What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

Schneibster, would you read this link and still come to the conclusions that it is accurate to say there is "no evidence for evolution being non-random"?http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_32

The chance part IS amazing... I've already gone into my whole spiel about the first time to prokaryotic cells merged to make the first eukaryotic cell...about how the world would be completely different in untold ways if the sperm just to the left of the one that made Hitler had fertilized the egg instead--who knows if I'd exist or anyone on this thread--different people would have lived and died and married and mated and invented things and written history books and been the villains and taught the lessons and changed the zeitgeist...and we can't know how. I understand the randomness...I do...and even the breathtaking nature of it. I know that all sorts of "random events" can influence natural selection--but I think it's misleading to call natural selection itself "random" and uninformative to call evolution random. If having random components defines a process as random or "stochastic" then what process isn't random? And if all processes are random, then of what use it to describe evolution that way, and how does that help one understand the "non-random" aspects of evolution? Why is the above cite not evidence that, if nothing else, calling natural selection a "stochastic process" obfuscates more than clarifies? Mijo used the Berkeley site in his own cites...and yet they themselves, say that natural selection is not random. I wouldn't necessarily go that far--but I would say that calling it random muddies the issue rather than clarifying.

I re-read mijo and I just hear him saying over and over, "there is no evidence that evolution is 'non-random'" To me that says, "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random that mijo will accept. He sounds indistinguishable from an "intelligent design" proponent to me. If he's isn't, he only has Behe and the Wedge document to blame. Yes, they've made me and all who deal with them suspicious of fake questions designed to promote a viewpoint rather than answer a question. And I think this post and his post about the "discontinuity in the fossil record" do just that. He asks questions that he will not accept any answer for. That is what creationists do. A lot. They are known for starting threads with the same sort of weird questions...I mean 2 questions that were listed in the top 5 of creationist strawmen at talk origins?--and their answers and no one elses' merited consideration unless it boiled down to "there is no evidence"?

I have had accusations made of me...but unless they have some basis of truth in it, they don't bother me. If the goal is to clarify the facts, why would opinions be important? If one truly wanted to understand the non-random aspects of evolution, wouldn't they be grateful for the info. rather than dismissive and defensive regarding their intent? I understand what you are saying. I don't think Mijo is coming from the same place.

 

[articulett]

I think that taking that approach bars many physical scientists from fully comprehending what biologists mean when they say, "evolution is not random." It sure did me; took Dawkins to explain it to me.

BTW, I was just poking fun with the biologist comment- be nice.

Oh, I can't be. I enjoy surliness too much. You know I have cyber balls to compensate for my more demure real life persona. Besides, I'm a "mean atheist".

http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-atheism-controversy-explained.html

So you do understand what Dawkin's means when he says "evolution is not random"? Why doesn't Mijo?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think Schneibster's discussion of order out of chaos is very insightful.

That phenomenon is one that is truly intriguing to many people who have studied physical sciences, and especially to computer scientists. We love to write simulations that show lots and lots of little particles/neurons/simulated organisms acting randomly on an individual scale, and showing the ordered emergent properties of the collection as a whole.

When looking at such a system, would you call it "random" or "non random"? For my part, it would depend on my audience, and the point I was trying to make. If I was describing the process, it would be random. If describing the result, it would be non-random. I don't think one description is better than the other.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

When looking at such a system, would you call it "random" or "non random"? For my part, it would depend on my audience, and the point I was trying to make. If I was describing the process, it would be random. If describing the result, it would be non-random. I don't think one description is better than the other.

While it's generally a good idea to use words your audience will understand and that will convey your message most persuasively, that is precisely the wrong attitude to take towards the definitions of terms with regards to a scientific theory. "Planet" has a very precise meaning to astronomers, "strange" has a precise meaning to particle physicists, and "random" has a precise meaning to evolutionary biologists. You cannot use the common, everyday usage of the word "random" when discussing evolution because that is not how the scientists use it. When you make the mistake of using the word "random" in its common usage when discussing evolution you stop making sense.

 

[Meadmaker]

You'll get no objection from me for using the precise, technical definition of random. That's my favorite.

However, it has been said that such a definition is unwise.

When you make the mistake of using the word "random" in its common usage when discussing evolution you stop making sense.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But this thread wasn't about the ways people can define random or the ways various sciences do or even the way lay people do. It was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution. I suppose in that case, an agreed upon definition would help.

It's nice to see that you have assumed your unofficial moderator position so well. Seriously, articulett, I fail to see how you can consistently claim that this thread is not "about the ways people can define random or the ways various sciences do or even the way lay people do" and then turn around and claim that "an agreed upon definition would help".

But so far there has been no definition that can meaningfully be applied so that one might distinguish non-random aspects of evolution from the random components of mutation. I believe the non random process mentioned was weather prediction. The stochastic example involved the stock market. The conclusion therefore is that natural is somehow more like the stock market (stochastic) then it is like weather forecasting (which mijo says is deterministic)...and therefore evolution is "not non-random".

The only reason that you are still confused about what I mean by random is because you refuse to acknowledge that I have taken time to explain that I use "stochastic" as a synonym for "random" I do so only in so far as both refer to situations involving probability. In fact, this interpretation of "random" was quite explicit in my OP:

The title of the thread says it all. I understand that evolution is a process directed through natural selection, but, as I understand it, natural selection is based on the probability, not certainty, of an organism with a specific "fitness complement" (i.e., the set of genes that contribute to its survival and reproduction relative to others of the same species). An individual whose fitness complement confers a greater chance of survival and reproduction is only more likely to survive and reproduce that one with a fitness complement that a lesser chance, but the survival and reproduction is not determined to such an extent that all the individuals with a specific fitness complement don not survive and reproduce. Thus, it is possible for one individual with a certain fitness complement to survive while another individual with the same fitness complement doesn't.

I only ask this, because I am thoroughly disappointed in the evidence that I have received from the posters in this thread. No-one to my knowledge has either explained how a process that operates on probability is non-random or directed me toward a resource that does. They all seem to be more interested, as is most of the literature on the internet that doesn't specifically deal with non-random genetic processes such as mutation and unequal cross over, in refuting the creationist straw man that holds that organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me toward some literature (especially of the peer-reviewed kind)that explain clearly and concisely why evolution is non-random.

I can't imagine anyone finding that a satisfying or useful answer to the question in the OP, nor can I imagine anyone having anything about evolution or randomness clarified by such commentary.

That's because I framed the question with the responses that I had already received and was certain that I was going to receive in mind. Honestly, none of the answers that you (and I mean you specifically) have provided even begin to explain why a process that is based in probability isn't "random" by the definition I have given. Instead, you have continued to argue that evolution is "non-random" because it is constrained, dependent of prior events, and the probabilities are non-uniformly distributed.

 

[Schneibster]

OK, well, let's put it this way: "random" to most people means "not orderly," and "not orderly" is not a good description of evolution. However, to a physical scientist, "random" doesn't necessarily mean "not orderly." "Stochastic" refers specifically to phenomena that show this sort of behavior, though it does not refer to the behavior itself. In fact, I have been trying to think of a phenomenon that is stochastic, yet does not show the emergence of orderly behavior, and the only one I've come up with so far is Brownian motion; not a very good example, and one I suspect someone will ding me on as actually showing order in a way I had not thought of.

So as I implied above, this is, IMHO, not a conversation about evolution, but a conversation about the meaning of random. Until random is well defined, we can't state whether there is evidence that evolution is non-random or not. If by random one means that evolution doesn't show order, that is wrong; there is extensive data to show that evolution is orderly and conforms to strict laws imposed by physics, statistics, chemistry, biochemistry, and other well-established branches of physical science and mathematics. If, on the other hand, by random one means that evolution is comprised of many events that show little relation in their outcomes to one another, from which an overall order emerges, then there is extensive evidence to show that evolution is in fact random.

Now, if someone is straight on how natural selection works, there will be no question about using the second definition, and no question about those of us who are involved in the physical sciences agreeing; if not, then the first definition will be pushed, or the existence of Brownian motion (or some other example of stochasm that does not yield an orderly outcome) pushed as a "wedge" to try to question whether the random underpinnings of evolution actually result in an orderly outcome. The proper way to deal with this second case is to state that the fact that we can theoretically trace any phenotypical characteristic back to the alleles that define it or the environmental influence that shapes it, and that we have done so in fact for many such characteristics and see no reason to believe that there are any that we cannot do it for, shows that such order is manifest, and such a contention is therefore rendered false.

Now, I don't believe that this argument leaves a creationist anywhere to stand. For my part, I think of Darwin's theory as the Law of Evolution by Natural Selection, because of the mathematical, physical, chemical, biochemical, and so forth underpinnings, which are bottom-up proof, and the top-down proof of the relation of phenotypical characteristics to genes. Neither is sufficient on its own, but together they make it clear that this is a Law of Nature, IMHO.

My point being, when I say, "evolution is random," I mean the second, not the first. And it should be considered that others should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say this; the essential question is not, "is evolution random," but, "is evolution orderly." If the answer to this question is, "yes," then one is not dealing with a creationist, because the creationist argument is that "evilution is random, therefore it cannot result in the order we see."

OK, now have at it. We'll find out now what the positions of people are quite quickly, I think, now that we have a good definition of "random" to use, and can pin people who use the word down to which meaning they have in mind; MeadMaker's and my stances are clear, I think, without further ado. Mijo?

 

[mijopaalmc]

OK, now have at it. We'll find out now what the positions of people are quite quickly, I think, now that we have a good definition of "random" to use, and can pin people who use the word down to which meaning they have in mind; MeadMaker's and my stances are clear, I think, without further ado. Mijo?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I realize that most of the confusion about calling evolution "random" comes from the multiplicity of definitions that "random" has. This is why I have tried to move away from "random" to "stochastic", but I am drawn back to "random" as articulett continues to claim that "stochastic" is synonymous with all the definitions of "random". I would very much like to offer a full explanation of why evolution is a "stochastic process", but a clear explanation of the rigorous mathematical definition still eludes me as I am still trying to grasp it in terms that I can understand and explain clearly and concisely. In the meantime, however, I would stick to the definitions that I have provided above as describing "random" and "stochastic" as relating to probability (distributions).

I nonetheless believe that evolution can occur in an orderly fashion in large populations and over long periods of time even if its underlying processes are stochastic.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, I can't be. I enjoy surliness too much. You know I have cyber balls to compensate for my more demure real life persona. Besides, I'm a "mean atheist".

http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-atheism-controversy-explained.html

Well, I guess I am too.

I was just making sure we're cool- and we are. No problems here.

So you do understand what Dawkin's means when he says "evolution is not random"?

Yes, and in the perspective of my statements about randomness and order, I'd say that what Dawkins means is, "evolution is not disorderly." I'm sure he'd be horrified to have someone twist his words into the ridiculous statement that the individual events that determine the path of evolution are somehow predetermined.

Why doesn't Mijo?

I remain unconvinced that the statement that he does not is equivalent to the statement that he will not. I think this is a much deeper subject than has been acknowledged by you, and that mijo is struggling with the difference between "random" and "disorderly." Further confusion is engendered by the use of the 2LOT in information theory, where "randomness" and "order" are confounded based on one's perspective on the situation. Hir latest post confirms this view of things. I suggest that the most likely successful strategy here is to provide information and correct missteps; and so far, mijo hasn't made many, in my view, though yours is rather different.

Gently, my friend, gently. These concepts have taken me a lifetime to comprehend properly, and we mustn't hurry others along too quickly or they will balk. Hay tiempo.

 

[Schneibster]

I nonetheless believe that evolution can occur in an orderly fashion in large populations and over long periods of time even if its underlying processes are stochastic.

That, I think, is the core concept; and it clarifies what you mean by "random" very nicely. You do not mean "disorderly." You mean "stochastic."

 

[jimbob]

See, articulett, I think the problem goes one deeper; I think most people don't understand "random," and I think all sorts of science would be more accessible to them if they did. Mijo, would you agree with that assessment?

Short answer: yes.

I will elaborate more later.

Ditto; if it is not determined it is random. Identical inputs can create differing outputs.

 

[jimbob]

I've seen indications in things I've seen mijo say that make me think that perhaps you have misunderstood. You see, to get a degree in chemistry, or physics, or engineering, you HAVE to see this. You can get by in computer science without it, but not if you have the least curiosity about how the physical sciences work and take a few courses- and most computer scientists take EE. From what I've seen, the most likely ones not to get it are geologists, but even among them the ones who don't are rare to say the least. This phenomenon of emergence of order from chaos is blatant, very difficult to miss, and deeply ingrained in anyone who does this kind of study, to the point that you are amazed when you don't find it. It's pervasive. You don't get far in disciplines based on math without considerable pattern-spotting ability, and this pattern keeps repeating itself over and over again everywhere you look. I'll go so far as to say that if mijo is in fact playing games, they might have a surprise ending- but I strongly suspect not. I sense the search for the order that anyone who has had long exposure to the physical sciences will look for first- the emergent order from the underlying chaos. Read back and see what you think.

I don't have the problem with the word "random", which does have a multitude of meanings, but "non-random" which means that the outcomes are (pre)destined and inevitible.

Random but not disordered is a good one.

ETA:

While it's generally a good idea to use words your audience will understand and that will convey your message most persuasively, that is precisely the wrong attitude to take towards the definitions of terms with regards to a scientific theory. "Planet" has a very precise meaning to astronomers, "strange" has a precise meaning to particle physicists, and "random" has a precise meaning to evolutionary biologists. You cannot use the common, everyday usage of the word "random" when discussing evolution because that is not how the scientists use it. When you make the mistake of using the word "random" in its common usage when discussing evolution you stop making sense.

What does random mean to evolutionary biologists? (I know what it means to mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and some ecologists, and I suspect to evolutionary biologists in certain circumstances (when discussing statistics, and statistical distributions for example)

If it is non-random, it is inevitable, according to those whom I know.

The only inevitible feature about evolution is that self-replicating systems with imperfect replication will become better at replicating over generations.

This means that ecological niches wll tend to get filled; but this is not inevitible for all niches within any specified timeframe. There would have been an ecological niche for a moderate-sized, social, tool-using animal during the cretaceous, but I have no reason to think that there was one...

The more simple the niche, the more likely it would be filled, so hunting animals can evolve from scavangers, which can evolve form herbivores (e.g. the bird-eating deer of Rùm)
​

or the bird-eating sheep of foula.

Jim

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, would you read this link and still come to the conclusions that it is accurate to say there is "no evidence for evolution being non-random"?http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_32

I would read it and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for evolution being disordered. Its definition of random, however, is simplistic: random is disordered. I am aware of far too many ordered systems that are random to be impressed by it. Nor do I think that this is the definition mijo is using, and I think that's clear because I asked hir directly and received a direct response.

The chance part IS amazing... <snip> I understand the randomness...I do...and even the breathtaking nature of it.

As MeadMaker pointed out, this is, for someone oriented to the physical sciences, THE most interesting part.

I know that all sorts of "random events" can influence natural selection--but I think it's misleading to call natural selection itself "random" and uninformative to call evolution random.

If by "random" one means "disordered," I agree- it is my contention, however, that "random" in this particular case doesn't mean "disordered."

If having random components defines a process as random or "stochastic" then what process isn't random? And if all processes are random, then of what use it to describe evolution that way, and how does that help one understand the "non-random" aspects of evolution?

Because "random," to someone trained in the physical sciences, does not necessarily mean "disordered," and because most stochastic processes, and all of the most important ones, in physical sciences are of the type that shows emergent order from underlying randomness. By telling such a person that "evolution is not random," you are lying to them; to them, "random" doesn't mean "disordered," it in fact means almost exactly the opposite. They will detect this, and from other sources and their own considerations dismiss what you say as woo. Now, I don't think you're a woo, and I don't think it's fair that you should expose yourself to such accusations through lack of understanding of what "random" means to a physical scientist; I therefore am telling you that telling such a person that "evolution is not random" is negative information; they will know less after you've told them that than they did to start with. If I were you, I would start by defining random as stochastic, and then as disordered, and discuss these meanings of random; and then and only then, after being confident that the meanings were well understood, would I move on to state that evolution is not disordered, but it is stochastic. Your meaning would be clear, and people who know enough to ask whether you mean stochastic or disordered when you say "evolution is not random" would understand you clearly and be enlightened.

Why is the above cite not evidence that, if nothing else, calling natural selection a "stochastic process" obfuscates more than clarifies?

Because it's written for a 6th grader; for those not in the US, that's an 11-year-old child.

Mijo used the Berkeley site in his own cites...and yet they themselves, say that natural selection is not random. I wouldn't necessarily go that far--but I would say that calling it random muddies the issue rather than clarifying.

I would say that stating it's not random is negative information for some people. I would prefer you say it's not disordered, and then point out that disordered is one synonym for random, and that that's what biologists mean when they say evolution is not random. Everyone will understand you then.

I re-read mijo and I just hear him saying over and over, "there is no evidence that evolution is 'non-random'" To me that says, "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random that mijo will accept. He sounds indistinguishable from an "intelligent design" proponent to me. If he's isn't, he only has Behe and the Wedge document to blame.

I suspect your quotes should have ended here.

The reason that mijo will not accept your statement that evolution is non-random is because the way s/he thinks of "random," it is random, and obviously so, and s/he can't understand how you could be so obtuse as to not think so. I stayed out of this thread after my initial contribution because I couldn't think of a way to say it that would make it clearer; fortunately I've finally come up with "disordered" to deal with this lack of clarity, and now we are communicating clearly and concisely. I told you it was about the definition of random.

Yes, they've made me and all who deal with them suspicious of fake questions designed to promote a viewpoint rather than answer a question.

This is the most pernicious effect of obfuscation. If I could identify the quality I most hate about woos, be they climate woos, cretinists, physics woos, or psychics, it would be this obfuscation. It is intellectually dishonest and despicable, and I DO despise them for it. If I believed there was a hell for people to go to, I'd consign these individuals to the lowest, nastiest, hottest portion of it, right next to the people who drive slow in the fast lane.

And I think this post and his post about the "discontinuity in the fossil record" do just that. He asks questions that he will not accept any answer for. That is what creationists do. A lot. They are known for starting threads with the same sort of weird questions...I mean 2 questions that were listed in the top 5 of creationist strawmen at talk origins?--and their answers and no one elses' merited consideration unless it boiled down to "there is no evidence"?

There is a compulsion to investigate these matters to the bitter end. You know it as well as I do, or you would not be a molecular biologist; you would not have the curiosity to bother to become one. The desire to investigate these matters until one is convinced of the truth is undeniable, and I suggest you allow it to take its natural course.

I have had accusations made of me...but unless they have some basis of truth in it, they don't bother me. If the goal is to clarify the facts, why would opinions be important? If one truly wanted to understand the non-random aspects of evolution, wouldn't they be grateful for the info. rather than dismissive and defensive regarding their intent? I understand what you are saying. I don't think Mijo is coming from the same place.

I think this is already clear, and will become moreso. Hopefully my small contributions of terminology will help.

 

[Walter Wayne]

... The way I define "random," I have absolutely no problem thinking of evolution as random. For example, the random collisions of molecules in a gas lead to the highly orderly Second Law of Thermodynamics. For another example, the random interactions of the elementary particles lead to the highly orderly physics of Newton. So I find absolutely no contradiction in noting that the genes expressed are random, and the environment is partly random and partly determined by the expression of those genes, and that this leads to the highly orderly "Law of Evolution by Natural Selection." And yes, I see it as a Law; it has a solid mathematical (albeit statistical) proof, and it has never been seen to be violated. In physics, that's called a "Law."

I agree here in your use of random. But even the word "orderly" could lead to ambiguity in meaning. When saying "the random interactions of elementary particles lead to the highly orderly physics of Newton", you could replace highly orderly with "completely predictable", which I don't think applies to evolution.

The order we see around us in biology is not so regular as that of classical physics by far. We find order in a much of the species we see, but a look through the essays of Gould and you see the delight in finding those exceptions. There is order in the bigger picture, in that we can see links back through the heritage of a species.

To clarfiy, I don't balk at the use of the term orderly. First I agree with mijo's qualification that "evolution can occur in an orderly fashion in large populations and over long periods of time". But I also think that analogies with classical physics being an artifact of the random interaction of particles implies a lot more predictability than justified.

We see evolution is orderly in that it is governed by a law of reproductive success. But many routes are taken to achieve this success, some more often than others, but not nearly with the regularity we see in classical physics.

So in many ways the same problem lies in using "orderly" as comes about with "random". So just as I believe that evolution is "non-random" for one of the layman's definitions (uniform probability of several possibilities), I see equal problems in use of the orderly.

Nature is one of those things that can be perceived as chaotic or orderly depending on where and how you look. In some ways it is a beautiful harmony of organisms, in other ways it is a chaotic scramble for survival.

I am not sure that you are going to find a word that sums up the unfolding of evolution; a word that conveys the same thing to everybody. I can't think of a word or phrase in the english language that embodies the evolution process well. I'm not sure english would have one, since it is so rare that people in their daily interactions require such a word.

Walt

 

[articulett]

So, Mijo is using this definition of "random": Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

So How would those of you who understand this definition, answer this question. What is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random?

Would you say there is none? Or that it's a weird question? If there is evidence of non-randomness per mijo's definition...how does it not apply to evolution in general? Do you think it's informative to say the evolution of this thread is stochastic since people either respond or they don't? Does that mean anything? Does it say anything to say there is no evidence that this thread is non-random?

Here are some Biological definitions and if you think you can actually describe things better or they are misinformed you may wish to inform them, because not only do they call aspects of evolution determined (and I maintain that if conditions were identical, you'd get identical results)--but they also say selection is not random. Frankly, I think the biological definitions and the lay person's definition of random (haphazard) is preferable to understanding mutation and the incremental (and to biologists, non-random) force of natural selection over time. Moreover, I think Mijo confuses "fitness" in a weird way so that he can define natural selection as a random process. Fitness of a strand of DNA only refers to it's ability to get passed on (this includes what it codes for and everything that in the environment that impacts the possessor of said DNA).

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IIterms_phrases.shtml

Randomness and evolution
Variation is random, selection usually is not. Selection of favorable traits within a population occurs when living things meet all the challenges presented to them. These pressures are not random, but are determined by physical laws. Barring the occasional tree randomly falling on an organism, or a volcano wiping out a population, selection is not random and evolution does not happen by chance.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE6Nonrandom.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

In biology

The theory of evolution ascribes the observed diversity of life to random genetic mutations some of which are retained in the gene pool due to the improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them.

The characteristics of an organism arise to some extent deterministically (e.g., under the influence of genes and the environment) and to some extent randomly. For example, genes and exposure to light only control the density of freckles that appear on a person's skin; whereas the exact location of individual freckles appears to be random

More from bioscience dictionary: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Random
http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-drift

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. Monod's use of the phrase "realm of pure chance" is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. random - lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"
nonrandom - not random
2. random - taken haphazardly; "a random choice"
unselected - not selected

Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

A way to look at it is to note that random processes don't have memory, making it impossible for past outcomes to affect the present and future.

http://www.answers.com/topic/randomness

Even if random means that it can be described by a probability distribution or that it isn't deterministic...aren't you still playing semantic games to avoid conveying natural selection as a "process" or "forces" that guides what we see (both pheontypically and in the genomes) through time? Aren't you confusing the randomness of mutation ("chance") with the entire process of natural selection by calling the whole thing "random" or "stochastic". And with the biological definitions understood--and even the lay persons definition, would you still say there is not evidence for evolution being non-random?

I feel like the physics use of random (as in gases spread out randomly) is just so "useless" in conveying information about evolution...particularly about natural selection...and even more useless in understanding the non-random aspects. What processes are non-random again? Maybe I'll understand when you tell me what the evidence is for the evolution of this thread being non-random. Or what you mean when you say that there is no evidence. I mean, it's not determined...except by what was written before...like evolution...and it's not predictable...and there is randomness as to who reads this thread and feels like responding. The best responders don't always read and respond and bad responders amble by and insert their opinions without having read much of the thread... But if someone asked me what was the non-random aspects of the evolution of this thread, I would have much more to say than "there is none". It's direction is based on what came before...those who successfully got their thoughts up on this forum...right? With "random processes" can past outcomes affect the present and future as they do in evolution? Aren't stochastic processes--just random processes that act the same way except 2 or more random events might be connected--though each sets of events doesn't affect future present and future sets of events in the process?

In any case, if your goal was to understand how evolution was non-random, then why wouldn't you use the words as defined by those who know the most about evolution...or the lay person?

And, again, what is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random per whatever definition you ARE using?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Obviously you didn't read the article that I provided about whether evolution is better described as a combination of "forces" or a consequence of the statistical nature of populations.

I know its in your least favorite area, the philosophy of science, nut I think it is an issue that need to be addressed because often scientists do not critically examine the in which the talk about their subject.

Here is the explanation of the basic premise of the article:

These two experimental outcomes—feathers and coins—require different sorts of explanation. The explanation of the trajectory of a falling feather requires a dynamical theory, i.e., a theory of forces. The explanation of the outcome of a series of trials requires a statistical theory, i.e., a theory that deals with the statistical structure of the population in question and the probabilistic nature of sampling. One may well be able to explain, in dynamical terms, why each draw of a coin finished the way it did. By extension of this procedure one could explain dynamically the outcome of the series of draws, by explaining each severally. But, the availability of such a dynamical explanation does not remove the need for a distinct, statistical explanation of the same outcome. The dynamical account does not explain why, given the distribution of heads and tails in the population being sampled, the expected outcome is to be expected—(why is 5 heads and 5 tails the best bet?). Nor does the dynamical view account for the distribution of errors (why is 6 heads and 4 tails more likely than 9 heads and one tail?) Nor does it explain the way the probability distribution in this series of ten trials is systematically related to the distribution in trials of 20, 40, or 100. (Why is 9 heads and 1 tail more likely than 99 heads and 1 tail?).

In general, statistical and dynamical theories differ significantly in their structure, their explanatory apparatus and in the explananda they are applied to. There is little reason to believe that dynamical and statistical interpretations could be equivalent descriptions of the same theory. This raises the question: “is evolution a statistical theory or a dynamical one?” Is selection a theory of forces, such as might be invoked in an explanation of the feather case, or is it a statistical theory concerning a sequence of trial events (births, deaths and reproduction)? We intend to argue—against the prevailing orthodoxy—for the statistical interpretation.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Now I think we really are pushing the boundaries of the meaning of “random”. In my own field of expertise I design electronic systems that process geological measurements. I’ve put a graph of one below:



The blue line is the raw data and the pink line is a lossily-compressed version, based on a predictive model. I.e. the previous samples are used to provide an estimate of what value the next sample along is going to be. Clearly there must be some non-random link between adjacent samples; else using a predictor would be pointless.

I contend that if prior information allows a better (on average) estimate of what’s going to happen next, then there is a “non-random” link between events. I understand it as the value of the next sample is a deterministic function of the previous sample(s) + a random term.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because "random," to someone trained in the physical sciences, does not necessarily mean "disordered," and because most stochastic processes, and all of the most important ones, in physical sciences are of the type that shows emergent order from underlying randomness. By telling such a person that "evolution is not random," you are lying to them; to them, "random" doesn't mean "disordered," it in fact means almost exactly the opposite. They will detect this, and from other sources and their own considerations dismiss what you say as woo. Now, I don't think you're a woo,...

And I don't think Dawkins is a woo, but this paragraph is a good description of my reaction to Dawkins' writings in "The God Delusion". I didn't exactly think of him as woo (we need an exact defition of "woo" for that ) but I thought of him as needlessly confrontational and narrow minded. It seemed that he had missed the point of the arguments to which he was responding, and did it in such a way as to alienate a lot of people on his own side.

One interesting thing to me was comparing the brief description in "The God Delusion", in which evolution is a sideline to the main point and takes just a few pages, to "The Blind Watchmaker". He says some of the same words in TBW, but the context makes it clear what he means, and it doesn't come off so confrontational. However, in TGD, it's stripped of its surrounding material, but it's presented with just as much, probably more, force. Indeed, the ideological surroundings of TGD emphasize its role in ideological, as opposed to scientific, debate. It's almost as if he turned that word (or phrase, since he said "by chance" more often than "random") into some sort of ideological litmust test. Doing that sort of thing does indeed make someone sound a bit wooish, even if they happen to be an excellent scientist arguing for a scientific worldview.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And I don't think Dawkins is a woo, but this paragraph is a good description of my reaction to Dawkins' writings in "The God Delusion". I didn't exactly think of him as woo (we need an exact defition of "woo" for that ) but I thought of him as needlessly confrontational and narrow minded. It seemed that he had missed the point of the arguments to which he was responding, and did it in such a way as to alienate a lot of people on his own side.

In what way is it narrow minded to be angry with people for convincing others, deliberately, that an established scientific field is wrong, not with contradictory evidence, but with lies and misinformation?

 

[Schneibster]

articulett, you're ignoring the point. The point is, by saying "evolution is not random," you're communicating with six-year-olds, not adults with training in the physical sciences. You'd be far better served by a thoughtful and thorough approach to understanding what your audience hears when you say that, than by excoriating them because they don't think like six-year-olds.