What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

whiteyonthemoon said:
In the interests of keeping the thread on track, I'll retract my statement.
Actually, I kinda liked the seatbelt analogy, it's very "put your money where your mouth is".

Sorry if I got off topic a bit, but Articulett really rubs me the wrong way. I'm not a creationist, yet I believe that it is accurate to describe evolution as random. I expect to be able to say this and not have my view framed as a cannard of some group that I am not a part of. .
Click to expand...

Very true and somewhat astonishing as well. I believe that earlier in the thread Taffer summed it up well, in that there are determined events that happen in a matrix of random happenstance. (My paraphrase)

I am a randomite as well because while we may be able to determine the causal relations that led to reproductive success the distribution of organisms is a crap shoot as is the environment.
 
whiteyonthemoon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I said you haven't read Dawkins because of this mischaracterization of his statements. Moreover, Dawkins has conveyed an understanding of evolution to millions; I'm not sure anyone who boils it down to "evolution is random" has ever done so. No biologist has ever said there are no elements of randomness in evolution. But to use the term random so loosely means that all processes are random processes and all non-uniform distribution is random. It just doesn't mean anything --it's too ambiguous to mean anything. And it's that ambiguity that makes things ripe for the 747 analogy.

I can't tell the ambiguity of Behe from the ambiguity of you. Perhaps you can clarify why you think you are being more clear than him as quoted in the pharyngula link above. Ah... never mind. I can't make sense of anything you say either. I'm sure that if someone else does, we'll all know. Rest assured, Dawkins communicates fine to millions--I'm not sure that I've heard anything better--and I think summing up the entirety of evolution as "random" just doesn't convey any useful information. Purposeless--yes. Random--only by some very liberal usage of the word. When is random itself connected to series of what came before? Maybe you need to be an engineer to find clarity in the statement. I see what you guys are trying to say, but it's just so ridiculously vague and doesn't really convey an understanding of natural selection. It truly is no more clear than Behe...or Kleinman...or T'ai

Unless you have a better way of saying it, I'm sure those of us who teach it will stick with what works--Dawkins, Darwin, Pigliucci, Talk Origins, Berkeley (a site for teachers of evolution.) It's a lot handier to have a base in such explanations when the 747 analogy comes up.

And remember, the title of the thread--"what evidence is there for evolution being non-random?"-- Well, the answer is natural selection--it is the sieve...the elimination round, that which stitches the random stuff that works together through time--the de-randomizer. Calling it random is no more informative than calling you random because a random sperm happened to bring your existence into being.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Way back when I started this snowball this was basically what I was getting at as well. Dawkins went on at length about "chance" and evolution in "The God Delusion", and I thought his criticism was rather misplaced. Moreover, I thought that his explanation had very little to do with accuracy in science or mathematics, but much more about "towing the party line". It seemed very much like "they say this so we can't".
Click to expand...



Spoken like a true person who thinks they know where the snafus of understanding evolution come into play despite have admittedly little experience with those creating and mired in the "controversy".
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, I do find the original question from Dawkins' discussion interesting, and with a minor change in my user profile, I'm hoping to pick up that discussion again.

One of my longstanding issues on JREF and with the wider ID vs. evo debate is why we are losing so often. Is it us, or them? Is there something wrong with our arguments?

I think so. One example of something I called "arguments that suck" is Dawkins' "It's the opposite of chance" argument. It's designed to counter the assertion that evolution proceeds "by chance". Does it succeed? I don't think so. To explain why, let me discuss a couple of the reasons for the argument's existence.

"chance=tornado in a junkyard"

That's one claim made by Dawkins et. al. as a reason for avoiding "chance" or "random". However, it's wrong. Indeed, in most cases, it's a straw man argument. The IDist is making one argument, and then Dawkins substitutes a different argument, and then counters it. It's true that the "tornado in a junkyard" argument has been made, but not every "it couldn't happen by chance" argument is based on the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. The "tornado in a junkyard" argument depends on the idea of spontaneous and simultaneous assembly of a complex mechanism. Evolution, it is correctly said, doesn't work like that. Evolution assembles one piece at a time.

Indeed it does, but that doesn't help the argument. The creationist who rejects evolution may very well understand that evolution postulates slow, one piece at a time, assembly. He still rejects the argument because he still notes, correctly, that each piece had to be assembled as a result of a random act, a random mutation. He says that this can't happen.

Meanwhile, the evolutionist who asserts that when the creationist says "chance" he means "tornado in a junkyard" has just failed to address the argument.

More to come, but for now, lunch is over and I must earn a living.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Folks, we're beating a dead definition.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I agree to the extent that, until we have a common definition of "random", it makes very little sense to discuss whether or not evolution is "random". However, I detect a particular stubbornness on the part of the non-randomites to admit that the definition they have adopted, while it is for the most part very close to the way laypeople use "random", is not the definition that the radomites use when they refer to evolution as "random". In fact, a new strain of the argument seems to have developed where the non-randomites, ignoring the technicality and rigor with which the radomites approach their description of evolution, deny that even the synonyms that the randomites have offered as other ways of describing evolution accurately describe evolution. For instance, it has been denied that any biologist would ever say, "Evolution is a stochastic process", when search Google Scholar for the exact phrase "evolution is a stochastic process" yields 34 articles that contain such a phrase and that have been cited relatively often since their respective publications, which one wouldn't expect if the stochasticity of evolution, and, in some of the articles, natural selection itself was anathema to serious scientists as the non-randomites suggest. In short, there needs to be a clear explanation of why "random" in any of its definitions does not describe evolution and why, as the randomites say, "[r]andom events do not a random process make" in order to make a convincing argument that evolution is non-random.
 
Before I go on with the thoughts in my last post:

Mijo,
If I could, I would like to ask a question. If we go back to the OP, everyone in this thread who understands what a probability distribution is understands what you meant by "random". Based on that definition, there's no doubt that evolution is random. The whole of it is random, and every part is random.
There's an awful lot of doubt about whether that's very significant, but there really isn't any doubt about whether or not evolution is random. Based on that definition, and that definition only, it is.

My question to you is:

What do you infer from that? Anything? Anything of significance? What makes it a worthwhile question? Is there anything that you are curious about that is related to evolution and randomness? is there any point you would like to make about evolution and randomness?

I have my own answers to those questions, but I'm curious if your questions have been answered or your points have been made.

A cautionary note: Not everyone will agree with my answer. We know that. So, I understand that if you want to convince other people that it's the right answer, you have an uphill battle. However, that isn't what I'm asking for. I know you're right. You know you're right. A lot of people on this thread know that you are right. Now what? Given that you are right, is there anything that remains unclear in your mind, or anything specific you think is worth discussing about the random nature of the evolutionary process?
 
Meadmaker said:
Before I go on with the thoughts in my last post:

Mijo,
If I could, I would like to ask a question. If we go back to the OP, everyone in this thread who understands what a probability distribution is understands what you meant by "random". Based on that definition, there's no doubt that evolution is random. The whole of it is random, and every part is random.
There's an awful lot of doubt about whether that's very significant, but there really isn't any doubt about whether or not evolution is random. Based on that definition, and that definition only, it is.

My question to you is:

What do you infer from that? Anything? Anything of significance? What makes it a worthwhile question? Is there anything that you are curious about that is related to evolution and randomness? is there any point you would like to make about evolution and randomness?

I have my own answers to those questions, but I'm curious if your questions have been answered or your points have been made.

A cautionary note: Not everyone will agree with my answer. We know that. So, I understand that if you want to convince other people that it's the right answer, you have an uphill battle. However, that isn't what I'm asking for. I know you're right. You know you're right. A lot of people on this thread know that you are right. Now what? Given that you are right, is there anything that remains unclear in your mind, or anything specific you think is worth discussing about the random nature of the evolutionary process?
Click to expand...

I was interested as to why people were so vehement in their denial of the "randomness" of evolution. From my experience of explaining why evolution ins "random" on other threads in the JREF fora, it seemed that those who held the opposite belief than I did spent most of their time simply denying that evolution was "random" and contradicting me when I offered further revision and explanation of why their position was unfounded. I just wanted people to present evidence that evolution is "non-random" so I created this thread and got the same old arguments that I had been getting elsewhere.

I know it is rather ignoble to admit this, but I am mainly concerned with the description of evolution being correct rather than easy to understand. After all, what is the use of the of an easy to understand description if it is false?

Obviously, the fact that evolution is fundamentally stochastic in nature has implications for how to model evolutionary processes, namely as stochastic processes. However, I will have to do more research to determine what exactly I mean.
 
Last edited:
What process is not random by the randomite definition? And why not? Can't we find randomness in any process? And if all processes that contain randomness can be called random (and remember...mijo is using stochastic as an exact synonym for random--), then of what value is it--and how does that answer mijo's question--or the creationist question #4 for talk origins?

When people are confused it's because they've been having intelligent design proponents or engineers explain it to them, I suspect. The ID folks like Behe have the eloquence, but they are just obfuscating--and the engineers just don't seem to explain things in a way that allows others to "see" what they are talking about. What works in other countries with better informed populaces will work here. But it will be as the old creationists die out--truly. They are loud, well funded, and in power. And they've mucked up the thinking of generations. But young people just don't have the problems when the right people explain it to them. I aim to teach it with same clarity and eloquence of the people who made it real and salient and so clearly obvious to me.

So what processes are not random by mijos definition of random (or stochastic)? Please...any randomites...please answer. How would you distinguish a non-random process from a random one to convey understanding of the difference?
 
articulett said:
and remember...mijo is using stochastic as an exact synonym for random--
Click to expand...

Nice misstatement. I am only using "stochastic" as a a synonym for "random" in so far as both refer to situations involving probability, not in other senses that "random" has, which is generally how creationists use "random". Furthermore, many systems can be described by deterministic models. For instance, weather is a deterministic system. What makes it so hard to predict is its sensitivity to initial conditions (i.e., it is a chaotic system) and the fact that there is repeated round off error is calculating long-term weather conditions. In other words, there is a set of equations that will predict the weather after a certain time step given meteorological variables (e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.). However, when the numbers are fed back into the equation to predict the weather after the next time step the values are rounded off usually because they are often irrational and the computer cannot store a infinite string of digits which introduces error into the calculations because the exact value is not used.

Evolution, on the other hand, is based in the probability that an individual of a given phenotype will pass on its genes to the next generation. While the relative fitness of the individual does bias its survival, not every fitter individual passes on its genes and not ever less fit individual doesn't. Thus since there are different outcomes for identical individuals, evolution is a by definition a stochastic process.
 
articulett said:
What process is not random by the randomite definition? And why not? Can't we find randomness in any process? And if all processes that contain randomness can be called random (and remember...mijo is using stochastic as an exact synonym for random--), then of what value is it--and how does that answer mijo's question--or the creationist question #4 for talk origins?
Click to expand...

The expression of genetic traits that lead to reproductive success in a given environment are not random, they are causal and deterministic. Which member of a species will end up in a given environment is more pseudo-random. To predict which traits that have changed will be beneficial in the future is mostly random, or pseudo-random.

The creationists are wrong.

Meadmaker: The reason that the creationists are 'winning" is that they appeal to the emotional architecture of the brain, it is an american phenomena, the herd appeal over the rational thought,
 
mijopaalmc said:
Nice misstatement. I am only using "stochastic" as a a synonym for "random" in so far as both refer to situations involving probability, not in other senses that "random" has, which is generally how creationists use "random". Furthermore, many systems can be described by deterministic models. For instance, weather is a deterministic system. What makes it so hard to predict is its sensitivity to initial conditions (i.e., it is a chaotic system) and the fact that there is repeated round off error is calculating long-term weather conditions. In other words, there is a set of equations that will predict the weather after a certain time step given meteorological variables (e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.). However, when the numbers are fed back into the equation to predict the weather after the next time step the values are rounded off usually because they are often irrational and the computer cannot store a infinite string of digits which introduces error into the calculations because the exact value is not used.

Evolution, on the other hand, is based in the probability that an individual of a given phenotype will pass on its genes to the next generation. While the relative fitness of the individual does bias its survival, not every fitter individual passes on its genes and not ever less fit individual doesn't. Thus since there are different outcomes for identical individuals, evolution is a by definition a stochastic process.
Click to expand...

Here is a definition of stochastic process: A physical stochastic process is any process governed by probabilistic laws. Examples are (1) development of a population as controlled by Mendelian genetics; (2) Brownian motion of microscopic particles subjected to molecular impacts or, on a different scale, the motion of stars in space; (3) succession of plays in a gambling house; and (4) passage of cars by a specified highway point.


Example number one refers to the sexual recombination--and inheritance patterns--that falls under the "random mutation" side of the evolution equation.

Are you saying that all processes governed by probabilistic laws are "stochastic processes"? And when you say weather is deterministic are you saying it's not stochastic even though it's governed by probabilities? In the above paragraph you define weather as a "deterministic process". And you've described "deterministic processes" as the opposite of "random processes".

Are you saying that evolution is a process that is more random then the weather?

Maybe you just need help clarifying what it is you are trying to say.

You asked what is the evidence for evolution being non-random.

Tell us a process that is non-random according to whatever definition you are using and what process other than evolution that you consider similarly random (or stochastic).

Then we will all be on the same page as to what the hell you are talking about.

Also tell us what kind of "probability distribution is non-random" vs. your definition of stochastic so we can see what you mean by saying that evolution is stochastic because it has a non-uniform probability distribution.

And when you say "fitness"--what definition are you using? When biologists are talking about fittest in genomes they are talking about the genes that confer a survival and reproductive advantage to the organism that contains it.

1. What is a non random process and what is a random process per your definition (other than evolution). (Give examples; not definitions).

2. What is a non-random probability distribution versus a random probability distribution as you are using to describe evolution. (Again, examples other than evolution will be helpful.)

3. What definition are you using to define "fitness".

4. Are you saying that weather patterns are deterministic while evolution is not?

If you can't answer these simply, then how the hell would you expect anyone to answer your question or how can anyone derive any meaning from your vagaries.


Use an analogy. Is artificial selection (dog breeding) a random process--why or why not? The digestive process? Are these stochastic processes? Are they deterministic? Do they have probability distributions? Is word processing or food processing a stochastic process--why or why not? If you can't answer these questions you'll get an idea of just how useless and vague these definitions are. Nobody is really an "anti-random" person--it's just that few are so uninformed as to think it's informative to sum up evolution as a random process...or a stochastic process. Perhaps if you give us what you think of as the opposite, we can tell what it is you are trying to say about evolution.

I understand Dancing David just fine, by the way. And Schneibster too--and both are "randomites". But they understand evolution. And they don't just leave the explanation at "evolution is random". They clarify--and Dancing David even points out that reproductive success is deterministic--not random.--That's "natural selection"--some DNA confers an advantage (insofar as getting replicated) in the game of life.

The success of Europeans had much to do with carrying microbes into areas that other humans hadn't developed immunity for. That's not "fitter" in any anthropomorphic way--but it provided a survival advantage over competitors and thus a reproductive advantage. It also provided an advantage to the microbes that had new vectors to infect. Fitness only refers to a genes ability to get passed on--
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
I was interested as to why people were so vehement in their denial of the "randomness" of evolution.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That was what struck me as well. Dawkins' book triggered my comment, but I had experienced it once before on JREF as well. I had described an evolutionary process using the word "random" and one of the folks just went ballistic. I think the effect was magnified because, if memory serves me correctly, I may have been quoting an ID supporter and not calling said ID supporter a fool, moron, or threat to western civilization. On JREF, that's a sure sign you are sleeping with the enemy, and this guy made it his personal mission to make sure I didn't corrupt the minds of the folks here on JREF.

First, I'll try to continue describing what's wrong, logically and from a rhetorical standpoint, with avoiding the word "random" and then describe why I think so many "evolutionists" find it so important to avoid it anyway. Much of it will be a repeat of previous postings, but I'll try to avoid the diversions this tiem.

Of course, it is so easy to get diverted, but it's worth trying.
 
Dancing David said:
Meadmaker: The reason that the creationists are 'winning" is that they appeal to the emotional architecture of the brain, it is an american phenomena, the herd appeal over the rational thought,
Click to expand...

The emotional appeal and the rational need not conflict. Surely there is truth in what you say, but it's an incomplete explanation, at best. Also, there's plenty of emotional appeal on both sides, and there's nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I think that the refusal to use the word "random" is primarily an emotional, not logical, appeal, but more on that later.
 
I'm waiting for an example of a non-random process and a random process that is not evolution...

If you can't give such examples, then isn't all the rest meaningless. Otherwise aren't you just saying evolution is more like gas flow than some undefined non-random process?
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
I'm waiting for an example of a non-random process and a random process that is not evolution...

If you can't give such examples, then isn't all the rest meaningless. Otherwise aren't you just saying evolution is more like gas flow then some undefined non-random process?
Click to expand...

Remember the topic question? If you think there is no evidence for evolution being non random, then you ought to tell us the difference between a random process and a non-random process via an example. I'm not against the word random. I'm just saying that your explanation and mijo's explanation and Walter's explanation, and whitey's explanation are as clear as saying: "evolution is a random process like gas flow and not a non-random process like non-random processes." If there is vehemence it's about the complete lack of clarity your words have in conveying the evolutionary process. You couldn't teach anyone anything about evolution with such a lack of clarity. Evolution is a 4 syllable word, but that's not really conveying much about what evolution is or isn't nor how species are altered through time.

But I bet Ken Ham would love your tortured definitions at his fine new museum in Kentucky.
 
Last edited:
Just as seat belts confer a survival advantage, so do "naturally selected" traits.

It isn't random. The fact that seat belts save lives along some non-uniform probability curve doesn't make it stochastic either.

Only a person with an utter lack of eloquence could sum up the following as a "random process"--

http://bjoern.brembs.net/print.php?news.188

The second talk (Ron Chase) was very much evolutionarily oriented. I really enjoyed this angle. However, many of the important questions had not been answered, yet. The talk was about the sperm competition and potential for cheating in simultaneous hermaphrodites: with each animal fertilizing the other and with several matings going on sequentially, how can each animal assure that its genes get transmitted preferentially? Some snails have developed a system of darts, where they shoot each other with calcified darts which transmit certain substances which in turn promote sperm competition such that the animal hit well by a dart from the animal preferentially sires its offspring with sperm from this animal. Cool stuff!



You guys aren't "wrong". You're just vague, uninformative, and uninspiring--with nothing offered to make anyone care about understanding the facts. You mistake peoples' passion for conveying the details of this process with vehemence against your words. You aren't hearing us say that the way you say it, just doesn't convey anything. And if you think Dawkins is wrong, you've offered nothing better. And like Sagan, he has millions who love science because of him. Perhaps, you guys are jealous...

Oh, and I am still certain that mijo and whitey are "intelligent design proponents". I think Meadmaker and Wayne just have engineers communication block and can't follow conversations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom