What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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 continual tried to equate arguments on the other side with those of creationist. 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 gal to accuse others of not reading your cites. In other words, you have argued dishonestly.

You have repeated natural selection builds complexity? No, it doesn't. Mutation builds it 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

Incorrect...across the board. And since my definition is on par with Dawkins, Talk Origins, the Berkeley site, the vast majority of biologists, my science dictionary, and all leaders in the field of evolution, PLUS I HAVE successfully conveyed the idea to people far less educated than you--such that they could describe and answer questions about evolution much better than mijo, that makes your conclusions of how I can assess others understanding of evolution just plain ignorance on your part. Also, I have had years of dealing with and reading over creationist arguments...such as Behe's. I can smell them a mile a way. What is your expertise on creationist arguments and how do you address Mr. Behe's "murky" use of language, and how is it different from Mijo's?

And there are lots of simple ways to describe evolution. I gave many. And then you fill in the details. But, as the talk origins site and many who deal with the issue will tell you, natural selection is the key to understanding evolution. I have passed multiple exams on this subject, and I don't think that anybody who actually understand evolution doubts my understanding of it. I may not be able to convey understanding to you, but I am able to convey understanding to many and pass board exams on the subject.

As for the rest, it's a semantic game. This is not an argument about evolution since the facts are the same for everybody. This was a thread started with a question very similar to a common creationist conundrum. I and many answered it and provided links to the answers those in the field use to clear up this very simple and misleading notion. And it works. Not always, but much better than anything else. When it comes to a creationist over 40--nothing works. (See the Behe dialogue.) And yes, selection does build complexity in the genome incrementally. But I'm not going to play a semantic game with you on this because you seem to be conversationally challenged from my perspective.

The facts about evolution are the same. The only argument is regarding the best way to describe it. I am the only one calling Mijo a creationist (though I think I've proven my point.) Nobody has found your way or anyone else's way of describing evolution better at conveying natural selection to anybody as far as I can tell. Nor does Mijo's claim answer his own question or offer any useful information about evolution.

The question was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution? Multiple answers have been given--some from the top scientists in the field. If you don't understand the answers, then maybe the question was bad. Or maybe you think you have a better answer, but you have not provided it. I can assure you that most people--even young uneducated people find the answers provided by Dawkins, Talk Origins, the Berkeley site, and even me very helpful. I think that even most of the "randomites" can understand the answer and why certain words are ripe for abuse. I don't care how you or anybody else describes evolution. I'm just telling you that to a trained ear, Mijo's definition is identical to Behe's definition. It is a well-worn creationist obfuscation technique. What he says doesn't clarify anything. As for you, I can't even follow what you are saying, and I see no evidence that anyone else can either. Whitey is just simplistic and not worth paying attention to from my perspective... Meadmaker seems much clearer but has an ego problem. It's hard for him to admit that Mijo sounds identical to Behe--a known creationist--a known obfuscater of evolution...one who desires to drive a "wedge" into understanding and fill it with "intelligent design". Moreover, he's repeatedly claimed that this kind of terminology is not a cornerstone of creationist obfuscation, despite tons of evidence showing that it is. It is.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

I commend you again for the mischaracterization of my argument. Despite what you say I do understand natural selection much than you want me to think I do. I understand that certain alleles (or collections thereof) confer on an individual the ability to reproduce more often or in greater numbers and thereby increase the frequency of said alleles (or collections thereof) in the population in successive generations. This is the standard explanation that all of the material that you have cited have offered for natural selection. The problem is that this explanation doesn't provide a mechanism for exactly how such selection happen; it merely describes the outcome of such a process (i.e., that the frequency of alleles or allele collections increase). Talk Origins describes it like this:

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.

(emphasis mine)

Note how Talk Origins says only that natural selection is "the very opposite of chance" and that it "sorts out certain variations" because favorable mutant alleles (or collections thereof) "are retained" while unfavorable mutant alleles "are weeded out"; it doesn't explain how the variation sorting, retention of favorable entities, and weeding out of unfavorable entities work. I have always contended that natural selection is either deterministic or stochastic. Deterministic natural selection allows all the individuals with favorable alleles or allele collections to survive and all those with unfavorable alleles or allele collections to perish, whereas stochastic evolution allows some individuals with favorable alleles or allele collections to die while others survive and some individuals with unfavorable alleles or allele collections to survive while others die. As far as I know, natural selection functions in the latter way and is therefore stochastic.

None of this makes my argument a creationist argument. Creationists reason from the talk of probabilities that life in its current form is too complex to have arisen completely by chance. I, or any other of the other "randomites", have made no such argument; therefore, it is grossly inaccurate to characterize our arguments as such.

 

[Taffer]

Wow, talk about a thread of long posts...

Mijopaalmc, what is your problem with the description of evolution Meadmaker gave many pages back?

ETA: Oh, and by definition, selection is the opposite of random.

 

[articulett]

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/course/tb/tb/node28.html

Stochastic versus deterministic models

The interpretation of scatter as measurement error originates from physics. It is usually not realistic in biology, where many variables can be measured accurately in comparison with the amount of scatter. The observations just happen to differ from model expectations. When the scatter is large, the model is useless, despite its goodness of fit as a stochastic model. A realistic way of dealing with scatter is far from easy and usually gives rise to highly complicated models. Modelers are frequently forced to compromise between realism and mathematical over-simplicity. This further degrades the strict application of goodness of fit tests for models with unrealistic stochastic components.

You can't find the answer you want in the definitions provided, because such terminology is just not useful if your goal was to understand how natural selection is the opposite of chance. Many, many, people have told you that.
And the cite above says as much.

Selection just refers to environmental factors; it's more akin to a "force" than an event. It acts through time.-- It just doesn't clarify anything to describe describe natural selection itself with the terms you use, How do you get order from randomness? Not by more randomness--but by selection and the accumulation of incremental changes through time. Although "random events" may be a part of selection--that doesn't change them from being selective or make it useful to define all of natural selection as random or "stochastic" or even deterministic--though many think it is. Identical inputs WOULD have identical outputs...but the inputs as you define them are not identical. The ones you describe as having identical fitness, inhabit separate bodies and thus live in a separate physical space. They cannot have the exact same physical world acting upon them. The selective forces are not identical. Remember, selection is just any and every physical factor that acts on an organism that makes it less or more likely to get copied. That's it. There is no "how" except that.

The truth is, no amount of evidence could answer your question. You already had the answer you wanted. What evidence could have been provided for you to come to a different conclusion? And how is your explanation different than the creationist conundrum? And no, I don't think you understand the building aspect of natural selection if you cannot fathom how selection from randomness is not the same as the randomness itself.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wow, talk about a thread of long posts...

Mijopaalmc, what is your problem with the description of evolution Meadmaker gave many pages back?

ETA: Oh, and by definition, selection is the opposite of random.

What description would that be?

Oh, and just because selection is constrained by what has happened before and is biased toward fitter individuals doesn't mean that it is non-random. It is still fundamentally based on probability because identical initial conditions do not have identical results. How else would you describe a system like that?

 

[Taffer]

What description would that be?

"Yes, that's accurate, but it isn't all that helpful in understanding evolution. The important thing to understand is that even though survival in one generation is random, it is random with a non-uniform probability. Over many generations, the probability of survival of a gene with low fitness complements is so small that we can neglect it, while the higher fitness complement will certainly dominate. In fact, those probabilities are so close to 0 and 1 respectively that it's questionable whether the word "random" is even appropriate."

Oh, and just because selection is constrained by what has happened before and is biased toward fitter individuals doesn't mean that it is non-random. It is still fundamentally based on probability because identical initial conditions do not have identical results. How else would you describe a system like that?

I'm fairly certain that selection per se is the direct opposite of "random", although a mathematician would have to back me up on that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm fairly certain that selection per se is the direct opposite of "random", although a mathematician would have to back me up on that.

Actually, the published literature on this topic (e.g., Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology) refer to selection coefficient (i.e., the difference between the fitness of the mutant allele and the fitness of wild type allele) as being "much less than unity", meaning the probability of the survival of the mutant allele is very close to that of the wild type.

I find it interesting that the post of Meadmaker's you picked was two weeks old especially since he has offered much more complete and less contrived explanations of his position later on.

 

[Taffer]

Actually, the published literature on this topic (e.g., Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology) refer to selection coefficient (i.e., the difference between the fitness of the mutant allele and the fitness of wild type allele) as being "much less than unity", meaning the probability of the survival of the mutant allele is very close to that of the wild type.

Yes, mij, I know what a selection coefficient is.

Now, what does this have to do with "selection"?

Note the lack of the word "natural".

I find it interesting that the post of Meadmaker's you picked was two weeks old especially since he has offered much more complete and less contrived explanations of his position later on.

I haven't been following the thread all that closely. Care to point to these explanations?

And you don't have any commentson this position?

 

[jimbob]

articulett, I think you are probably misunderstanding mijo's viewpoint, and I suspect that (s)he does understand, and accept evolution perfectly well. It is just the definition of the word random where the disagreement lies.

mijo:
a) Did humanity evolve?

b) When Australia became an island, were kangaroos inevitable?

c) When Australia became an island, were large herbivorous marsupials highly likely? And carnivorous marsupials to prey on them?

articulett
my answers would be a) yes, b) no, c) yes.

Jim

 

[articulett]

articulett, I think you are probably misunderstanding mijo's viewpoint, and I suspect that (s)he does understand, and accept evolution perfectly well. It is just the definition of the word random where the disagreement lies.

mijo:
a) Did humanity evolve?

b) When Australia became an island, were kangaroos inevitable?

c) When Australia became an island, were large herbivorous marsupials highly likely? And carnivorous marsupials to prey on them?

articulett
my answers would be a) yes, b) no, c) yes.

Jim

Yes, we've all determined that the word random is imprecise...but he is still using it and a word that he has declared is synonymous with random. Here is what you are missing.

He asked a question in the OP, "What evidence is there for evolution being non-random"? He was told that it was a weird question with semantic vagaries. The answer to his OP question is this: there is no evidence evolution is non-random that would satisfy mijo. Why? Because he wishes to characterize evolution the same way Behe does and the same way as creationist conundrum #4 per talk origins. e.g. "Scientists claim all this happened by chance".

You are hearing him give your definition of random. You mean purposeless ...unguided-- But you also can understand how or why Dawkins, Talk Origins, me, Taffer, and others would say that "selection" is the opposite of random, right? It is the de-randomizer. Mijo can't understand that. Neither can Michael Behe a known "intelligent design proponent"--I cut and pasted his exact words a couple of pages back. What mijo is saying this: Mutations are random and selection is stochastic (which is a synonym for random per mijo); therefore evolution is random. The biologists are saying that "mutations are relatively random, and although random factors may influence selection, it would be misleading to characterize selection itself as random." Selection is anything in the environment that increases or decreases an organisms success. It is the De-randomizer. It's not one thing or even a series of things. It's all forces and physical events that act on an organism.

He isn't saying anything. He answers questions obliquely or not at all. The questions you ask him give you no way of distinguishing him from Michael Behe, a known proponent of intelligent design. And when such questions are asked, he avoids them.

His question was about the evidence for evolution being non-random.
Multiple people including peer reviewed scientists and the top experts on the topic have pretty much said that selection is the opposite of random or that it's misleading to characterize selection as random. Having random components doesn't make a process random (or stochastic) nor is that explanatory in any way. Moreover, the randomness as applied to mutation (which aren't really random in the strictest sense) is not the same random as hypothetical random events that are part of the selection process. His definition makes no distinction. His answer to his own question is as it has always been. There is no evidence that evolution is non-random that will satisfy mijo.

Just like his conclusion on his other thread that scientists can't explain the "discontinuity" in the fossil record.

I contend that his question was asked to attempt others to join in his conclusion. And so that he can satisfy himself that is being "scientifically rigorous" while being as obfuscating as Behe. I think you are misunderstanding creationist doubletalk. Read the Behe links a couple pages back. I cut and pasted and there's so much. He letting people hear what they want to hear while not saying anything at all.

Ask yourself this. What was his original question? Why didn't any answers except the ones where he can draw his conclusion identical to creationist conundrum #4 satisfy him? What his his problem with the talk origins explanation? Is evolution stochastic or deterministic as he was supposedly trying to find out? And what does that mean? How does that help anyone understand evolution, natural selection, or the non-random elements of evolution? If you had asked that question, and you were given the talk origins answer as highlighted by mijo in red--would you come to the same conclusion that there is no evidence for evolution being non-random? --That the article didn't say "how"??!!?

Or would you, like everyone else, decide that it was the word that was the problem and aim to clarify instead of using more obfuscating words to say variations of the exact same thing. He has said, "I'm not unconvinced evolution is non-random." "Scientists don't know enough to say whether evolution is random or not" "Nobody has answered my question". "85 years of research describe evolution as a stochastic process". Etc. The only answers that satisfy him are those that allow him to paraphrase creationist conundrum #4 (evolution says that life arose and proceeds through random chance.) It allows for the response given by the guy in the quote who says "my mama didn't raise no fool--you'd be a fool to think this could all come about by chance".

Really, read Behe. How do you think Mijo is different? He is suckering you guys right in. But he isn't saying anything at all. He's defensive. He had the answer to his insincere question from the get go. He asks horrible questions for someone who actually wants to understand something and shows a complete inability and lack of curiosity to having his questions answered.

I love it because it's so predictable. Mijo's conclusion will always be that there is no evidence that evolution is non-random (whatever that means)...just as Behe will claim that there is no evidence that some things aren't irreducibly complex...and Kleinman will state that there is no evidence that a gene could evolve de novo. These things might be true with the right semantic twist--but they don't mean anything...yet they are said with the implication that they do. The same is true of all of mijo statements. All of them. He's using words, but not conveying any information. He's obfuscating (per wedge strategy) not clarifying...not for himself, not for you, not for anyone else. And he's doing so while patting himself on the back for getting a "rigorous" definition just as Behe claims to have a rigorous understanding of evolution.

 

[articulett]

Yes, mij, I know what a selection coefficient is.

Now, what does this have to do with "selection"?

Note the lack of the word "natural".



I haven't been following the thread all that closely. Care to point to these explanations?

And you don't have any commentson this position?

Warning...warning...mijo will turn this into a semantic game rather than a clarification as to how evolution is non-random.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
I have always contended that natural selection is either deterministic or stochastic. Deterministic natural selection allows all the individuals with favorable alleles or allele collections to survive and all those with unfavorable alleles or allele collections to perish, whereas stochastic evolution allows some individuals with favorable alleles or allele collections to die while others survive and some individuals with unfavorable alleles or allele collections to survive while others die. As far as I know, natural selection functions in the latter way and is therefore stochastic.

The bolded section is very misleading. It should read:

"...stochastic evolution allows most individuals with favorable alleles or allele collections to survive while fewer die and most individuals with unfavorable alleles or allele collections to die while fewer survive."

That is, unless you're trying to confuse people

The important point is that the "most" and "fewer" terms are non-random parts in evolution that natural selection provides.

 

[Taffer]

Warning...warning...mijo will turn this into a semantic game rather than a clarification as to how evolution is non-random.

Semantic games are fine. I just want to see his response to the description I gave, though.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Selection doesn't negate the chance aspect, because the creation process is still pure, 100% random mutation.

Well, not really. Mutation is constrained by the environment, too. For example, it's constrained to obey the laws of chemistry. It's also constrained to operate within the chemical structure that encodes genetic information (DNA, RNA, etc.).

~~ Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, we've all determined that the word random is imprecise...but he is still using it and a word that he has declared is synonymous with random. Here is what you are missing.

He asked a question in the OP, "What evidence is there for evolution being non-random"? He was told that it was a weird question with semantic vagaries. The answer to his OP question is this: there is no evidence evolution is non-random that would satisfy mijo. Why? Because he wishes to characterize evolution the same way Behe does and the same way as creationist conundrum #4 per talk origins. e.g. "Scientists claim all this happened by chance".

And this is your problem with responding to any of my arguments; you have preconceived notion of the conclusions I drew from what I argue. You are all too eager to say that, since I think that evolution is by definition "random", I think that evolution couldn't have happened at all, because that's what "all" people who argue against evolution say. I also find it interesting that I have tried to move away from using because of its hopelessly wide lexical range but you who keep insisting on using "random" so that, I imagine, that you can equivocate and say the evolution is "non-random" by the definition you picked and therefore it is "non-random" by all definitions or that the definitions by which evolution is "random" don't make any sense. I have tried to be as rigorous in defining "stochastic process" as I can because describing evolution as a stochastic process is much more precise than just calling it "random". Furthermore, such a description has 85 years of supporting research. However, the most rigorous mathematical definition require a background in basic probability theory and no-one seems willing to take the time to try to understand stochastic processes as a branch of probability theory.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, not really. Mutation is constrained by the environment, too. For example, it's constrained to obey the laws of chemistry. It's also constrained to operate within the chemical structure that encodes genetic information (DNA, RNA, etc.).

~~ Paul

Well, that's true. Of course, that's a pretty advanced point. I think it's important to get the basics down first, and then when people understand those, you can move on to more advanced concepts.

I had a conversation with my father in law this morning. Before he retired, quite a few years ago, he was a car salesman. We were talking about how to sell cars. He likes to tell people how to be a good salesman, and I occasionally suggest that the way he sells cars worked great for him, but there are some customers it wouldn't have worked with. No, he assured me. His way was the right way to sell cars, and if wouldn't have worked in trying to sell a car me, it was because I was very, very, unusual.

Lest anyone think I am trying to compare teaching evolution to selling used cars, I want to assure you that he sold brand new Cadillacs.

 

[Meadmaker]

no-one seems willing to take the time to try to understand stochastic processes as a branch of probability theory.

I don't think the word "no one" is accurate in this statement. I think you are overgeneralizing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't think the word "no one" is accurate in this statement. I think you are overgeneralizing.

You are correct, and I apologize.

 

[Dancing David]

Emphasis added.

Ding!

Randomly distributed values tend to conform to a Gaussian curve, Poisson distributions, and other statistical measures. We can state with extremely high degrees of certainty that, for example, the fitness of an impala is correlated with its peak ground speed. That some fast impalas die without reproducing and some slow imapalas get lucky, reproduce often, and die old, is a given. We are extremely confident when saying that their fitness is not random because randomly distributed fitness values would not have any relation to any traits.

And yet we cannot describe all the variables of a potential environment. If there is drought or a blizzard than the determining train may be unknown. Organisms cannot have foreknowledge of environmental benefit. The environment shifts and has different pressures, this may be pseudo-random or random.

Staying with the herd may be a more important survival trait than running speed, as is a good startle reflex. So while there are causal relationships that lead to reproductive success, there is the element of the organism in a shifting environment. Traits that are selected for in one environment are not selected in another.

This is a big part of the random nature of natural selection.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm fairly certain that selection per se is the direct opposite of "random", although a mathematician would have to back me up on that.

You'll get no help from a mathematician. To a mathematician, selection is random. There is one sense of the word "random" in use within mathematics, and in that sense, selection is random.

What can happen is that even a random process can have outcomes which have probabilities so nearly 0 or 1 that one could argue whether it even makes sense to describe that outcome using random variables.

FWIW: I remain just as happy with the two week old description as I was when I made it.

Final thought for this post: It's quite easy to remember how to talk when describing evolution. When using the word "theory" it is important to use the precise, technical definition used by scientists or mathematicians, and avoid the use of the commonly understood layman's definition. The layman's definition is very misleading. When using the word "random", it is important to only use the layman's definition. The precise description used by mathematicians and scientists (at least those in the "hard" sciences where mathematical models are common) is misleading.