What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

How does claiming evolution is nonrandom not play into the hands of shaguza et al?

or indeed the ID proponents?

Devil's Advocate: "If evolution is nonrandom, then it is directed.

If it is directed, then the designer could have set it off, knowing that eventually she would have some worshipers.
Not in six thousand years, but 4 billion...

OR

"Life itself was the guide that set us on the inevitable path from slime to Mankind"

"

There is possibly point in arguing with ID proponents, not with young-earth creationists. (Aside: are there any bristlecone pines etc. that are older than the Earth according to the Young Earth creationists?)

ID proponents do accept some evolution, but make a meaningless distinction between types. At least some of the more knowlegable must be able to remove "irreducible complexity" from various systems, and accept that we are the result of chance, but according to certain rules:

A weak hand can sometimes win in certain card games, and a strong one loose, but in general the stronger hand will do better. It is a pretty poor analogy, but should be understandable.

...And maybe more pithy than "Culling of the weakest, and random killing of the rest of the population too, and only the survivors breed, and repeated *billions* of times". (I am guessing that most generations occured whilst our ancestors were unicellular, but have no idea really...)

I agree. It's nicely simple. Regarding YEC and "intelligent design proponents"--most people have no understanding of "a long time ago"--Truly...and this is especially true of kids. 1000 years ago is the same as 1 billion years ago. It just means "a long time ago". Understanding of time is an understanding that evolves...especially if you study biology in depth or anthropology, or paleontology, or cosmology, or astronomy. Microscopes and telescopes and the advent of radio carbon dating have helped us understand time and understand just how flitting our moment in time is--as well as just how tiny our place is.

I'd avoid mathematical definitions all together...and aim for analogies. Surely, anyone can see that cities evolve from the bottom up. That technology evolves through time (the first airplane is an ancestor of all airplanes)--but the info. is pass on and refined in language and statistics rather than through DNA.

Cities don't start with an eye on the far future. They are cobbled together by time and built by everyone who comes into and goes out of them. They are always evolving or dying out. Each moment is a snapshot in time. If you toss some breeding ants into dirt, an ant colony will evolve under nobody's agency. The environment selects. Whether any living thing survives to reproduce or not is entirely dependent on the physical environment it finds itself in.

And I never understood why this would make anyone feel less important. Doesn't every parent want their child to go beyond them? Well, if our unicellular ancestors were lucky enough to have a evolved consciousness--then what could make them more proud? Who needs an invisible "designer" that tells you you can't understand him and can't go beyond him and that the entire universe was created to bring forth you.

If you read Behe, you will change your mind on being able to change "intelligent design proponents" I think. Articulett's theorem from years of observing the issue is this: "A man over 40 who believes that he was "intelligently designed" will not be able to understand evolution (particularly natural selection) no matter how carefully explained, how often his misthinking is corrected, how well crafted the analogy or how high his I.Q." They just don't have the brain plasticity to do so. If you mire your brain in the twin ignorance and arrogance displayed by Chopra, Behe, Kleinman, et. al.--it becomes unable to learn certain facts. They ask questions they don't want the answers too, and each statement is a vagary designed to promote a preformed conclusion (or to obfuscate.)

However, it's very creepy and fun to read--and I encourage all scientists to read what they can stomach of Behe in the links above so they can get a sense of just how insidious this obfuscation is. The more you read it, the more you recognize it early on on others who have the same "meme" infection.

 

[articulett]

The question therefore becomes: How is this system (non)random? Why is the specific definition of random being used?

No. The question is... this what definition are you using to call evolution random. And what is your definition of non-random that you supposedly want evidence for. And if your goal was to understand why biologists say that natural selection is non-random or that it's just misleading to describe it that way--you have pages of such evidence. And more pages telling you just how imprecise that word is and just how what you are saying about evolution just doesn't convey any information or understanding. You are as clear as Behe. Are you Behe? You even use the word "rigorous definition" (after admitting the words you use cannot be defined with an rigor) just as Behe uses "rigorous understanding of evolution" when he apparently lacks just that.

Are you saying what Behe is saying? Do you agree with him? Is he clear to you in the quotes above? Why do you ignore some very important questions or attempts at clarifying your position--and not just from me...but from the people who actually believe you are not an intelligent design proponent?

 

[articulett]

Dawkins was referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler in a reference to Huxley who was called Darwin's bulldog. I had written to Dawkins after that and said that it would have been more alliterative (and thus memorable) if they called him "Darwin's Doberman". I added, that I considered myself, Darwin's Dachshund. I'm small but feisty-- and determined to corner creationists before they ooze their vagaries into the minds of those whose thinking can be better advanced by the facts.

Mijo's position is creationist conundrum #4 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.

His contention is that #4 is correct which biologists will note is a misleading characterization at best...and leaves out natural selection. His last thread was a weird argument related to creationist conundrum #3. These things aren't really "wrong"--they are just misleading and designed to confuse rather than clarify actual understanding of evolution.

 

[articulett]

Someone gave Mijo the link to this answer at the start of this thread and to others: This is from talk origins:

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

He was also given Berkeley's answer and Dawkins answer to this mischaracterization. And he's come to the stellar conclusions that although the word "random" is vague. Evolution is not "not-random".

Yep...that's what he gets after all these pages. Does he understand how natural selection works. I'm not so sure that anyone who sums up the entire process of evolution as "random" understand that. Talk Origins and their many peer reviewed scientists appears to agree. So does Berkeley and Dawkins. It's misleading, non-descriptive, designed to make the science look audacious and designed to be misunderstood as illustrated by multiple examples supplied in this thread. If someone does not understand natural selection then chance equates to "magic" or the "tornado in a junkyard" or "you came from goo". And then a person must choose between that idea and the one that promises you eternal salvation (or sells books for Deepak Chopra.)

Trustme, Jimbob,--your understanding of evolution is not the same as mijo's no matter how bizarrely he sort of implied that it was. He's doing what Behe does.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just as it is hard to argue with people that intelligence is not the pinnacle of creation, or language.

It's hard to argue with some people that their local football-team doesn't occupy a pinnacle .

 

[articulett]

It's hard to argue with some people that their local football-team doesn't occupy a pinnacle .

Yeah, when players praise Jesus for winning football games, I always think, "ah, so that's what their savior was doing while kids starved in Darfur...fixing football games."

I guess it must feel kind of cool to feel divine or chosen or eternal. But I never felt that. Religion just confused me--never could make sense of it. Evolution answered so many more questions and so much better. I hope I can make it easier for others to learn the details.

Evolution isn't worth arguing about any more than gravity. But it sure is worth understanding. I think it's the kind of principle that unlocks a lot of other kinds of understanding. This is similar to Nash's game theory. And so much of what Dennet talks about.

But some people cannot get it. It takes a certain kind of foundation.

I understand why some people who actually understand evolution would call it random--they mean "unplanned" based on serendipityd--but I also understand why biologists bend over backwards to explain natural selection and how it builds complexity from the randomness, and why they loathe Behe's obfuscation with that word and the confusion it causes many people.

Evolution is fairly simple--Behe makes it mystical and murky and incomprehensible--just like Deepak Chopra and all gurus and those who speak for the "divine". They have a vested interest in having people not understand natural selection--to have people believe that scientists think that life came to be willy nilly--hap hazardly. It reminds me of the Goldilocks universe argument that gets it so, so backwards: the world is so perfectly suited for us, that it must have evolved with us in mind.

I agree with hitchens that this sort of thinking is infantile and egocentric.

 

[articulett]

I think I understand what Meadmaker was saying. I really liked the analogy, it reminded me of Hofstadter's dialogues in Godel Escher Bach.

He's saying in a longer form something I was going to say. If I were to try to frame evolution in terms of what it has to do with randomness, and I had six words to do it, I wouldn't say "Evolution is random", nor "Evolution is not random", but "Evolution is a game of chance". I think we can all agree on that. As to whether a game of chance is random or not, well it depends on the game and who you ask. Articulett wouldn't call the game of chance known as evolution random. I would. I would say the stock market is random, some would not. It depends on the game, and who you ask. Hard determinists would say there is no such thing as a game of chance, I would disagree. For me, evolution has enough randomness (introduced in many forms at every step) that I call it random.

Yes. And evolution also has four syllables.

The question in the OP was about the non-random elements. Do you understand natural selection and why it is referred to as the opposite of random? Do you understand that they are referring to the opposite of "random" as it is applied to "random" mutation?

 

[Meadmaker]

In college, there was a professor who had a cartoon on his door. Picture two medieval armies, charging toward each other. They are huge and cover a vast plain, and they are about to engage in mortal combat.

One has a banner that says "ketchup". One has a banner that says "Catsup".

There's something about this thread that reminds me of the cartoon.

 

[articulett]

Jim-bob--here's how creationists argue the poker hand analogy:

Specified complexity is not a biblical concept.

If you are playing poker and lose to someone who gets dealt 15 royal flushes in a row and are willing to say to yourself he was just real lucky and there was no cheating involved then you are, quite simply, a fool.

If you start tallying up the (im)probabilities of life as we know it coming about through chance it makes that run of royal flushes look positively commonplace.

My mama didn’t raise any fools. When presented with the overwhelming appearance of design the most rational assumption to make, until proven otherwise, is that it is a design. When confronted with the overwhelming improbability of something happening by random chance the most rational assumption to make, until proven otherwise, is it did not happen by random chance.

I linked a lot of this before. If anyone thinks that random and all it's various definitions aren't used by "intelligent design" proponents to cloud the issue rather than clarify is just plain naive. Intelligent Design proponents just like QM gurus want to act as if they are being scientific and are taken seriously by science--so they engage in "debates" that are always dishonest. Their aim is to obfuscate, because none of their alternative theories ever has any evidence in support of it. It's the defense strategy of one with a guilty client. This is what Mijo is doing. It's what Behe is doing. It's what Kleinman is doing. The best answers to Mijos questions have been supplied by many. There are no clearer answers than Dawkins or talk origins. If mijo is drawn to your explanation, it's because you are saying something he can readily understand and twist into the above. More examples from this earlier point in the thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2619047&postcount=444

I'm not sure it's worth explaining the details of natural selection to some people like the one quoted above. But I urge others to be aware of the above interpretation that many people have when you say the theory of evolution says complexity arises through random chance (or chance alone) or "stochastic processess"...or other vagaries. Until someone understands exactly what you mean by random (or stochastic) it's probably best to avoid the word. The OP question was about the non-random aspects of evolution. The answers have been given repeatedly. The only answers accepted were the ones that allow for creationist conundrum #4. Draw your own conclusions.

But I'm with Talk Origins on this one--if you sum up evolution with such a vague description, you don't understand natural selection. And this makes someone ripe for manipulation by others with a vested interest in obfuscation.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No. The question is... this what definition are you using to call evolution random. And what is your definition of non-random that you supposedly want evidence for. And if your goal was to understand why biologists say that natural selection is non-random or that it's just misleading to describe it that way--you have pages of such evidence. And more pages telling you just how imprecise that word is and just how what you are saying about evolution just doesn't convey any information or understanding. You are as clear as Behe. Are you Behe? You even use the word "rigorous definition" (after admitting the words you use cannot be defined with an rigor) just as Behe uses "rigorous understanding of evolution" when he apparently lacks just that.

Are you saying what Behe is saying? Do you agree with him? Is he clear to you in the quotes above? Why do you ignore some very important questions or attempts at clarifying your position--and not just from me...but from the people who actually believe you are not an intelligent design proponent?

Quite simply, articulett, I have already answered your question but you ignore my answers in favor of shoving my explanations into preformed "creationist arguments". By definition, a process in which it is possible to get more than one result for identical initial conditions. Since, not every individual with identical fitness (i.e., the initial condition) passes on its genes to the next generation (i.e., the result), evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process.

 

[articulett]

In college, there was a professor who had a cartoon on his door. Picture two medieval armies, charging toward each other. They are huge and cover a vast plain, and they are about to engage in mortal combat.

One has a banner that says "ketchup". One has a banner that says "Catsup".

There's something about this thread that reminds me of the cartoon.

Yep...it's become about definitions of the word random rather than the question in the OP--.

Of course the OP was the first to use the word and keeps focusing on that word just as Behe does which is why I contend that his aim is to obfuscate, not clarify. Like Behe, and his other thread, he has turned this into a semantic debate rather than a clarification of the evolutionary process--his supposed original intention.

I hope you now understand why Paul et. al. have said that such wording is used to cloud the issue, not clarify. It's a very very common "intelligent design proponent" tactic even if you think it's not or think that you have a better way to address it or think that Dawkins does it wrong. It makes intelligent design proponents think they are being scientifically rigorous and taking serious by scientists (whom they always bad mouth) when they are actually mucking up understanding and looking for ways to use your words to make evolution incomprehensible.

There are very good reasons for Talk Origins et. al. for responding less than openly to such "loaded" questions. They are not designed to be answered.

Mijo is no different than Behe. And Behe will tell you he's not a creationist either.

 

[mijopaalmc]

By the way articulett, Dawkins is not the only evolutionary biologist. There are quite a few evolutionary biologists and other scientist that have had great success in modeling all aspects of evolution by natural selection, including natural selection itself, as a stochastic process. I suggest you spend some time perusing PubMed articles that satisfy the parameters (evolution AND (allele* OR biology OR biologic* OR gene OR genes OR genetic*) AND (probabilistic OR random OR stochastic) NOT (deterministic OR mutat*)); there are 3066 of them. It is completely baffling that you continue to claim that no scientist refers to evolution as "probabilistic", "random", or "stochastic" except when discussing when there is such a vast body literature that says the exact opposite.

 

[articulett]

Quite simply, articulett, I have already answered your question but you ignore my answers in favor of shoving my explanations into preformed "creationist arguments". By definition, a process in which it is possible to get more than one result for identical initial conditions. Since, not every individual with identical fitness (i.e., the initial condition) passes on its genes to the next generation (i.e., the result), evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process.

Just as seat belt wearing is.

Evolution is also a 4 letter word.

But I thought the question was about the non-random aspects.
And if the initial conditions are identical, I suspect you'd get the exact same output--all inputs would be identical, right?

What you define as organisms having identical fitness doesn't mean anything. Even identical twins do not necessarily have the same fitness. The environment selects as it goes. Even at birth one identical twin can be bigger and healthier than the other. And one can stumble blindly into well and die too. Even with identical gene compliments and stumbling factors only one would be removed from the gene pool by natural selection. The one "selected by" his positioning near the hole. The other would have "passed" that elimination round and so would his genes (which by the way would be identical to his brothers). But these are technicalities that have little to do with the basic principle. I'd stick with the biologists definition if you want to convey understanding, because calling evolution a stochastic process doesn't mean anything. Your definition of fitness is just to vague...as is stochastic...to convey any meaning. Sure, chance events mean that not every healthy organism survives--but that doesn't make natural selection a random process. Nor does it make it a stochastic process or a stochastic system. All that wording is superfluous and explains nothing about the facts.

So how does boiling evolution down to a "stochastic process" answer your question in the OP if not for boiling it down to creationist canard #4? And are you Michael Behe? Have you read him? Do you think he's clear or saying anything of value in terms of the word random? Did you go to Lehigh university? Are your degrees the same as his? Do you think you are being clearer than he is? If so, to whom? Isn't his explanation boiling down to creationist canard #4? And do you understand yet, why Talk Origins says it's the opposite of random? Behe is a proponent of "intelligent design" of some sort-- are you? What is your aversion to understanding the non-random aspects of how natural selection builds complexity through time? Why the fixation on the word random and synonyms thereof? How is your fixation different than Behe's. To me, you sound nearly identical.

 

[articulett]

By the way articulett, Dawkins is not the only evolutionary biologist. There are quite a few evolutionary biologists and other scientist that have had great success in modeling all aspects of evolution by natural selection, including natural selection itself, as a stochastic process. I suggest you spend some time perusing PubMed articles that satisfy the parameters (evolution AND (allele* OR biology OR biologic* OR gene OR genes OR genetic*) AND (probabilistic OR random OR stochastic) NOT (deterministic OR mutat*)); there are 3066 of them. It is completely baffling that you continue to claim that no scientist refers to evolution as "probabilistic", "random", or "stochastic" except when discussing when there is such a vast body literature that says the exact opposite.

I did; there isn't. You are incorrect. Your cites (supposedly the best of this vast literature) did not describe evolution as you do. Moreover, your question was about "non-random", remember? I gave you direct links to peer reviewed biologists who are familiar with your question and their answers. The only answers that satisfied you are the ones that you can plug into your understanding of evolution--which truly does boil down to creationist claim #4. Or if it doesn't, you sure haven't clarified how. It's not wrong. It's just uninformative and shows a lack of understanding as to selective forces. It mucks up understanding rather than clarifying it. And you know it. Because that is your intention.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I did; there isn't. You are incorrect. Your cites (supposedly the best of this vast literature) did not describe evolution as you do. Moreover, your question was about "non-random", remember? I gave you direct links to peer reviewed biologists who are familiar with your question and their answers. The only answers that satisfied you are the ones that you can plug into your understanding of evolution--which truly does boil down to creationist claim #4. Or if it doesn't, you sure haven't clarified how. It's not wrong. It's just uninformative and shows a lack of understanding as to selective forces. It mucks up understanding rather than clarifying it. And you know it. Because that is your intention.

If you think that my cites didn't support my arguments, you obviously haven't read them. The review I cited had five pages on the stochastic modeling of natural selection.

 

[articulett]

Mijo,
What you are doing is so similar to a conversation I got in with a friend--a really smart guy, who was raised to believe in "intelligent design"-- (He was raised Catholic as was I.) He referred to the controversy over evolution in science and I explained that there really wasn't a controversy about whether evolution happened (and is happening) in science--that the controversy was between religion and science. And he said he'd read a times article (I think it was called Evolution Wars), and they said there was a controversy, and so I must be calling them a liar. I explained that I wasn't calling them a liar, and that I suspect he was misinterpreting the article, I was pretty sure Time would not be so non-scholarly to give credence to the creationist claim. I was correct. But it could still be twisted to look like his claim was also true or that some scientists (Behe) of some sort had problems with things (that damn eye conundrum)--but he wouldn't hear it. He kept arguing the straw man as you are. He kept saying that I was calling Time a liar--instead discussing whether there was actually a controversy over evolution in the scientific community. He would not even re-read the article after I brought it up online.

And you are doing that. You are saying I'm disregarding all these papers that use such and such words (Behe's technique exactly, I'll note.) I maintain that the papers you cited are not speaking of evolution in the term or ways you are. I don't think you even understand what you cite. Moreover, they do not answer your question in the OP which you claim "says it all". Dawkins does. Talk Origins does. The Berekely site did. I did. Paul did. Many have. You claim we are misunderstanding you. But it's you--you cannot hear the answers. You cannot hear that your explanation says nothing about evolution and it boils down to a common creationist claim--just like the "discontinuous fossil records" thread. You don't hear or read or absorb anything anyone says unless it can fit into what you want to believe--which I content is on par with Behe and creationist claim #4. Science isn't really like the bible where you can twist the words to pull out whatever meaning you want. The facts are the facts and all you can do is try to understand them. There is no hidden meaning or semantic games that need to be played. Evolution is a simple principle. It's clearer to describe it as biologists do and not as you do. Those who sum it up as you do are missing the part that is the key to undrestanding evolution--natural selection. I can't say it better than the talk origins site or Berkeley or Dawkins or E.O. Wilson, or Piggliucci or Darwin himself. But I can say that you sound exactly as clear as Michael Behe--a known intelligent design proponent and promoter of the wedge strategy--the goal is to undermine the understanding of evolution--to diminish it--and pretend that it's a theory more akin to a hypothesis rather than a fact.

Whatever words you use to describe evolution--it is a fact--the evidence in our genomes is so illustrative of this fact that I think those who aren't able to grasp the basics of evolution will miss some of the most profound understandings of our time. Your definitions are not more "rigorously correct" than Behe's supposed "rigorous understanding of evolution." And the amount of info. and clarity you are conveying is similar. Are you Michael Behe? You seem to share his educational background? How much of him have you read?
Be honest.

 

[articulett]

If you think that my cites didn't support my arguments, you obviously haven't read them. The review I cited had five pages on the stochastic modeling of natural selection.

Yeah...and I'll go dash through all of Behe's cites after that--
Even though he didn't read one single rebuttal peer reviewed article refuting his IC claims.

You posted your "top contenders". I read those. I commented on them. You build yourself up with arguments that don't really support your claims--or the supposed question of the OP. You are doing what Behe does. Exactly. And just what my friend did. I understand why--to support what you want to believe. But you still aren't saying anything...nor have you answered your question...and it all still boils down to creationist claim #4, doesn't it? Your description of evolution would support that claim, correct? And you find nothing of value in the reply by Talk Origins, correct? And you avoid all questions regarding Michael Behe, correct? Yet your argument style is nearly identical, correct? You even make similar requests while ignoring all countering evidence, correct? You don't read any of the links provided while whining about people not reading yours, correct?

I rest my case.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...evolution is a "stochastic process" per mijo's definition...it's also a 4 syllable word...it even rhymes with revolution... But that wasn't the question you wanted answered. And your understanding of natural selection and "fitness" and your mixing of the principles of evolution with possible exceptions makes everything you convey utterly uninformative.
Congratulations on sounding exactly like Michael Behe--a known proponent of "intelligent design". Was that your goal, by "chance"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

It is interesting that you make that my cites do not support my argument nut when I ask you to provide evidence that they don't by explaining what the "really" mean you refuse to "go on a wild goose chase".

If you are going to make a claim the my cites don't support my argument, you need to provided evidence that they don't.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

It is interesting that you make that my cites do not support my argument nut when I ask you to provide evidence that they don't by explaining what the "really" mean you refuse to "go on a wild goose chase".

If you are going to make a claim the my cites don't support my argument, you need to provided evidence that they don't.

To paraphrase you:

Quite simply, mijo, I have already answered your question but you ignore my answers in favor of boiling everything down to the following: "since, not every individual with identical fitness (i.e., the initial condition) passes on its genes to the next generation (i.e., the result), evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process" (per Mijo's definition--which is a synonym for random per mijo's definition which means that Mijo's conclusion is, as it always has been, identical to creationist conundrum #4. )

If that's your definition of "stochastic process" then I agree. Per mijo's definition, evolution is a "stochastic process". I'm saying that is just not informative, fails to clarify natural selection, muddies understanding, and makes you sound identical to Behe. You just aren't saying anything. I bet I can show you tons of dictionaries that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is a 4 syllable word. But so what? How does that answer your question? The question you really didn't want to have answered, because your answer has always been to paraphrase creationist conundrum #4. You fail to compute the non-random aspects of evolution. You can't. (I could then be like you and point out that you never addressed all my cites to dictionaries proving that evolution did, indeed, have 4 syllables.)

You can't understand the incremental nature of natural selection, because you must always boil your conclusion down to some paraphrase of creationist conundrum #4. If that wasn't the case, then the Talk Origins quote and the many many supplied just like it, would have answered your question. But you were only looking to confirm your own murky explanation of evolution. Like Behe, you pretend to sort of answer questions and pretend like no-one answers your questions or addresses your concerns. But that's just a big ol' dishonest lie in the name of your "intelligent designer". It's what you don't say and the oblique way you say things and the way you attack straw-men or claim support that isn't there that makes you indistinguishable from Behe.

It's not my duty to prove to you (as if) your cites don't support your claims (though I did)--because the actual facts and answers to your question are supported by multiple sources. Moreover, you've turned this into a semantic game. Evolution is a fact...not a semantic game. I love explaining it to those who actually want to understand it. I can't stand engaging in dialogue with creationists. It's impossible.

Evolution is not an argument. The only argument you make is how to define it. Whether it can be called "stochastic" and whether that means anything or whether that answers your OP question or which words are best for describing which aspects are ALL semantic games. I'm not interested in semantic games. As far as I'm concerned, that's on par with arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I'm interested in helping people who can understand evolution to actually understand it. Your interest is in boiling everything down to creationist claim #4 so that you can purposely not understand evolution. It's exactly what Michael Behe is doing. I have no idea if you are still fooling anyone at this point. But I hope that anyone stumbling upon the pages now and in the future can see just exactly how creationists obfuscate while claiming some higher ground and avoiding giving their hand away. To me, you are the epitome of Behe on cross examination.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Articulett, your arguments are specious at best.

You think a good summation of evolution is random mutation coupled with natural selection. That is as about as informative as saving to someone that a cars power train is thermodynamics coupled with Newtonian mechanics. It says nothing to someone who doesn't already understand it.

You have employed a straw argument saying we think it is clear "to sum up the entirety of evolution as 'random' or a 'stochastic process'".
You have continually tried to equate arguments on the other side with those of creationists. You have claimed that none of the articles treat natural selection as a stochastic process, even after I pointed to the section that does just that. Then have the gall to accuse others of not reading your cites. In other words, you have argued dishonestly.

You have repeated that natural selection builds complexity? No, it doesn't. Mutation builds complexity, up or down, selection chooses from amongst the results, complex or simple. Having only selective processes acting on the population, nothing gets more complex. At best things can remain stable, but at the most likely result is a gradual simplification. Without mutation, we are still all bacteria. As long as you don't display this understanding I don't see how you can judge others understanding of evolution.

Walt