What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[JoeEllison]

He's not completely wrong... you could make a case for calling Poker a "random game" by describing all the things that were random about it and leaving out the strategy or why certain results are observed-- but you wouldn't be describing the game. The whole point of the "wedge strategy" is to sum up evolution as "scientists think all this came about randomly"-- and, as Dawkins and others note, that just glosses over how it actually came about... how natural selection is the "opposite of random"-- it culls the best replicators and multiplies their information exponentially ala the "selfish gene"... (genomes are like communities of genes working together for the "hope" of being passed on like a "winning team"--) Those who focus on the randomness, can't describe natural selection at all-- they can't explain the beauty of evolution-- the simple algorithm-- why it "looks" designed, but is not. They can't answer the question in the OP and they can't hear how they sound garbled, and I can only imagine it's because, like the faithful--they think they "know" something, they, quite obviously, don't quite know.

But this has been said over and over by many and there are quotes from experts all throughout this thread-- but to no avail. The expert answer to the OP question is "natural selection is the non-random part of evolution".

Since the question has already been answered, the only interest left in the thread is to watch how people rationalize away the answer, and continue to pretend that their viewpoint has merit.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hey, Joe. I've got a great idea about how to put on an even better show. I'll make you the sort of offer I made articulett.

Ask me a question, and I'll answer it. Keep doing that until you get bored.

Articulett got bored after three questions. It's odd, though, because she didn't get bored of writing lengthy monologues that were mostly long strings of personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims about other posters. She got bored with actual discussion, but not her own voice.

Or I could ask you questions instead. Or, my real favorite, you could ask me one, then I could ask you one. I didn't even bother offering that to articulett. I knew she wouldn't answer questions. I was surprised how quickly she gave up asking them, but I knew that there was no point in trying to get her to answer. Answering just wasn't part of her pattern.


It's a debate format I stumbled on many years ago that was well suited to forum discussions. I was the voice of reason in a JFK conspiracy thread. The CT crowd loved going on and on and on about this unsolved thing or that unsolved thing proved that JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and the KGB, but when someone pinned them down, they stammered a lot more. Even more, when they were forced to ask questions one at a time, it became clear how easy it was to defeat the arguments. The only thing that kept the conspiracy theory going was a shotgun style approach that moved on before any one question was actually answered.

For what it's worth, I suspect it would work great in the evolution/creation debates so common on forums. Like the CT debates, the only thing that keeps the creationists from looking totally foolish even to each other is that they move on so quickly before being exposed.

So how about it, Joe? It would be a great show, I'm sure. Your insightful mind could find just the right questions to expose just how foolish I really was. Any newcomers to the thread wouldn't need to read 62 pages to make me look like an ass. Are you up for it?

You've ignored everyone else. You aren't going to listen to me or anyone else.

Your goal in this is dishonest, and I see right through it. Go ahead and declare the fake victory you had planned for whenever I got bored of your dishonest refusal to take the questions seriously, and your crackpot buddies can all pat you on the back. The answer has already been explained to you.

 

[Meadmaker]

You've ignored everyone else. You aren't going to listen to me or anyone else.

Your goal in this is dishonest, and I see right through it.

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool old Joe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You've ignored everyone else. You aren't going to listen to me or anyone else.

Your goal in this is dishonest, and I see right through it. Go ahead and declare the fake victory you had planned for whenever I got bored of your dishonest refusal to take the questions seriously, and your crackpot buddies can all pat you on the back. The answer has already been explained to you.

Actually, Meadmaker hasn't ignored anyone; he has, to my recollection engaged everyone who has responded to his posts. Here it seem that, as you accused of defining "dishonest" as "not agreeing with me", you seemed to have defined "ignore" as "continue to disagree with". The problem is that, despite having gone on and on for 2503 posts, this thread still centers around the original definitional issue: the meaning of "random". Instead of addressing the implications of evolution being described by random variable and probability distributions, articulett and those who agree with her have dishonestly insisted, despite repeated explanation to the contrary, that that definition "makes everything random" even "algebra". Now, it seems they just want to insult people instead of engaging in intelligent debate.

 

[articulett]

You've ignored everyone else. You aren't going to listen to me or anyone else.

Your goal in this is dishonest, and I see right through it. Go ahead and declare the fake victory you had planned for whenever I got bored of your dishonest refusal to take the questions seriously, and your crackpot buddies can all pat you on the back. The answer has already been explained to you.

I'm not even sure he has a goal. But whatever it is... you're right-- he's winning in his head in a game no-one else seems to be playing that has little to do with the OP. But I actually like when other people see this... because this is really what evolutionists are up against with the Discovery institute-- the "intelligent design proponents" sound sort of like they may be saying something-- but who knows what it is-- it misleads more than it clarifies. I'd like everyone to really understand evolution, because it is sooo cool. Darwin is available all over the web for free download (his writing is read aloud on mp3)... and anything by Dawkins on the subject is great-- also, Matt Ridley or Steven Jones and Natalie Angiers. It's profoundly beautiful and interesting-- and understanding it is immensely satisfying. And it's much easier to understand than the obfuscators make it sound... it's simple once you let go of the "randomness" (which, trust me, is the easy part).

(Some people are easy to talk to-- some people are easier to talk about.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Instead of addressing the implications of evolution being described by random variable and probability distributions, ...

While we're here, are there any implications? My point is that I don't actually see any implications, and I wonder why first Dawkins and then articulett et. al. seem to think it is very, very, important to avoid the word. (As for Joe, who knows what his point is, but he can see through me and he wants to make sure everyone knows it.)

As I said tens of pages ago, I think that it's simply a case that somewhere along the way, someone decided that "random" was part of the other team's words, and anyone using it was therefore suspect. It seems silly to me, but I think that's where we are.

 

[steenkh]

And this seems to be the problem in the understanding of those who argue that evolution is by definition non-random: their understanding of probability theory seem to be stuck in the 17th and 18th centuries, when probability theorists were in part interested in analyzing games of chance.

Is it not the problem of modern scientists if they try to define words in another way than they are in common usage? In this thread a number of alternative words have been suggested, and that gives much more sense.

 

[steenkh]

I find it interesting that none of the "non-randomites" who don't have me on ignore have bothered to respond to my citations of evolutionary biologists saying that evolution is a stochastic process (quotes in spoilers to conserve post space).

In fact, none of your quotes use the word 'random', and nobody here denies the probabilistic nature of evolution. To continue the 'loaded dice' analogy, I actually have a loaded die, and it is loaded to give a six. However, it it does not always give a six, so it is really 'probabilistic'. Nevertheless, I can with great certainty win any game of 10 throws or more if the game is won by throwing sixes, and I can use my die, and the opponent has a normal die. I do not think it is wrong to say that winning these games is a certainty, despite the probabilistic background.

The Bell quote is a bit odd, because he seems to focus on individuals and a few generations, in which case the probabilistic noise is much higher in both processes than the kind of evolution that we discuss in this thread. In the 'loaded die' analogy, it is equal to looking at one or two throws, where it is not certain at all that sixes will appear.

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually, Meadmaker hasn't ignored anyone; he has, to my recollection engaged everyone who has responded to his posts. Here it seem that, as you accused of defining "dishonest" as "not agreeing with me", you seemed to have defined "ignore" as "continue to disagree with". The problem is that, despite having gone on and on for 2503 posts, this thread still centers around the original definitional issue: the meaning of "random". Instead of addressing the implications of evolution being described by random variable and probability distributions, articulett and those who agree with her have dishonestly insisted, despite repeated explanation to the contrary, that that definition "makes everything random" even "algebra". Now, it seems they just want to insult people instead of engaging in intelligent debate.

So, you declared victory, and he can pat you on the back. Gotcha.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm not even sure he has a goal. But whatever it is... you're right-- he's winning in his head in a game no-one else seems to be playing that has little to do with the OP. But I actually like when other people see this... because this is really what evolutionists are up against with the Discovery institute-- the "intelligent design proponents" sound sort of like they may be saying something-- but who knows what it is-- it misleads more than it clarifies. I'd like everyone to really understand evolution, because it is sooo cool. Darwin is available all over the web for free download (his writing is read aloud on mp3)... and anything by Dawkins on the subject is great-- also, Matt Ridley or Steven Jones and Natalie Angiers. It's profoundly beautiful and interesting-- and understanding it is immensely satisfying. And it's much easier to understand than the obfuscators make it sound... it's simple once you let go of the "randomness" (which, trust me, is the easy part).

(Some people are easy to talk to-- some people are easier to talk about.)

Of course it is intended to obscure. Otherwise, no one would have even bothered to start a thread like this. No one being honest would ever claim that evolution is a "random process". Everyone accepts that there are random or probabilistic aspects to evolution, so there's no argument there.

It does remind me of Behe, and his dishonest misrepresentations of science, in order to push a creationist agenda. I don't know what the exact agenda is in this thread, but adding to our knowledge is not on the list of possibilities.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Bell quote is a bit odd, because he seems to focus on individuals and a few generations, in which case the probabilistic noise is much higher in both processes than the kind of evolution that we discuss in this thread.

What you mean we, Keemosabe?

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, you declared victory, and he can pat you on the back. Gotcha.

I see you're up to your same old deliberate mis interpretation shtick. I have never declared victory; I just said that the evidence that has been presented in favor of evolution being "non-random" is not convincing at all, because it is based on a poor and inconsistent definition of "random" that does not account for all the usages in rigorous mathematical and scientific situations. I have never said that, since the evidence has not been presented thus far, it does not exist; I have just asked that, using the definition that I have provided and that many scientists and mathematicians who study random/stochastic processes use, you present evidence that evolution is "non-random".

Would you care to explain how that is declaring victory?

 

[jimbob]

Jim Bob's nice and less wrong, but just muddled and impenetrable. Even uneducated people can understand evolution when Dawkins and other "good explainers" discuss it. But no-one understands the Behe-esque--and they can't change, because they are convinced they are saying something useful and valuable, I guess.

Why am I muddled?

I talk about the probabilities so I can quantify my statements*.

If I didn't I would say something like this:

Traits that are advantageous are more likely to get passed on. Over time, more advantageous traits will tend to build up in the populations.

Little difference from you, except for the qualifiers "more likely" and "tend to".

*yes I am a physicist by training, "if you can't quantify it you don't understand it, is flippant, but does have some truth...

 

[articulett]

Why am I muddled?

I talk about the probabilities so I can quantify my statements*.

If I didn't I would say something like this:







*yes I am a physicist by training, "if you can't quantify it you don't understand it, is flippant, but does have some truth...

For the same reasons Cyborg gave... and I have given many times... For the reasons you can't see the nozzle example as clarifying understanding whereas referring to "probabilities" in general without saying what the probabilities are is just pretty darn useless. Remember the MSNBC butterfly link? How is it that the male butterflies bounced back? Saying "it happened probabilistically" is just not informative... and yet that is how your definitions sound. It doesn't convey the information requested... whereas, cyborg et. al. do. And it doesn't answer the OP question as Dawkins, Ayala, Stephen Jones (nozzle example), MSNBC link, Berekely link, Talk Origins, me, Cyborg, and multiple persons have. They are clear. You think you are clear, but you are not... that's why they teach the topic, and you stick with physics.

Life has exponential replication of the successes and death of failed experiments-- physics doesn't. Your explantion lacks this essential understanding.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Life has exponential replication of the successes and death of failed experiments-- physics doesn't. Your explantion lacks this essential understanding.

And once again articulett misses the point. There are stochastic processes (e.g., Galton-Watson processes and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes) that both display the characteristics of life that she describes above and were developed to describe the behavior of heritable traits. While this does not mean that evolution has to be a stochastic process, it does mean that the possibility of evolution being a stochastic process cannot be ruled out using the "exponential replication of the successes and death of failed experiments" criteria.

 

[Meadmaker]

Since Joe won't agree to a straight up debate, I'll try to respond to what he says, minus the personal attacks.

Everyone accepts that there are random or probabilistic aspects to evolution, so there's no argument there.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[Meadmaker]

Same approach with articulett.

I'd like everyone to really understand evolution, because it is sooo cool. Darwin is available all over the web for free download (his writing is read aloud on mp3)... and anything by Dawkins on the subject is great-- also, Matt Ridley or Steven Jones and Natalie Angiers. It's profoundly beautiful and interesting-- and understanding it is immensely satisfying. ....it's simple once you let go of the "randomness"

I don't think that there is just one way to understand anything, especially something with so many different aspects as the theory of evolution.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Same approach with articulett.



I don't think that there is just one way to understand anything, especially something with so many different aspects as the theory of evolution.

Uh....articulett has said she has you on ignore so I wouldn't get to excited about getting a response.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uh....articulett has said she has you on ignore so I wouldn't get to excited about getting a response.

 

[jimbob]

This sums up my view very nicely: Steven J Gould, QUoted by Christopher Hitchens in "God is not Great"

Wind the tape of time back to Burgess times and play it again, if Pikaia does not survive in the replay, we are wiped out of future history - all of us from shark to robin to orangutan. And I don't think that any handicapper, given Burgess Evidence as known today, would have granted favorable odds for the persistance of Pikaia

And so, if you wish to asjk the question of the ages - why do humans exist? - A major part of the answer, touching those aspects of the issyue that science can treat at all, must be : because Pikaia survived the Burgess decimation. This response does not cite a single law of nature; it embodies no statement about predictible evolutionary pathways, no calculation of probabilities based on general rules of anatomy or ecology. THe survival of Pikaia was a contingency of "just history". I do not think that any "higher" answer can be given, and I can not imagine that any resolution can be more fascinating. We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes - one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.

Or, more inelegantly from me:

Most offspring fail to reproduce, those which don't are bothe tjhe more optimised and "lucky". If this rule applied to any of the common ancestors to humanity, we wouldn't be here. Something like humanity might not be here also.

This "solution" to the question of how to reproduce successfully, might not have been answered by any technological social animal.

I would argue that this was not just unpredictable but determinsitic, but also truly random.


The point about the nozzle example is that the selection is not random, it fits a criteris, so will be more effective (i.e. faster) than a probabilistic selection that would occur in nature.

Artificial breeding (artificial selection) is nonrandom, designer deity selectively breeding humans would be nonrandom, actual natural selection is probabilistic.

Articulett, how would you attempt to answer my numerical questions? I am still not sure if your complaint is that "probabilistic" is wrong or just "overcomplicated".