Evolution does not proceed by "random chance". Evolution proceeds because some organisms get parts of their genome copied and inserted into vectors before they die, though the majority do not. The organisms that pass on DNA are entirely selected by the environment they find themselves in. All life is the result of an unbroken chain of success when it comes to this blind process (the copying of DNA into the future and the building and honing of such DNA)--
Calling this "random chance" or a "stochastic process" is not only misleading--it takes away the beauty of one of the coolest things humans have the privilege of knowing IMO.
It isn't misleading, in fact it is accurate and to say it is non-random as some do is misleading. Don't leave it out because you can't explain "random" to people.
"Why would anyone who knows better leave out this detail by using ambiguous wording? I truly feel bad when people are not able to comprehend this stunningly simple and true bit of knowledge. It is so satisfyingly explanatory, that religious banalities and New Age claptrap are murky and pale in comparison.
I have no idea what "this" you are refering to is.
I don't care what words you use, but if you actually understand evolution, please don't leave out the way natural selection ratchets up the complexity and prunes it through the eons.
If you don't care about what word I use, why do you object so vehemently.
And natural selection does not rachet up complexity. A point you seem to miss. Mutation increases complexity, and selection decides what results, complex and simple, continue. Remember, with only selection we'd all still be bacteria. Until you realise that mutation is the agent of increasing complexity you don't understand evolution.
And Walter, I'm not advocating random or non-random...just answering the question in the first post. Remember, I and others have said, "random mutation coupled with natural selection", and so far nobody seems to have come up with anything better. Maybe you are speaking engineer, but I just never see your point. I know you aren't a creationist, but you just seem like kleinman--tangential and unaware of where the conversation is headed or unclear on what your point is. You seem to think I care whether evolution is defined as a "random" vs. "non-random" process. I think both are inanely uninformative. But the question was about the non-random parts, remember?
If you established in some way that natural selection was non-random, I'd go with it. When population are small, variation in natural selection (i.e. more fit animals being more likely, not guaranteed to reproduce) the results will have large potential variation. With each generation being a product of the last that variation will affect future generations greatly. So you have even established that natural selection is not random. It may be effectively non-random during periods where you have large populations, 6 billion people on the planet, unlikely that one of the "fitter" genes in the population is going to die out.
I have discussed small populations previously. With a large population that has many individuals established with some "fit" trait the odds of that trait not making it to the next generation are zero. But what about in a small population, what about a recent mutation?
You still haven't even established that natural selection is non-random, so discusing a non-random part is wrong.
You seem to think my definition of "random" is to narrow, but it's the one that most people seem to use in biology--but it's been said by me and others that there are so many definition that it's rather a useless word--or at least everyone in the conversation ought to agree to what it means...and random as it applies to mutation is not the same as random as it applies to evolution.
The definition you used (equal probabilities) is not the one used by most people. People call the sum of two dice random, they refer to trying to roll a 3 or higher on one die random. Heck, they refer to the bounce of a ball on an uneven field as random.
So what is mijo's definition of random? And yours? Is it the "lay persons" definition or a technical one? How does your definition clear up creationist conundrum #4?
I have mentioned one definition, the one you use exclusively, as one that doesn't apply. I have mentioned several that do:
- the technical one
- having many significantly different results for the same start conditions
- unpredictable
The vast majority of processes people call random, are not equally probable. You refer to random mutation, but that is not equally probable either. Your own definition is inconsistent with how you use the word. Nucleotide substitution for example has a different likelihood than addition or deletions. Mutations where large sequences or even whole chromosomes are added or deleted have a different probability still.
Or do you just not think it matters and somehow you have found the secret and special way to convey natural selection with the word random or stochastic? I just don't understand your point ever...
I think evolution should be taught honestly, instead of choosing language to thwart creationists (they will adapt their "arguments" to whatever you say). It may be more challenging, but doing so will give your students a better understanding of evolution. Also your students won't be left mystified when they realise they are using words like random in an inconsistent manner. "Ah, evolution is non-random because it doesn't have equal probabilities for the various outcomes; but mutation is random, particle position/movement in a gas is random, blackjack is random, movement in Monopoly is random ... even though none of them exhibit uniform probabilities."
Can you face that question?
Are you trying to say that mijo's definition sounds better than Dawkins definition and that people would understand it better? Or maybe you think that you've defined it well? Or maybe you think saying "evolution is random" says everything that needs to be said on the topic.
If I thought that was all that need to be said, I would have left after three words. As for Dawkins definition, his explaination is good, better than mine ever would be. However, he errs when he says it is "non-random". It is inconsistent with his own explaination of it.
Maybe you think the answer to the question is "there is no good reason to call natural selection "the opposite of random"? What's your point, I guess.
No good reason to call natural selection "the opposite of random", and a very good reason to avoid calling natural selection "the opposite of random". Essentially because it hasn't been shown by his explainations that it is the opposite of random. What is wore is that some people imply that this means that evolution is therefore not random.
Or is your ego just bruised because I think you've been taken in by a creationist... or there are some qualities in your dialogue that remind me of them. Look, it could just be the engineer mind thing--I know several of them, and they really do speak a different language. I think that's why engineers don't write popular science books. They don't have the same give and take in a conversation--an autistic leaning--conversational blindness...I guess that's how I perceive you. I never knowhow to answer you, because I can't tell where you are coming from and where you are going. I worked with autistic kids before, and they would talk on and on about their pet interests with nary a care as to whether someone actually was listening or not.
No bruising, I am simply surprised that explaination in things as simple as die rolls you don't still believe that lay people equate random exclusively with things with equal probabilities, or not being dependent on the past. I have explained such things to lay people before, and they realise as soon as it is pointed out that there definition of random as they use it includes things with prefered outcomes or things dependent on the past. Some already knew, some immediately realised the definition they recite from rote is erroneous, or at least at odds with how they use the word.
I had assumed since you taught the subject, and used words like stochastic and that you understood the subjects somewhat. Had I known I might have taken a tack more inline with your level of understanding. (Hey look, I can be passive aggressive too
)
But you do that weird thing where you pretend you've won some point or conversation because someone didn't respond. You have to admit, that's a very creationist thing to do. They find victories when their befuddled responses lead them to declare the great scientists are at a loss for words.
I did not pretend I won a point, but that you seemed not to understand what claimed to be talking about. There is a difference. I don't think my argument was made any stronger or weaker because of the nature of responses. I think that your repeated responses of the same nature.
Other very creationist things to do in addition to not address people arguments directly: grossly mischaracterize the argument of another in order to come to some ficticious ridiculous conclusion (mijo's ideal
gasseatbelt law), attempt to associate those who disagree with you a distrusted party (creationist, oops I doing that now), ... shall I go on.
I think we can agree, that when it comes to evolution--the facts are the same for everyone. There are simply more or less clear ways of describing it or characterizing it. I think mijo has one of the least clear ways of ever seen. I've never heard you sum it up... I'm sure others will speak up if they find you or his or someone else's description more clear-- or if they feel that you or mijo or someone else helped them see the answer to the question in the OP.
I have yet to hear a good short summary. Your "random mutation coupled with natural selection" mentions but does not define the roll of each in evolution. Most people I know can get that far. However, you describe natural selection as "racheting up complexity" which is simply wrong. So does your simple explaination lead to an understanding of it.
I think there is tremendous evidence that people find Dawkins and the Talk Origins and the Berkeley site very good and clear on the subject. They truly are responsible for educating millions.
They are very clear on many parts of the subject, they are even willing to talk about things in terms likelihood, chance, probabability. But for some reason they refuse to go another step, and instead cloud their great explainations by insisting on calling evolution non-random. As far as I can tell they do this only to pander to some misguided argument that the creationists put forward.
For some reason I just find it very entertaining. I love when blustery people get all aflutter. Why get your panties in a bunch.
That is highly entertaining considering how you have reacted. Calling opponents creationists, likening them to creationist when that didn't work, calling them arrogant when at the same time you insist that your argument is so clear that anybody should be convinced. Your knickers betray you.
We are just talking about the clearest way to describe evolution, right? Or the "non-random" aspects of evolution so that we can clear up the common creationist conundrum.
Not just for creationists. I am as, or more, concerned about those who are just learning about it. In any event, I believe any creationist who might be "ripe-for-the-picking" so to speak will be better swayed by an explaination that isn't framed in a way that appears to be shying away from a statement simply because creationist may use the statement against them. Such tactics tend to make one appear in a weak position. We shouldn't have to do that as we are in a very strong position in this argument.
Right? I have no emotional investment in being the "winner" in describing evolution or describing how it's non-random. There have been many who came before and all those quoted sites do it so much better than I do. I'm just telling mijo that his definition doesn't convey the ratcheting effect of natural selection. And I thought I'd answer his question or point him in the direction of answers lest someone with actual curiosity come by and hope to get an actual answer to the question asked.
Ditto.
To me, mijo's explanation is on par with the seatbelt example. The same words even. The problem with the seat belt example is the same with mijo's example. Random components do not make the whole process random. If that is the case, then all processes are random and thus the term is useless.
I've addressed this.
