What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[JanisChambers]

I am by no means educated in the advanced theory of evolution, but I understand it well enough to believe it as so. Here's the way I see it.

It works, it stays.
It doesn't, it goes.
Genes do not always copy right, thus mutation.
Mutation can be Good, Bad, Or Insignificant.
Good Mutation stays.
Bad mutation goes. (generally)
Insignificant mutation may stay or go, whatever the case may be.
Not every grouping of a species will evolve the same way, thus it branches, and change makes them so different that they no longer can interbreed very well, thus formation of seperate species.

 

[articulett]

The actal selection process has a lot of chance in it, and the survivors are generally not only fit, but lucky. The unfit *are* doomed, but so are most of the "otherwise fit".


Jim

You say this like being doomed is a bad thing. Just because you have life, doesn't mean it's terrible not to exist, you know... In fact, I'd say we can't know what it's like to not exist until we don't...and even then, we won't have the organ required to "know" anything.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Moreover, appealing to the "philosphy of science" is another ploy often used by creationists, and I think you should avoid doing it, mijo.

This has always been one of my pet peeves: when scientists say that "philosophy of science is not science" and then turn around and say that the latest pseudoscience isn't science because it has no observational evidence (i.e., an appeal to empiricism), it makes an assumption of the existence of the supernatural (i.e., an appeal to naturalism), and it isn't falsifiable (e.g., an appeal to the principle of falsifiability first described by philosopher of science Karl Popper). I have no problem with science's empiricism, methodological rationalism, and falsificationism, but this out-of-hand rejection of the philosophy of science because "appealing to the "philos[o]phy of science" is another ploy often used by creationists" is on the par with the out-of-hand rejection of "random" as a description of evolution because "it's a common creationist argument".

 

[articulett]

I am by no means educated in the advanced theory of evolution, but I understand it well enough to believe it as so. Here's the way I see it.

It works, it stays.
It doesn't, it goes.
Genes do not always copy right, thus mutation.
Mutation can be Good, Bad, Or Insignificant.
Good Mutation stays.
Bad mutation goes. (generally)
Insignificant mutation may stay or go, whatever the case may be.
Not every grouping of a species will evolve the same way, thus it branches, and change makes them so different that they no longer can interbreed very well, thus formation of seperate species.

That's a good working definition. So how would answer the question in the OP.

a. There is no evidence for evolution being non-random; hence it IS random.
b. It's a weird question, but I'd say natural selection is not random compared to the randomness of mutation.
c. I don't think it's useful to describe evolution with terms like randomness and synonyms and antonyms of that word.
d. Evolution is not random by my understanding of the word because natural selection is the "opposite" of random.
e. The question is too vague to give a meaningful response to.
f. (insert)

 

[articulett]

This has always been one of my pet peeves: when scientists say that "philosophy of science is not science" and then turn around and say that the latest pseudoscience isn't science because it has no observational evidence (i.e., an appeal to empiricism), it makes an assumption of the existence of the supernatural (i.e., an appeal to naturalism), and it isn't falsifiable (e.g., an appeal to the principle of falsifiability first described by philosopher of science Karl Popper). I have no problem with science's empiricism, methodological rationalism, and falsificationism, but this out-of-hand rejection of the philosophy of science because "appealing to the "philos[o]phy of science" is another ploy often used by creationists" is on the par with the out-of-hand rejection of "random" as a description of evolution because "it's a common creationist argument".

Nope...it's because it is used just as you are using it--to obfuscate rather than clarify understanding.

So, now--what is the evidence of the evolution of this thread being non-random per your definition of random?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Nope...it's because it is used just as you are using it--to obfuscate rather than clarify understanding.

So, now--what is the evidence of the evolution of this thread being non-random per your definition of random?

So by "obfuscate" you mean "support a position that I, articulett, disagree with"?

I suggest that you actually read the article before you decided that I don't know what it is saying and therefore am "obfuscating".

Here is a publicly available copy.

 

[articulett]

Where on Earth are you getting this? He means, quite clearly, discussions about the subject of evolution. What random means in other scietific contexts is a completely unrelated issue.

For the record, I completely agree. I cannot fathom why one would go to a tortured vague definition when the question was about the non-random aspects of a biological term. Even the lay person's definition would convey more understanding then this notion where any process that contains random elements is a random process. If that's the case, then the evolution of this thread is a random process, because it definitely has random elements associated with it. In fact all processes are random. If evolution as a process is a random process, then the evolution of anything is a random process, isn't it?
And with such a vague definition--why bother asking the question?

I understand Dawkins et. al. so readily. I cannot fathom the usefulness of the term random if it can be so readily applied to most any process.

 

[articulett]

So by "obfuscate" you mean "support a position that I, articulett, disagree with"?

I suggest that you actually read the article before you decided that I don't know what it is saying and therefore am "obfuscating".

Here is a publicly available copy.

For some reason your link is not working for me, but since you have not responded to a single link of mine, I will leave it to those who are still convinced that you are not an "intelligent design" proponent to read it. I'm still waiting to hear about the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random, so I can figure out if there is any meaning to the word the way you are using it.

BTW, I don't disagree with your position; I just say that you are not saying anything of value...and that the only evidence you really want is evidence that will allow you to say "evolution is random" and Dawkins is wrong. Whatever the hell that means. To me your arguments sound about as "right" and clear as this: http://www.sentinel.org/articles/2007-24/15419.html

 

[articulett]

So by "obfuscate" you mean "support a position that I, articulett, disagree with"?

I suggest that you actually read the article before you decided that I don't know what it is saying and therefore am "obfuscating".

Here is a publicly available copy.

Okay. Now I've read the paper. The paper is about genetic drift--that is about the random elements in the physical environment that "select". But you asked about the non-random aspects. All aspects of the physical environment can be thought as forces that remove DNA from the gene pool--with the exception of a few that make it through elimination rounds. Some make it through because they avoided floods, meteors, being eaten etc.--stuff that has nothing to do with their genome, but for them to survive and reproduce they must have a genome that is able to do so. Even then, most genomes will not pass all the other elimination rounds that come their way--some more brutal than others...but those that do, "stick". What sticks is entirely determined by what is not eliminated (via whatever means) and what reproduces successfully. It may be random as to what disappears--but what "sticks" is not random...it's the result of succeeding through many elimination rounds.

Calling what "sticks" the result of a "random process" is about as descriptive as saying "this thread evolves randomly"-- I guess it could if your definition of random is loose enough. It certainly is random when it comes to who reads and who posts--but how does that help anyone who wants to understand Dawkins and other biologists and/or the "non-random" aspects of evolution. To an evolutionary biologist, that which sticks (for whatever reasons) is that which has been "selected" from the randomness. In that way, it is the opposite of random (the pre-selected existing in the pool before any given "elimination round"). If this doesn't make sense to you, I suspect that it's because you do not want to understand the links I cited and the many who say that selection is determined by what came before, and thus it is the opposite of random. The evolution of this thread is not random because each post is based on the one that came before. Randomness is involved, but this thread evolves non-randomly. This is the same with the evolution of anything...including life itself.

Also, mijo, who are "the people who most need to understand it to understand it (evolution)?" per post #1011. To me, those who feel comfortable summing up natural selection as a random or a stochastic process are amongst those who most need to understand evolution--because it sure sounds like they don't to any biologist. By your "dynamic" interpretation, this thread evolves randomly--and that who would say such a thing if someone asked "what is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random?" It renders the word random useless because it applies to all things that evolve and all processes that involve any kind of randomness.

 

[Schneibster]

<shrug> No skin off my nose. What I'm telling you is you're not communicating, articulett. If you don't want to, that's fine, I'll move on.

 

[articulett]

<shrug> No skin off my nose. What I'm telling you is you're not communicating, articulett. If you don't want to, that's fine, I'll move on.

Well, help me. What is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random? Or is it random per the physics definition of random? And wouldn't the random and non-random aspects of this thread be applicable to evolution in general?

Is the definition of random you are using so loose that it makes sense to say "the evolution of this thread is random"? Or the evolution of technology is random? Or the evolution of duck genitals as described in the above link is random?

 

[trvlr2]

FWIW Articulett, I follow your thought.
And, youse guys have all thumped it good!
Blind men. Elephants. Never ending saga!
Coming soon!


Woops, got carried away.

 

[articulett]

FWIW Articulett, I follow your thought.
And, youse guys have all thumped it good!
Blind men. Elephants. Never ending saga!
Coming soon!


Woops, got carried away.

Thanks.

I know they think I don't understand random...but it just sounds to me like they don't understand selection--how it confuses the definition to define selection by the random components that might influence it...no matter what definition of random you use.

Hopefully one of the randomites will answer my question: "What is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random" per your definition of random? And would your answer apply equally to evolution in general? Then I can get a grasp on this vague but supposedly more "rigorous" definition of "random" and see whether it's descriptive or useful in describing natural selection in any way.

To me Dawkins is clear, and mijo's way of defining random makes the evolution of all things random. Sure, evolution is random if you mean purposeless or affected by random events... but then so is the evolution of this thread and the evolution of technology...and the evolution of anything. Calling evolution random, just seems to make the selection process disappear in the definition--

BTW, Schneibster, I have no illusions of trying to communicate anything to anyone who is not actually interested in understanding the "non-random" aspects of evolution per the biologist definition of those words. I want to find out if I really don't understand "random" or if the way you are using it means more than purposeless. And if it just means purposeless, I'd stick with that word.

 

[mijopaalmc]

FWIW Articulett, I follow your thought.
And, youse guys have all thumped it good!
Blind men. Elephants. Never ending saga!
Coming soon!


Woops, got carried away.

While I understand your analogy, I don't think that it is apt. Rouzine and Coffin (1999 and 2001) are explicit that when the effective population size is greater that the inverse of the mutation rate, the evolution of the population can be modeled as deterministic because the population can be taken as infinite. In other words, the nature of system does not change at all (i.e., it is still stochastic) but the error in considering the limiting case is sufficiently small that it can be disregarded. Evolution is always stochastic but sometimes it is simpler and more sensible to model it as deterministic.

 

[Schneibster]

Well, help me.

Well, I guess I ran my mouth, that's fair enough.

What is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random?

See, right there: whadda ya mean, "random?" You mean what people who don't get much science education mean, like disorderly, chaotic? You mean "stochastic," like all those phenomena I talked about many of which turn out to have order at high levels? Or have you got something else up your sleeve?

Yes, I followed all those links (just to see if there was anything different, the last two- the first one, I read.) To answer your question:

I mean would you really want to sum up the evolution of duck genitalia as a random process?

Depends. What do you mean by "random?" If you mean random as I understand random, sure, why not? Of course it's random, whadda ya talkin' about? On the other hand, if you mean random as people without a science education mean it, of course not; again, whadda ya talkin' about?

Now, I've tried "stochastic," and you didn't like that. I've tried "random," and you didn't like that. I've tried "disorderly," and you didn't like that either. I haven't seen you propose any terminology to describe this situation here, and I'm fresh out.

I've grown extremely cautious about the word "random," personally. I've seen waaaaaaay too many people use it for things that, while technically random, I'd never apply the word to. It's to the point where someone says, "thisnthat is random," and the first words outa my mouth are, "Whadda ya mean, 'random?'" So when I see you an' Dawkins tossin' this live grenade around, I'm like, "Hey, why don't you put that down and come walk over here and let's have a little chat, shall we?" An' so far, you're like, "Naww, I'm havin' a good time, lemme toss this around a little more."

What I mean is, here you are up in all these peoples' faces, an' from what I can tell it's all over "random." I think you need to step back and take a look at this. For example, I'd stop saying "random," and I'd start asking, "Whadda ya mean, 'random?'" every time I heard it, if I was you.

Or is it random per the physics definition of random?

Which "physics definition" did you have in mind? Explicitly stochastic, as in, subject only to the laws of probability and conservation in each interaction, but deterministic over the statistical universe of a large enough collection of interactions? Perhaps you like the discrete type of function; or perhaps you like the continuous kind. Nature uses both. Do you mean "uncorrelated?" That also is a meaning of random. Or maybe you prefer "unbiased." You might also mean "chaotic;" we've been having a revolution in the understanding of the meaning of "chaos" over the past several decades. Or perhaps you had "noisy" in mind; that's from communication theory, a branch of physical mathematics that is used to design communication protocols, both analog and digital. You have now seen the tip of the iceberg. This concept is used in ways that are related to a single central concept in literally a score of disciplines, in ways that vary from discipline to discipline.

So quite frankly, yes, I look at this thread, or at evolution, and I go, "Yep, that's random." And that's how it is; and what I mean is, it's related, in a way that I see as peculiarly biology- and sociology-oriented, to that same central concept. You see, I've seen it used in a lot of disciplines, and I've gotten a feel for how it's going to get used in disciplines I've never thought about it in before, if I know the discipline, and that feel tells me that "evolution is not random" is negative information. By that, I mean information that leaves you knowing less rather than more.

See, this is why I get nervous when I hear "random." And the smarter someone is, the less sure I am I understand what they mean when they use that word.

The real kicker is, you haven't defined what you think random is. Obviously you think it's something bad, but you've never said what. You've said, well, these guys use it like this, and that's bad, and you've said, well, when most people use it they mean this, and that's bad too, but you've never said what YOU think it means. See?

And wouldn't the random and non-random aspects of this thread be applicable to evolution in general?

Well, I'm not as sure about that as you seem to be, but we'll accept it as a working assumption; which means, subject to revocation upon receipt of not absolute proof that things are otherwise. I see some places the analogy breaks down, is what I mean to say.

Is the definition of random you are using so loose that it makes sense to say "the evolution of this thread is random"?

See, you know me; anybody else I'd prolly flame for that. Can you seriously read the paragraph above on the "physical definition" and even think that? How I interpret that, you're not hearing what I'm saying. The best answer probably is, "Is which definition of random I'm using so loose... etc."

Or the evolution of technology is random?

Of course it is. We do things that are possible the first way we come up with, a LOT. For example, a guy made a car that had a headlight that turned when you turned the steering wheel. Dead on arrival. I bought my wife a car a couple years after the movie about that (William Hurt, IIRC, couldn't name the film to save my life) and guess what? She hits the turn signal, it has a special light on the outside edge of the bumper lights up what she's about to turn into. Doesn't flash, either. The thing is, this guy? He did his bit in the 1930s. Well, gee whiz, it only took sixty years!

Or the evolution of duck genitals as described in the above link is random?

Sure.

Now, this time, READ it. I spent a lot of time here; you asked for help, there it is. Stop arguing and just read it and think about it. Ask questions. Don't assume you know it all. This is a different way to think; and I think you've seen it before, and done it yourself, which is why I'm having so much trouble understanding what it is you're not getting. I'm being patient, because you were patient with me once. Give me the benefit of the doubt and really think about this one.

 

[mijopaalmc]

BTW, Schneibster, I have no illusions of trying to communicate anything to anyone who is not actually interested in understanding the "non-random" aspects of evolution per the biologist definition of those words. I want to find out if I really don't understand "random" or if the way you are using it means more than purposeless. And if it just means purposeless, I'd stick with that word.

So you're basically saying that you are convince that evolution is non-random and no evidence that anyone can provide will convince you otherwise?

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks.

I know they think I don't understand random...

Well, perhaps you didn't. I think you might have a good start now, if you'll read that.

Hopefully one of the randomites will answer my question: "What is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random" per your definition of random?

And I will answer, just as I answered mijo on philosophy of science with respect to randomness, none at all. It looks random to me. Not purposeless; but each of us with our own purpose, so no common purpose. Not uncorrelated; we reply to one another. Biased? Heh, well now. Not disorderly- we're having a many-way conversation. Chaotic? Well, actually, yes, in the technical meaning of that word as mathematically defined over the last several decades.

Noisy?

And would your answer apply equally to evolution in general?

Sure.

Then I can get a grasp on this vague but supposedly more "rigorous" definition of "random" and see whether it's descriptive or useful in describing natural selection in any way.

Do you intend to examine them all? There were quite a few I didn't mention. It could take a long time. A really long time. It's taken me most of four decades, and I certainly don't know them all.

See, what you want is "the" definition of random. And what I've been telling you is, there ain't no "the" definition of random; but there's a kind of consensus about what random means in a scientific context among physical scientists, and it's all related to this central concept, and the way you're using it has nothing to do with that. As a result, when you say "evolution is not random," most of them go, "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Whatever."

To me Dawkins is clear, and mijo's way of defining random makes the evolution of all things random. Sure, evolution is random if you mean purposeless or affected by random events... but then so is the evolution of this thread and the evolution of technology...and the evolution of anything. Calling evolution random, just seems to make the selection process disappear in the definition--

But see, it's orderly. And selection is that which imposes the order. It's the arbiter of the probability function for any given interaction. Doesn't matter if it changes over time; for each interaction, it's stable, and even over a large number of interactions, big enough to be a statistical universe, it's stable for a short period of time, more than long enough to allow us to view it as a Law. We deal often enough with time-variant functions that determine the probability; for example, an object moving in a field, as the field strength changes.

BTW, Schneibster, I have no illusions of trying to communicate anything to anyone who is not actually interested in understanding the "non-random" aspects of evolution per the biologist definition of those words. I want to find out if I really don't understand "random" or if the way you are using it means more than purposeless. And if it just means purposeless, I'd stick with that word.

I think it's pretty clear that's among the shallowest meanings of it. I don't think the use of such a shallow meaning serves the purpose of communicating clearly and concisely well.

 

[Schneibster]

This has always been one of my pet peeves: when scientists say that "philosophy of science is not science" and then turn around and say that the latest pseudoscience isn't science because it has no observational evidence (i.e., an appeal to empiricism), it makes an assumption of the existence of the supernatural (i.e., an appeal to naturalism), and it isn't falsifiable (e.g., an appeal to the principle of falsifiability first described by philosopher of science Karl Popper).

Ummm, the statement that the philosophy of science is not science is relatively straightforward; it's not science, it's philosophy. Science uses a specific methodology, called the scientific method; philosophy does not, because if it did, it would be abandoned as meaningless. Which, from many physical scientists' points of view, it is anyway. And by its own method, this is a perfectly justifiable point of view.

Carry on.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
But see, it's orderly. And selection is that which imposes the order. It's the arbiter of the probability function for any given interaction. Doesn't matter if it changes over time; for each interaction, it's stable, and even over a large number of interactions, big enough to be a statistical universe, it's stable for a short period of time, more than long enough to allow us to view it as a Law. We deal often enough with time-variant functions that determine the probability; for example, an object moving in a field, as the field strength changes.

Actually, the rate at which the selection criteria are changing is extremely important if you hope to converge, or rather, reach a "fitter" solution. Typically the selection function needs to be much more stable over time than the mutation rate for evolution to work.

E.g. If I drop marbles through a funnel onto a target and after each marble lands, adjust the position of the funnel to attempt to minimize the error between where the marble landed and the center of the target, the variance increases.

For what it's worth, my definition of "random" is that it is a qualitative term used to express our ignorance of the inputs to a process. A quantitative term to express the same thing is the variance of a parameter of a population.

 

[Meadmaker]

The only problem I'm having a hard time understanding is why people think that a phenomenon as complex as the evolution of life should always be described in the same way, regardless of the aspect of the problem under consideration, or the target audience.

I want to revise this, because what I said above doesn't get at what I was really thinking. When describing evolution to a six year old, vs. a population geneticist, vs. someone with a PhD in engineering who has read a lot of books on evolution, vs. the Jehovah's Witness at your door, different descriptions are appropriate, and no reasonable person would deny that.

Also, when describing general trends vs. mathematical models, regardless of the audience, different descriptions are appropriate. No reasonable person would deny that.

The interesting phenomenon, to me, is that the word "random" in connection with evolution has become taboo for some people, regardless of the context or audience. I use that word, "taboo", deliberately, because I think that's what we are dealing with. It has become a word used for tribal identification. It doesn't have very much to do with scientific accuracy, or even very much to do with pedagogy. It has become something used to identify US vs. THEM. It has become like Jews and pork. Oh, sure, one could talk about the health benefits of a kosher diet, and ever since I became sort of Jewish lots of people have told me about that, but that isn't the real function of kashrut. The real function is to identify the tribal members.

That's the way I see "evolution is random". That's what the Outsiders say. The Real People do not say that.

Interesting experiment. Type the phrase "evolution is random" into google. What will you get? A bunch of creationists describing evolution? No. A bunch of evolutionists describing creationists.

I say that we should try to be accurate, and appropriate to context, and that now that we have refrigerators, God won't mind if we eat a bacon cheeseburger now and again. (Oh, of course, I'm using God in the same way Einstein used it. As a standin for "nature". Dawkins calls that use "intellectual high treason", but I'm ok with that.)