, and I don't think they really understand it themselves.

I have come to the impression that you don't understand it. When I have talked about the lasting affects of variations in small populations, you did not rebut it. When I discussed how heredity will cause an increase in the appearance of randomness, you didn't rebut. You talk about teaching science but can't recognize just how bad the definition of random is in your own text book.

When you put forward a definition of random based on roughly equal-probability and independence of the past I pointed to some places where lay people use random for unequal probability and things dependent on history. You haven't rebutted any points, only repeating the same mantra. If you understood what you were talking about you would be able to explain it.

Use whatever words you want. But if you your intent is to convey understanding, then use the words of the experts--the ones that have conveyed understanding to many.

The experts describe evolution, the properties of both mutation and selection very well. Then they go on to say that evolution is non-random, which doesn't follow in the layman's or technical senses of the word. Their own description is what reveals these properties.

Any expert who says selection is the more important is contradicting their own teachings. Without mutation we don't advance beyond bacteria, you require both to get what we see around us today. To place on of higher improtance is to force evolution into some arbitrary framework that has no physical meaning. I don't know why they do that, but the most striking possibility to me is that they wish to frame the language as a defense against the creationists.

If your goal is to win some imaginary argument or semantic game then continue to do what you are doing.

And btw, since death is random, and wearing a seatbelt isn't 100% deterministic in regards to survival. I heartily encourage you to use your own stellar logic and ambiguity to refrain from seat belt use.

Semantics? Given the way you have played with the definition of random, first from a useless textbook version, and second to constrain random to a meaning which allows you to reach your prefered conclusion, you may want to look at your self.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that you have learned to repeat the experts, without understanding it yourself. You repeat some dogma, but show know ability to defend your statements. When rebutted with real examples of how lay people use the word random you don't defend your position, you don't even acknowledge the argument. You just repeat the same thing.

Walt

 

[Walter Wayne]

Do you understand Walter, whitey, kleinman, or Behe?--or are you guys all in your own little world when it comes to your creationist conundrums that you just can't seem to fathom. I'd say the problem is you. Non-creationists would say, "oh, I see how it can be perceived as non-random--and how calling it random is confusing and misleading--thanks for all who took the time to help me understand."

Woot, I am now a creationist!