What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

I should expand on that. When I am saying "get a foothold" I am not talking about the random event of the mutation, but of the randomness that mutation will be successful in the first few generations so that it has a base in the population.

Oh I know what you're talking about; it ain't new in this thread.

If you understand that, then you what is your problem with this. A beneficial mutation occurs, it may or may not fix in the population by chance. That is randomness.

No. It does not fix in the population by chance. It fixes in the population as determined by the environment.

YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME - NOT JUST ANALYSE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

I sure wish people would get the difference between playing a hand of Poker and assessing one's chances of a hand being successful.

 

[Walter Wayne]

No. It does not fix in the population by chance. It fixes in the population as determined by the environment.

It is by chance, as some of the selection pressures will be independent of the genome. Unless of course you want to continue cutting the world down into micro-environment such that each organism has an environment all to itself. Most people don't discuss biological environments that way, but you are welcome to. And I will that selection is not random given your stipulative definition of environment.

 

[articulett]

If you either don't have the ability to explain biased random systems, or believe layman so stupid that they cannot grasp the concept then shy away from teaching as random. However, in my experience they are capable of understanding it. To say mijo calling evolution a stochastic process is misleading is myopic, when your own explainations are incorrect and will lead to students who either do not understand evolution, or do not understand random (even within the context they already use it).

Walt

My own explanations are the explanations of Ayala and Dawkins and many others. I have no problem getting my students to understand. In fact, the only people who seem to have a really hard part with natural selection are the creationists. And I am certain my students could beat Mijo on any standardized science test regarding the word evolution. I don't teach math, but I suspect they'd score similarly to mijo on tests using the word random too--and I bet Dawkins' students will score higher on both. Dawkins teaches to a lot of people of a many professions...And he says evolution is not random in his review of Behe (the term "not random" was made essential by creationist obfuscation, I suspect...most notable of which is Behe's). I don't think Behe has actually succeeded in explaining evolution to anyone--But Dawkins has--to a huge number of people. So where are all these scientists writing in and calling him wrong or saying that "natural selection is a random process" or a "stochastic process" or that "evolution is a random process" or that "Ayala is wrong"? Or that "Dawkins is using the term "random" incorrectly" or that there is a "singular definition of random and it's not the one Ayala is using?"

Saying it doesn't make it so, Walter. And the paper he quoted is not calling natural selection a stochastic process as Mijo alleges. Read it yourself. The ways in which we describe evolution will evolve as we find out more, deal with creationist obfuscations and figure out what works best. You've claimed that I don't teach people--you have been proven wrong. And you claim I'm wrong--I am saying what Ayala and Dawkins are saying per recent published quotes. I think they are loads clearer and more informative than you or mijo are. You guys don't even seem like you understand each other. And you certainly have provided nothing in support of your claims--just twisted semantics regarding probabilities and then the inference that the authors are agreeing with your definitions.

 

[Schneibster]

I sure wish people would get the difference between playing a hand of Poker and assessing one's chances of a hand being successful.

Anyone not evaluating their hand on a continuous basis serves as a source of funds for the players who are.

 

[cyborg]

It is by chance, as some of the selection pressures will be independent of the genome.

All selection pressures are independent of the genome. Selection pressures act upon the vector, not the genome itself - they sure as hell don't 'know' what bits of the genome may have allowed the vector to 'win'. The whole thing gets copied - without prejudice - into the next generation.

You must play the game in order to win and you don't know the rules until you play - potential is irrelevant.

Unless of course you want to continue cutting the world down into micro-environment such that each organism has an environment all to itself. Most people don't discuss biological environments that way, but you are welcome to.

Model - meet reality.

The reality is that each individual organism DOES have an environment all to itself. Don't mistake assumptions made in a model for issues of tractability as representing the true nature of the beast.

 

[cyborg]

Anyone not evaluating their hand on a continuous basis serves as a source of funds for the players who are.

You say that as if the player's own hand were the most important factor.

Poker is an excellent analogy because it deals with trying to play a game given incomplete information - namely one has no idea about the strength of any other player's hand other than by how they act.

What the player's have sure as hell ain't random - but statistical analysis is the beginning of deciding what they do have. (It sure as hell ain't the end of it).

 

[articulett]

It is by chance, as some of the selection pressures will be independent of the genome. Unless of course you want to continue cutting the world down into micro-environment such that each organism has an environment all to itself. Most people don't discuss biological environments that way, but you are welcome to. And I will that selection is not random given your stipulative definition of environment.

Actually, most people do discuss it that way.

Read this thread. Read the links. Listen to the Dawkins tape. Read Talk Origins. Read any biologist on this forum. Read Dawkins review of Behe:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/artic...ns-reviews-Behes-lastest-book,Richard-Dawkins

Natural selection already includes the rough toe hold and everything natural in the environment including the fact that some things that could have been "excellent' (whatever that means) never got replicated because of tornados or asteroids or being stomped on by a T-rex. Bummer. But life doesn't care about what could be--just what does get replicated. Natural Selection is EVERYTHING in a critters physical environment. If it can't make it in the body it's DNA built through each state of the life cycle prior to replication and then replicate (preferably in abundance)...then it ceases to be a part of the evolutionary process. Not randomly...but because the environment culled it.
It's just a minute few that pass through all the selection hoops nature throws an organisms way, and that's just to have a chance to play the replication game... where, at least in most multi-celled animals--sexual selection becomes part of natural selection.

 

[Walter Wayne]

You've claimed that I don't teach people--you have been proven wrong.

You must be using a definition of the word "proven" that no one else does.

And you certainly have provided nothing in support of your claims--just twisted semantics regarding probabilities and then the inference that the authors are agreeing with your definitions.

Given that you have changed your definition of random from the indefensable one in your textbook, to that of uniform probability even when biologist refer to mutation as random (which is non-uniform), it is odd that you should be accusing others of semantic games. You have dodged this way and that in every effort not to put the appropriate label in place.

That the authors continue to use descriptions that are those of a random process right up until called to put the stamp of random or non-random on it should be a clue that the definition is becoming argumentative rather than descriptive. Pardon me if I refuse to dumb down a topic simply because of some rhetoric from the creationists.

 

[cyborg]

With respect to the genome: non-deterministic mutation, deterministic selection.

I don't know how many times I've pointed out how problematic it is to use a word with such overloaded semantics that people here seem to be willing to dip in and out of willy-nilly (namely 'random'). The above is unambiguous and accurate.

You all go ahead and think of randomness how ever the **** it is pleasing to you. Whatever.

 

[articulett]

Walter, et. al. I don't HAVE a definition of random. I, have maintained from the beginning that it is ambiguous...you are the ones claiming that there is a singular scientific definition that somehow only you guys seem to know...but you don't even have the same definitions of each other--nor have you pointed to a single science source for a definition. I've provided many. I can't help if you don't like the definitions from the sources I've provided.

But it's nice to know that some well respected scientists and peer reviewed papers are saying pretty much what I've been saying. And it's also nice to know that the ones who insult me sound like blustery old Behe in his paean to how scientists think evolution happened randomly.

Once again, I don't have a definition. And I don't care if you understand why the top scientists in the field call natural selection "not random". I don't care what you think is the technically correct description or why you think they are going about it wrong. I think that we can all trust the definition to evolve according to what works best, and I haven't seen any-one of any caliber criticizing Dawkins or Ayala's description.

I DO understand evolution and natural selection...I DO understand why creationists obfuscate the "natural selection part" and I do understand why definitions like cyborgs, talk origins, Dawkins, Ayala, etc. are the words that convey the meaning the best. I also understand why the randomites are fighting a hopeless semantic game. I mean, if your argument is indistinguishable from Behe's... then what good is it for anything?
Really.

I swear, It's like you guys have some weird mind meld that makes it so you must define evolution as random (or something you've deemed to be a synonym of random) just because there is some randomness in the environment --the natural environment that DETERMINES which genome vectors survive and copy their genomes the most. You get lost in the technicalities of hypotheticals and miss the big picture entirely. You're so busy looking at the statistics that you never see the game being played. You never get the basic simple concept. You are using the same ambiguous terminology to communicate two very different aspects of evolution.

And I suggest reading Dawkins review of Behe's book (link above) if you really want to understand how you come across to the rest of us. Tell Dawkins and Ayala they have it all wrong. As Dawkins suggests to Behe, put your stuff up to peer review and maybe someone other than you will give a flying rat's ass. My only intent was answering the OP, because I know a lot about the subject. And I know enough to know that you randomites just aren't saying anything more useful or informative or valid than Behe is saying. I recognize crap when I read it. Thankfully, peer review culls the crap. A sieve, if you, will that "selects" --but not randomly.

I can't say it as well as Dawkins or Ayala or even Cyborg. So if they can't get through to you guys--I don't pretend I have the magic pill. I can't fix faith based assertions made by crusty old farts; and I'm not even sure any one can.

If Dawkins can't and the the PNAS article can't and Cyborg can't and the many who have said pretty much what they all have said can't do it. Then I suspect that there is no evidence that would lead some people to be able to say, "natural selection is not random" no matter how stellar that evidence might be. If that is the case, then it's a faith based claim. It is on par with Behes reasoning.

And sorry Walter, you and Mijo's religious apologetics on the thread about the creationist tour guides makes me suspect that your denseness has to do more with faith than stubbornness or supposed technical rigor (for which no evidence has been offered.) Showing me papers that are about probabilities or use the word "stochastic" does not count as scientists calling natural selection a random or stochastic process--even if by your tortured definitions it does. Rolling your eyes and insulting me doesn't make it so. I am scientifically literate despite the denser among you to imply otherwise. If you were all on the same page regarding what I was saying wrong or Ayala or Dawkins was and what you think the correct terminology is and what source you are using to define it--then maybe someone would take you more seriously than you take yourselves.

 

[articulett]

And this is from Jerry Coyne's review, of Behe, Walter...asserting that at least one definition or "random" is about uniform probabilities...and also that "random" is and ambiguous term. There is nothing indefensible about any of the definitions I have provided; they have all been provided multiple times and from multiple sources. You haven't provided any--and nothing that suggests that there is a singular definition used by scientists. If so, you've got a plethora of peer reviewed scientists and professors you better start informing:

Once again--here's a geneticist discussing Behe's book--the ambiguity of "random"--the need to distinguish--and the fact that what we see in various species did not come about "randomly"...

On the basis of much evidence, scientists have concluded that mutations occur randomly. The term "random" here has a specific meaning that is often misunderstood, even by biologists. What we mean is that mutations occur irrespective of whether they would be useful to the organism. Mutations are simply errors in DNA replication. Most of them are harmful or neutral, but a few of them can turn out to be useful. And there is no known biological mechanism for jacking up the probability that a mutation will meet the current adaptive needs of the organism. Bears adapting to snowy terrain will not enjoy a higher probability of getting mutations producing lighter coats than will bears inhabiting non-snowy terrain.

What we do not mean by "random" is that all genes are equally likely to mutate (some are more mutable than others) or that all mutations are equally likely (some types of DNA change are more common than others). It is more accurate, then, to call mutations "indifferent" rather than "random": the chance of a mutation happening is indifferent to whether it would be helpful or harmful. Evolution by selection, then, is a combination of two steps: a "random" (or indifferent) step--mutation--that generates a panoply of genetic variants, both good and bad (in our example, a variety of new coat colors); and then a deterministic step--natural selection--that orders this variation, keeping the good and winnowing the bad (the retention of light-color genes at the expense of dark-color ones).

It is important to clarify these two steps because of the widespread misconception, promoted by creationists, that in evolution "everything happens by chance." Creationists equate the chance that evolution could produce a complex organism to the infinitesimal chance that a hurricane could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble the junk into a Boeing 747. But this analogy is specious. Evolution is manifestly not a chance process because of the order produced by natural selection--order that can, over vast periods of time, result in complex organisms looking as if they were designed to fit their environment. Humans, the product of non-random natural selection, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways they are even more complex. The explanation of seeming design by solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement, and a major source of discomfort for those holding the view that nature was designed by God.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

(I am patting myself on the back for saying nearly that weeks ago...great minds think alike).

 

[articulett]

And here's Behe's amazon blog... you guys can see the delusional world of the creationist first hand: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI

Make sure you don't sound like him, randomites, lest you be taken as seriously as him. What a pathetic deluded old man.

 

[Schneibster]

You say that as if the player's own hand were the most important factor.

Depending on the hand, it may well be. But that is not my point. My point is that there is no difference between playing poker and assessing one's hand's chances of being the winning one in a given hand; it is an integral part of the game, as are betting strategies, bluffing, and attempting to determine another player's true evaluation of their own hand. You implicitly asserted that evaluating the odds is separate from playing the game; it is not.

What the player's have sure as hell ain't random

It better be in any game of poker you'll find me playing. People have gotten shot when it wasn't, you following me here?

 

[mijopaalmc]

And here's Behe's amazon blog... you guys can see the delusional world of the creationist first hand: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI

Make sure you don't sound like him, randomites, lest you be taken as seriously as him. What a pathetic deluded old man.

Why does it matter if we actually sound like Behe?

A dyed-in-the-wool non-randomite like you, articulett, will continue to claim that we do no matter how cogent our arguments are.

 

[articulett]

Why does it matter if we actually sound like Behe?

A dyed-in-the-wool non-randomite like you, articulett, will continue to claim that we do no matter how cogent our arguments are.

Well, do let me know if one of you gets a cogent one.

Or try dialogue...that back and forth thing...much less taxing than always moving the goalposts...and what was your goal again?

1. Is there any evidence that would lead you to conclude that defining natural selection in terms of the random components that affect it is misleading? Why isn't the recent peer reviewed article I gave you valid at are in that endeavor? Or Dawkins?

2. Is there any peer reviewed recent scientific research that says any of the following (and not per your interpretations...I can read Behe's twisted interpretations too--we have peer review to cull such blowhards):

a. The definition for random is (insert the definition you are using).
b. The definition for a stochastic process is (insert the definition you are using.
c. "Evolution is random", "natural selection is random", Natural selection is a stochastic process", "random components in a process make the process itself random", "Dawkins et. al. are wrong to call natural selection non-random". "The word random has a singular definition that all rigorous scientists use" or "It is misleading to call natural selection 'deterministic'". Or a similar quote--but nothing twisted like your report Mijo which clearly differentiated between mutation (which it referred to as stochastic) and selection (something separate and deterministic-- their words, not mine.
d. Addresses Behe's mistaken notion and the majority of peoples misunderstandings about natural selection (including yours, I suspect) while referring to mutation and selection using the same adjective (random, stochastic, determined, biased, etc.). Is there any peer reviewed paper that doesn't distinguish between the relative randomness of mutation and the random components that are part of the environment that selects?

Until then, I guess you will sound like Behe to me. What's the difference. He uses lots of words to say nothing at all and is impervious to the notion that he's obfuscating and missing some pretty important details in order to sum up evolution as random. What else am I to expect when the most vocal and least able to engage in dialogue on this thread are the same ones defending creationist tour guides lying to kids on another? It would also help if you all had the SAME argument or definition--or anything that didn't make me feel the way Dawkins feels about Behe.

Mijo...the facts are the same for everybody. The explanation will evolve according to what works best for the most people and best for curtailing creationist obfuscations. There isn't anybody describing evolution the way you are--and the reason is, is because you aren't clear...you sound like a creationist...you sound like you haven't the slightest clue about natural selection...you sound like you have a need to call it "random" just like Behe has a need. And yet, you were supposedly interested in the non-random aspects. I just think Scientists will respond to you the way Dawkins responds to Behe...you just seem sad and deluded and missing the cool stuff you could be learning all just to prove you're right. Right about what? The "true" definition? The definition that is so vague that it describes anything? The definiton that is so useless that the peer reviewed articles you think are supported your claim, are doing the OPPOSITE. Didn't that give you a clue that you are looking for the answer you want instead of just assessing the evidence and letting it lead you? How is that different than Behe?

Or even someone saying, the winner of a poker game is selected at random. (As if).

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why does it matter if we actually sound like Behe?

A dyed-in-the-wool non-randomite like you, articulett, will continue to claim that we do no matter how cogent our arguments are.

Well, do let me know if one of you gets a cogent one.

Or try these:

1. Is there any evidence that would lead you to conclude that defining natural selection in terms of the random components that affect it is misleading.

2. Is there any peer reviewed recent scientific research that says any of the following (and not per your interpretations...I can read Behe's twisted interpretations too--we have peer review to cull such blowhards):

a. The definition for random is (insert the definition you are using).
b. The definition for a stochastic process is (insert the definition you are using.
c. "Evolution is random", "natural selection is random", Natural selection is a stochastic process", "random components in a process make the process itself random", "Dawkins et. al. are wrong to call natural selection non-random". "The word random has a singular definition that all rigorous scientists use" or "It is misleading to call natural selection 'deterministic'". Or a similar quote--but nothing twisted like your report Mijo which clearly differentiated between mutation (which it referred to as stochastic) and selection (something separate and deterministic-- their words, not mine.
d. Addresses Behe's mistaken notion and the majority of peoples misunderstandings about natural selection (including yours, I suspect) while referring to mutation and selection using the same adjective (random, stochastic, determined, biased, etc.). Is there any peer reviewed paper that doesn't distinguish between the relative randomness of mutation and the random components that are part of the environment that selects?

Until then, I guess you will sound like Behe to me. What's the difference. He uses lots of words to say nothing at all and is impervious to the notion that he's obfuscating and missing some pretty important details in order to sum up evolution as random. What else am I to expect when the most vocal and least able to engage in dialogue on this thread are the same ones defending creationist tour guides lying to kids on another? It would also help if you all had the SAME argument or definition--or anything that didn't make me feel the way Dawkins feels about Behe.

Mijo...the facts are the same for everybody. The explanation will evolve according to what works best for the most people and best for curtailing creationist obfuscations. There isn't anybody describing evolution the way you are--and the reason is, is because you aren't clear...you sound like a creationist...you sound like you haven't the slightest clue about natural selection...you sound like you have a need to call it "random" just like Behe has a need. And yet, you were supposedly interested in the non-random aspects. I just think Scientists will respond to you the way Dawkins responds to Behe...you just seem sad and deluded and missing the cool stuff you could be learning all just to prove you're right. Right about what? The "true" definition? The definition that is so vague that it describes anything? The definiton that is so useless that the peer reviewed articles you think are supported your claim, are doing the OPPOSITE. Didn't that give you a clue that you are looking for the answer you want instead of just assessing the evidence and letting it lead you? How is that different than Behe?

QED

We have addressed all the points that you have described in this post, but you have rejected our explanations at every turn calling them "meaningless".

 

[articulett]

The cards are dealt at random, Schneibster-- the environment (including the people holding their perspective hands playing the game) selects the winner. Cards must be played for such selection to occur.

(Cyborg, I think by Schneibster definition...even loaded dice are random--go figure. Everything is random to a randomite...hence the vagary and uselessness of their definition).

 

[mijopaalmc]

The cards are dealt at random, Schneibster-- the environment (including the people holding their perspective hands playing the game) selects the winner. Cards must be played for such selection to occur.

(Cyborg, I think by Schneibster definition...even loaded dice are random--go figure. Everything is random to a randomite...hence the vagary and uselessness of their definition).

The fundamental flaw in this analogy is that the rarer hand always wins over the more common hand in poker. This is not the case in evolution; the fitter organism does not always reproduce.

 

[articulett]

The fundamental flaw in this analogy is that the rarer hand always wins over the more common hand in poker. This is not the case in evolution; the fitter organism does not always reproduce.

Okie-dokie. Then it's random. Everything that has randomness in it in any way is random per mijo. (And do you remember Cyborg's poker "flop" analogy--I guess not.)

Here's irony: You said it's no wonder people don't understand scientists. But the people no one is understanding is you. You guys don't understand each other. You cannot convey a simple understanding of natural selection. Your definitions are redundant (natural selection means everything in the environment...including "random tornadoes" or "bad guys")

--but mostly your definitions are ambiguous--it only describes part of the process...and it's the easy part; it leaves out the reason that things can look designed at not be--the environment, including potential mates, predators, food sources, etc. all drive each others evolution--not randomly--but together.

But worst of all, instead of engaging in dialogue you just keep insisting you are right. Nobody provided the evidence above despite claims to the contrary (and you used QED wrong). You all complain about how wrong it is to call selection non-random even though multiple respected scientists do so. None are calling it random. You have a definition indistinguishable from a creationist strawman.

I'm sure someone will let me know when the scientific community gets together and decides that Dawkins, Ayala, et. al. are wrong and that Mijo and Behe are right. Why are you wasting your time on this forum? Hadn't you better be writing of a treatise on how natural selection is really random? Hadn't you better be telling Ayala is definition of random is wrong--and Talk Origins and Berkeley and your dictionary manufacturer? Here I was thinking it was all so simple to understand...even my students could get it-- but little did I know that I wasn't using the vague definition of random where everything is random if it has any randomness attached to it.

Of course, I wouldn't recognize a "cogent" argument--but surely the peer review boards would?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I did not use QED wrong. Your post demonstrated that, until the randomites abandoned their definition of "random" and stopped disagreeing with those who used it differently (and improperly in a technical setting), you would continue to consider their argument as being like Behe's.