What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

And rttjc...all mutations that stick around and spread rapidly are beneficial.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

We know that certain mutations that protected people from the plague...confer a protective effect against AIDS on their descendants. The genes that in their homozygous form (2 copies) causes sickle cell anemia protects against Malaria in it's heterozygous form...and such mutations have evolved more than once in malaria prone regions.

 

[rittjc]

Wow, are you a poor advertisement for faith. It seems to have made you both stupid, and angry.

First of all, what made you think I am bitter? Wasn't and don't see it in my post. I think you are reading that in there because that is your reaction on the given subject. I find atheists are the ones angry. Frustration has this affect on them. I don't hate them for it. I too was an atheist at one time.

So...back to nylonase...did god poof it into existence like everything else so that it could eat nylon?--Is that your hypothesis? The invisible man said to himself, "my beloved creations on this speck of earth finally created nylon...let me dip my finger into some bacteria and mutate it so I can make a life form that eats nylon?

You are still operating on some self-induced delusion that Nylonase only consumes Nylon and was "evolved" for that purpose. That is a fantasy. Nylonase merely consumes matter that has similar structure. It could have been called Craponase. You give it a name to try to deceive people with the power of suggestion that its sole purpose was Nylon consumption. What an incredibly ridiculous conclusion that you have pinned the hopes of evolution on.

[qoute]
And this designer knows how it's all going to turn out anyhow, right? He knows who is going where and all that...correct?--so why do you think you make a difference? Why does someone all powerful need you to speak for him ? I mean, your are not the best representative for anybody "all-loving", you know... [/quote]

Hardly the best representative. But how do you know the creator knows how everything is going to turn out? Big pictures yes, you can tell that by knowing the tendencies of things and observing their behaviors. But man as an individual has a free will. Only chump creators would create automatons. Yours sounds pretty pathetic.

Is it true that you think scientists believe that life evolved randomly?

Absolutely, many if not the silent majority of scientists are either IDers or creationists. They are just not allowed to speak for being torn to shreds by atheists whose live hinges on the protection of their sacred cows.

Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that evolution is correct?

Well "some" evidence would be a good start. You can't produce a single piece that doesn't better support design. This is your problem. You constantly make the case for the opposition.

Do you know that Behe concedes that humans share an ancestor with apes?
Of course it's hard to deny when you see the facts.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

How does this affect me? He is not my god. he is just a man with some very good ideas. Does that mean his every thought must be accepted? He can't prove a link from the mythical creature you call "Primate" to humans either so why would I care what he believes? You evolutionists are man worshipers. It is shameful but I guess everyone needs a god.

You seem to believe that science is about to "overturn" evolution any day now and find the truth that everything was designed from on high with a purpose in mind... so when is evidence of this miracle going to come to light? Weather gods and volcano demons disappear and gods role gets smaller as science explains more. So when will we get evidence of this "intelligent" (but wasteful and cruel) designer?

Sounds to me like it already has. You have a real personal problem with the idea of intelligence though you don't deny its need in any arena except your religion of evolution.

And how do you define random?

Happening not by probabilities but by a finite number of possibilities. A single die will not return anything outside the set of 1-6 so that is not random, but which of the 6 numbers it returns is random. Randomness cannot return 7 from that single die. There is your definition of random. This is why Evolution cannot use Natural Selection to explain anything. The possibilities are set and finite.

 

[articulett]

Personally, I don't use the term random when discussing evolution mainly due the ambiguity you mention. Many of the people I work with are computer programmers or computer modelers, and tend to use random in the sense of random number generators, which may work when discussing particular mutations, but is highly inappropriate for discussing natural selection. If someone else raises the term, I generally ask how they define it, and go from there. Most often, I will discuss evolution in terms of the complexity of multi-variable systems and how these can be appropriately modeled (again, the whole computer background thing). This tends to get the point across much better with the people I mostly encounter.

Yes. Selection of computer viruses is a good starting model of selection of DNA viruses.

Michael Behe is a top creationist and spreads this notion (as other creationists do) that "scientists think all this came about by random chance".
The point is to make sure people don't understand natural selection...because once you understand natural selection, evolution makes more sense than a designer from on high. So Biologists tend to go out of their way to curtail such thinking by showing how natural selection is biased towards order and is, therefore, the opposite of random.

 

[rittjc]

And rttjc...all mutations that stick around and spread rapidly are beneficial.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

We know that certain mutations that protected people from the plague...confer a protective effect against AIDS on their descendants. The genes that in their homozygous form (2 copies) causes sickle cell anemia protects against Malaria in it's heterozygous form...and such mutations have evolved more than once in malaria prone regions.

How convenient a declaration. How does the offspring know to keep it if it destroys it? Mutations cause things like down syndrome, hemophilia, etc. Most of our diseases are classified at genetic defects. Of course these defects do not appear to be beneficial. I have yet to see one in humans. Maybe growing a third arm would be beneficial but it is simply not seen. The only time you find out that you have a random mutation is when someone tells you are going to be deformed or die soon.

Kings bred too close and their offspring developed hemophilia. Somehow this is beneficial. You can't name a single random mutation in humans that is beneficial. So every single mutation would wipe out the gene pool and reduce the offspring for the next generation that somehow has to know to discard it, it killed our parents before we are conceived. This is how baseless and irrational it is.

You ought to be ashamed to float mutations as a process of the creation of more detailed organisms rather than the utter destruction of them by the second generation. This is why evolution is a certified scam. It has nothing, not even reasonable ideas that we can entertain. Everything in life contradicts it. That's just too far a leap of faith to deny every aspect of science just to believe in evolution.

Most people are too demanding to accept something like that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

How does a bias toward order imply a non-random event?

 

[Hokulele]

Yes. Selection of computer viruses is a good starting model of selection of DNA viruses.

Michael Behe is a top creationist and spreads this notion (as other creationists do) that "scientists think all this came about by random chance".
The point is to make sure people don't understand natural selection...because once you understand natural selection, evolution makes more sense than a designer from on high. So Biologists tend to go out of their way to curtail such thinking by showing how natural selection is biased towards order and is, therefore, the opposite of random.

Please don't think I have been disagreeing with you, I just find that I have to use the language of the people I am discussing things with. If they are using "random" in an inappropriate way, you can be sure I will call them on it ("random chance" indeed!). If you do ever find yourself discussing evolution with programmers, it is always fun to ask them, "Is a Google search random in its results?" After 5 minutes of that discussion, they start to see the point about natural selection/evolution.

 

[cyborg]

How does a bias toward order imply a non-random event?

Where does one put a limit on infinity?

 

[articulett]

How convenient a declaration. How does the offspring know to keep it if it destroys it? Mutations cause things like down syndrome, hemophilia, etc. Most of our diseases are classified at genetic defects. Of course these defects do not appear to be beneficial. I have yet to see one in humans. Maybe growing a third arm would be beneficial but it is simply not seen.

Most people are too demanding to accept something like that.

Your designer seems to be quite a tinkerer... and it's interesting to notice which facts and links and assertions you fail to respond to.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13046061/

Are you saying the butterflies didn't have a beneficial mutation?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274
(their mutation may not have been beneficial to the parasite, but it was sure a boon to the butterflies....)

Humans
http://www.answers.com/topic/myostatin
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

I know it's hard for you to understand science after seeping your mind in creationist crap...but a "beneficial mutation" is merely one that allows it's possessor to spawn more... a larger penis seems to have conferred such an advantage after our split with primates. Cancer is always evolving mutations to spur it's own replication...it's an arms race between cancer and chemo...

Everything in the DNA that makes an organism that possesses it more likely to reproduce than it's peers is considered a "beneficial mutation" to that organism.

And most people who have just a smattering of science education accept than rather easily. Most people are too demanding to accepts some blowhard telling them that an invisible man designed this speck in the universe to bring forth people such as yourself. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof... heck even ordinary proof... even an iota of evidence... would be a help. But otherwise, it just seems obvious that people believe the crap you believe because someone told them they'd live happily ever after if they did and suffer forever if they didn't.

 

[kjkent1]

How convenient a declaration. How does the offspring know to keep it if it destroys it? Mutations cause things like down syndrome, hemophilia, etc. Most of our diseases are classified at genetic defects. Of course these defects do not appear to be beneficial. I have yet to see one in humans. Maybe growing a third arm would be beneficial but it is simply not seen. The only time you find out that you have a random mutation is when someone tells you are going to be deformed or die soon.

Kings bred too close and their offspring developed hemophilia. Somehow this is beneficial. You can't name a single random mutation in humans that is beneficial. So every single mutation would wipe out the gene pool and reduce the offspring for the next generation that somehow has to know to discard it, it killed our parents before we are conceived. This is how baseless and irrational it is.

You ought to be ashamed to float mutations as a process of the creation of more detailed organisms rather than the utter destruction of them by the second generation. This is why evolution is a certified scam. It has nothing, not even reasonable ideas that we can entertain. Everything in life contradicts it. That's just too far a leap of faith to deny every aspect of science just to believe in evolution.

Most people are too demanding to accept something like that.

No one comes to the doctor presenting a symptom of a beneficial mutation. Why would they, since the mutation improves their fitness to survive in the present environment?

As for you never seeing a beneficial mutation, I doubt that you would admit the existence of one, even if you did see it. Let's test the theory.

Lactose tolerance is a beneficial mutation -- it arose approximately 4,000 years ago, and it enabled certain human tribes to control territories which they would otherwise have been unable to control. This occurred because an army of lactose tolerant humans can bring a source of high quality protein with them in the form of dairy cows and milk products. The army doesn't have to slaughter the cows for protein, and it doesn't have to find protein along the way.

This provides a huge advantage by reducing the need for long supply lines back to the homeland. And, so the lactose-tolerant Western Europeans were able to completely control the most desirable and resource-rich climates on Earth.

Naturally, you won't like my explanation, because it doesn't fit your belief system. But, like it or not, the list of lactose-tolerant human tribes are those who control the best real property on Earth, and those who are lactose tolerant, generally control the worst land -- because they weren't as fit for the environment.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

 

[cyborg]

You can't name a single random mutation in humans that is beneficial.

Do you like drinking moo juice?

 

[articulett]

Please don't think I have been disagreeing with you, I just find that I have to use the language of the people I am discussing things with. If they are using "random" in an inappropriate way, you can be sure I will call them on it ("random chance" indeed!). If you do ever find yourself discussing evolution with programmers, it is always fun to ask them, "Is a Google search random in its results?" After 5 minutes of that discussion, they start to see the point about natural selection/evolution.

I actually feel like you are agreeing with me. It is essential to pin down the exact definition of random people are using. The answer as to the evidence for the non-random aspects of evolution depends on such definitions. I was just curious as to whether you thought there was a singular definition that is used across the board? Some people think nothing is truly random because everything has a cause and others say that anything containing any randomness is a random process. Such confusion is a tool that creationists exploit to their advantage. I also think Googles algorhithm is a good analogy...it also shows that "fittest" doesn't mean what people are prone to thinking it means. In any case, the point is clear...when one is referring to evolution as random they should take pains to clarify their meaning from Behe's misunderstanding and/or use an explanation that shows how the order comes about.

Because of math abuse, both by Behe and Kleinman, I prefer the clarity of Dawkins', Talk Origins, and the Berekeley description where they make an effort to define random, and show how natural selection is not random.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

How does a bias toward order imply a non-random event?

What cyborg said.

Per your definition we can know 9 out of 10 coin tosses and still call the final outcome "random"...with the implication that the the 1 in 2 chance of possible outcomes at the end the toss is defined the same way as the 1 in 1024 chance of all possible outcomes from the get go.

Your definition of random is so loose, that it would be hard for anything NOT to be random. Your use of the word makes Poker identical to Roulette in terms of randomness. Your definition of evolution is indistinguishable from Behe's unless or until you show how it's different. It confuses more than it clarifies.

 

[articulett]

Happening not by probabilities but by a finite number of possibilities. A single die will not return anything outside the set of 1-6 so that is not random, but which of the 6 numbers it returns is random. Randomness cannot return 7 from that single die. There is your definition of random. This is why Evolution cannot use Natural Selection to explain anything. The possibilities are set and finite.

Would you call a loaded die, random?

 

[Hokulele]

I actually feel like you are agreeing with me. It is essential to pin down the exact definition of random people are using. The answer as to the evidence for the non-random aspects of evolution depends on such definitions. I was just curious as to whether you thought there was a singular definition that is used across the board? Some people think nothing is truly random because everything has a cause and others say that anything containing any randomness is a random process. Such confusion is a tool that creationists exploit to their advantage. I also think Googles algorhithm is a good analogy...it also shows that "fittest" doesn't mean what people are prone to thinking it means. In any case, the point is clear...when one is referring to evolution as random they should take pains to clarify their meaning from Behe's misunderstanding and/or use an explanation that shows how the order comes about.

Because of math abuse, both by Behe and Kleinman, I prefer the clarity of Dawkins', Talk Origins, and the Berekeley description where they make an effort to define random, and show how natural selection is not random.

Ah, I understand your point now. No, I don't think there is any one standard definition of random, which is why the word is so dangerous when used in describing certain complex situations. Even among the different physical sciences, random has different interpretations. I have seen it used to imply everything from "arbitrary" to "unprecedented". Yikes!

Generally, if I am talking about evolution, I try to use a definition of random more like "undirected" for elements such as mutation, but would not apply the term to the process of natural selection. If I am talking about playing poker, I would use a completely different definition of random.

I am sorry if all of this has already been discussed ad nauseum, and would be happy to a) read what has already been posted if it isn't simply dozens of pages of repetition (like most of this type of thread), or b) STFU.

 

[articulett]

rttjc...read your posts as though you were someone defending Scientology or Islam-- both have their own creation theories. Maybe you'll get some insight as to how emotional and angry you sound in your desperation at keeping your intelligent designer alive. They could each argue exactly as you have, you know. They have as much evidence for their creation stories as you have for yours. Some people believe their stories so much, they are eager to die to get to their unverifiable eternal reward. Now that's faith!

 

[Meadmaker]

I have trout fished with fly rods. I live in East Tennessee. We have trout streams out the wazoo.

I was just in your neck of the woods myself (Great Smoky Mountains National Park). Very nice country, and nice people.

However, I don't see what trout fishing has to do with randomness and evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

Happening not by probabilities but by a finite number of possibilities. A single die will not return anything outside the set of 1-6 so that is not random, but which of the 6 numbers it returns is random. Randomness cannot return 7 from that single die. There is your definition of random. This is why Evolution cannot use Natural Selection to explain anything. The possibilities are set and finite.

We'll forgive the lack of mathematical precision in your post (it's better than some have done, and I suspect you have less education in higher math is less than others that have failed worse.) I think I see your point.

You say the possibilities are "set and finite". Does that mean you think there are limitations on the sorts of organisms that can exist? Is there some sort of theoretical limit on exactly what sort of creature or plant could come about? I don't see why. Could you explain?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah, I understand your point now. No, I don't think there is any one standard definition of random, which is why the word is so dangerous when used in describing certain complex situations. Even among the different physical sciences, random has different interpretations. I have seen it used to imply everything from "arbitrary" to "unprecedented". Yikes!

Generally, if I am talking about evolution, I try to use a definition of random more like "undirected" for elements such as mutation, but would not apply the term to the process of natural selection. If I am talking about playing poker, I would use a completely different definition of random.

I am sorry if all of this has already been discussed ad nauseum, and would be happy to a) read what has already been posted if it isn't simply dozens of pages of repetition (like most of this type of thread), or b) STFU.

While this has all been posted before, in different ways, I find your perspective on it refreshing. Keep up the good work.

 

[articulett]

Ah, I understand your point now. No, I don't think there is any one standard definition of random, which is why the word is so dangerous when used in describing certain complex situations. Even among the different physical sciences, random has different interpretations. I have seen it used to imply everything from "arbitrary" to "unprecedented". Yikes!

Generally, if I am talking about evolution, I try to use a definition of random more like "undirected" for elements such as mutation, but would not apply the term to the process of natural selection. If I am talking about playing poker, I would use a completely different definition of random.

I am sorry if all of this has already been discussed ad nauseum, and would be happy to a) read what has already been posted if it isn't simply dozens of pages of repetition (like most of this type of thread), or b) STFU.

I agree completely. And Dawkins et. al. does as you do...they tend to call mutations and other genomic changes random (more or less) and the natural selection as the "filter" that culls from the pool of randomness. Sometimes they will say it is "non-random" or the "opposite of random" or that it directs evolution, or that what is selected is determined by the environment... They do this to show how order comes from the randomness to over ride the creationist canard where they associate evolution as being on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747. And I think this thread is mostly about the best definition for random in addressing the answer to the question in the OP. No need to read through...unless you're having trouble sleeping, of course.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some interesting information about nylonase enzymes:

From Talk Origins.

...nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and have no relationship to any known protease.