Biology Needs to Work Harder Against the Claim of Random Chance!!

[Wowbagger]

I am starting to get frustrated on this point. After debating a bunch of creationists, and reading their books and web sites, it seems the one thing they all have in common is the notion that Evolution is, somehow, all based on random chance, and happy accidents and stuff like that.

Recent examples include:
This book I reviewed, "Not By Chance!", by Lee Spetner.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105431

And, the upcoming film "Expelled", which has this statement on its web site:
educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. (emphasis mine) from this page:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php

I don't even need to remind y'all about the numerous threads going off on this topic, all over very Forum.

They are all fighting the wrong battle! Yet, they assume scientists are conspiring against them.

The goal of those studying The Theory of Evolution has been to eliminate and reduce chance, as much as possible, given any and all evidence deemed reliable, and experimental results that are repeatable. Evolution places its arguments into functions of physics, cumulative adaptations, the environment, self-organizing systems, and other aspects of the fitness landscape, etc.; using a completely non-random algorithm. The last thing Evolution ever relies on is going to be random chance! For, "random chance" adds nothing to our understanding of life.

Folks like, Richard Dawkins, etc., have written numerous books on the subject, attempting to communicate all this. But, for some reason the Creationists still don't get it!!

Biology needs to work harder to remove this pervasive Myth of Chance from midst of public understanding.

My question is: How?! What can we do, what must be done?

[Fnord]

"The goal of evolution..."?
"Evolution places its arguments..."?
"The last thing Evolution ever relies on..."?

Goal? Placing arguments? Reliance? These are arguably acts of intelligence. Do you mean to say that Evolution is an intelligent entity with goals, plans, a mission statement and maybe even a 401K?

First, de-personify Evolution. It is a process, not a person. It has no goal, which would imply a plan, which in turn would inply intellect. Speak of it as a process only. If I can catch this sublety, then it shows up like chaff on a Creationist's radar.

Re-phrase your pitch, and then we'll work on the rest.

[kerikiwi]

Dawkins has never attempted to communicate that evolution has goals, or argues or relies on anything. Evolution just is.

[Wowbagger]

My Bad!

I should have said the goal of The Theory of Evolution.

I know evolution has no goals.
I meant to say that the Theory's goal is to demonstrate evolution is not random.

I apologize for the bad wording, and made the correction in the OP.

ETA: Perhaps the phrasing "The goal of those studying evolution is to..."

[kerikiwi]

Therein lies a problem with editing after responses have been made: the responses now look as if they were badly-worded.

[Garrette]

Last night I had an unexpected opportunity to discuss this with my 14 year old son. He doesn't question evolution, but he faces IDer classmates a lot, and last night he was studying for an evolution quiz.

As is his wont, he got distracted and working on the probability of getting a Yahtzee in the game of the same name. (Summary for those who haven't played: Roll five dice in an attempt to get varying combinations. Each of your turns allows you three rolls of the dice, either rolling them all three times or leaving some and re-rolling the select ones. A Yahtzee is when you get all five dice showing the same number).

He wondered how his mother (who plays the game a lot) seemingly gets so many Yahtzees when his calculation showed them as being rare.

So we talked about how the ability to re-roll select dice reduce the odds considerably and is a decent analogy for natural selection. He seemed to get it.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

[Alric]

Dawkins and others have been very explicit about evolution not being random. Its the non-random selection (by the environment) of replicating random mutations.

The proplem of IDsts and creations is that they get hung up on the posteriori probability of a given sequence to arise. What is important is the a priori probability that any sequence will arise.

Think of the lottery. The probability of me (unfortunately) winning the lottery is quite low. However, the probability of someone (anyone) winning the lottery is quite high and actually commonplace.

There is also the issue of the evolution of evolvability. This increases the chances even more that beneficial mutations will persist. That is at heart what the "Evolution not random" thread is all about.

[Jeff Corey]

The one in 1296 is right. 6 / 6 to the 5th or 1/ 6 to the 4th power. The other outcomes are too complicated, but I found them by googling "Yahtzee odds". They got a p = .046, which makes this a great example for a statistics lecture.

[Wowbagger]

Re-phrase your pitch, and then we'll work on the rest. I did rephrase my pitch. Now, I'd like to know how you are working on the rest.

Therein lies a problem with editing after responses have been made: the responses now look as if they were badly-worded. That's okay. I'll just let the other readers know that I added the words "those Studying the Theory of", to the OP. And that, without those words, your response did make a lot of sense.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea). More creationists should play Yahtzee, then! Though, I still don't think that, alone, would be enough.

[tsg]

Last night I had an unexpected opportunity to discuss this with my 14 year old son. He doesn't question evolution, but he faces IDer classmates a lot, and last night he was studying for an evolution quiz.

As is his wont, he got distracted and working on the probability of getting a Yahtzee in the game of the same name. (Summary for those who haven't played: Roll five dice in an attempt to get varying combinations. Each of your turns allows you three rolls of the dice, either rolling them all three times or leaving some and re-rolling the select ones. A Yahtzee is when you get all five dice showing the same number).

He wondered how his mother (who plays the game a lot) seemingly gets so many Yahtzees when his calculation showed them as being rare.

So we talked about how the ability to re-roll select dice reduce the odds considerably and is a decent analogy for natural selection. He seemed to get it.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

[Fnord]

(Generalizations, slippery slopes, and strawmen follow.)

To a Creationist, "Random" means that there is no selection involved, and "Selection" implies that there is a "Selector" doing the selecting. If there is a selector, then there is a reason or standard for making the selections. These reasons or standards form a plan.

So, to a Creationist's exclusionary mind, you can have either complete randomness, or some form of guided selectivity going on, but not both. Either mutations are random, or they are not. If they are not, then there must be a "who" that causes them.

"Survival of the Fittest" is another matter. Most folks see environmental changes happening on a seasonal scale. Many also see "environmental disasters" like earthquakes, typhoons, and the like. They do not see any species evolving into another over the course of a single season, or any new species arising from a storm-wrecked coastal city. To them, evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening -- the time span is just too short. Given a 70-year human lifespan (WAG), no average Creationist will ever witness the evolution of a new species from an older one.

Once the concept of "Selective Breeding" is introduced as a similar concept, where human intervention takes the place of "natural forces" and "changing environmental factors", you run into a Creationist insisting that God uses these forces and factors to create new species, and voila, "Intelligent Design" is born.

IMHO, the greatest hurdles that evolutionists face are:

1) God, Gospel, and religion are more familiar to Creationists than is science.
2) Everything a Creationist observes or experiences relates somehhow to their religious beliefs.
3) Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science.

Case in point: I spoke to an eight-year-old child the other day, and asked what his favorite classes are. He answered "Anything except science, because science lies about things like evolution and God and stuff."

This came from an 8-year old child!

By the second or third grade, children of Creationists have already been taught that science is full of lies. If you want to teach people that evolution is real, then you must get to them before the second grade!

But is a kindergardener or first-grader able to comprehend the more subtle nuances of science? Or are they more easily convinced that "Concept A" is the truth while "Concept B" is a lie?

In my opinion, as long as Creationist parents have any influence over their own children, there is little little chance of them learning to appreciate science on their own. Teach the kids, starting in kindergarden, that religion is a lie, and science is the truth, and you'll stand a better chance.

[fls]

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda

[Garrette]

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.I like that one.


Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda Sadly, you are probably right.

[Fnord]

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda


"Deliberately want"? No. more like "Pre-Programmed" to do so.

As I said, (#3 above) "Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science."

For a Creationist, ever known scientific principle comes down to just one thing.

"Goddidit."

[fls]

"Deliberately want"? No. more like "Pre-Programmed" to do so.

As I said, (#3 above) "Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science."

For a Creationist, ever known scientific principle comes down to just one thing.

"Goddidit."

Yeah, I was going to suggest that it would be better to build on what you were saying - get them invested in the wonders of science.

Linda

[Wowbagger]

So, to a Creationist's exclusionary mind, you can have either complete randomness, or some form of guided selectivity going on, but not both. Either mutations are random, or they are not. If they are not, then there must be a "who" that causes them. Agreed. So, how do we manage to communicate the idea that the Theory of Evolution is a form of guided selectivity, where nature is the guide, and not a "who" (intelligence)?

The aim is not necessarily to convince them that the Theory is correct (although that would be a nice side effect), but to at least get them to STOP claiming evolution is random, for a change.

If we could get creationists to at least understand what the Theory is, in the first place, we can worry about winning them over with it, later. But, there is little hope in convincing them, if they keep getting it completely wrong, all the time.

IMHO, the greatest hurdles that evolutionists face are:

1) God, Gospel, and religion are more familiar to Creationists than is science.
2) Everything a Creationist observes or experiences relates somehhow to their religious beliefs. This might cover most Creationists. But, in my experience, there are also plenty of non-religious folks who still do not accept Evolution on grounds that they think it all relies on random chance.

3) Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science. I wonder then, if framing the issues, like this, might help:

* Show them that there are at least three ways of explaining anything:
1. Creation: such as Biblical God or the more generic Intelligent Designer
2. Randomness: Complete and utter lucky accidents and sheer improbability
3. Inevitable Algorithms: Things that happen in nature, due to physics and such

* Explain that science tends to like the 3rd option better, because the predictions of such algorithms can be tested for. "Randomness" (meaning complete random chance, in this context) implies no predictability, and therefore adds nothing to understanding anything. And, the Creator certainly is never prone to show itself. We can not test for the Creator.

* Once that is done, explain to them that the Theory of Evolution, and its algorithm of Natural Selection is supposed to be an example of that third category, not the second one.

Is this a viable portion for a workable strategy?

Teach the kids, starting in kindergarden, that religion is a lie, and science is the truth, and you'll stand a better chance. Minor, but important correction: Science is the provisional truth.
Science does not seek Ultimate Truth, but merely builds reliable models of reality.

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand? Some might deliberately want to misunderstand. Others might understand, but deliberately wish to promote distortions. Still, others simply never understood, but might change their mind if they did understand.

(I wonder which category Ben Stein fits into.)

[sol invictus]

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

I think I'm not understanding you. On average you will have to pick up 50 coins and re-toss each of them at least once. The average should be something like 100 more throws (50+25+12+7+...).

EDIT - Oh, I see - you toss all of them together, and count that as one throw.

[DanishDynamite]

I am starting to get frustrated on this point. After debating a bunch of creationists, and reading their books and web sites, it seems the one thing they all have in common is the notion that Evolution is, somehow, all based on random chance, and happy accidents and stuff like that.

Recent examples include:
This book I reviewed, "Not By Chance!", by Lee Spetner.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105431

And, the upcoming film "Expelled", which has this statement on its web site:
(emphasis mine) from this page:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php

I don't even need to remind y'all about the numerous threads going off on this topic, all over very Forum.

They are all fighting the wrong battle! Yet, they assume scientists are conspiring against them.

The goal of those studying The Theory of Evolution has been to eliminate and reduce chance, as much as possible, given any and all evidence deemed reliable, and experimental results that are repeatable. Evolution places its arguments into functions of physics, cumulative adaptations, the environment, self-organizing systems, and other aspects of the fitness landscape, etc.; using a completely non-random algorithm. The last thing Evolution ever relies on is going to be random chance! For, "random chance" adds nothing to our understanding of life.

Folks like, Richard Dawkins, etc., have written numerous books on the subject, attempting to communicate all this. But, for some reason the Creationists still don't get it!!

Biology needs to work harder to remove this pervasive Myth of Chance from midst of public understanding.

My question is: How?! What can we do, what must be done?
No, "Biology" does not need to work harder at this; indeed it doesn't need to work at all on this.

It has already shown what needs to be shown to convince those who need to be convinced in that regard.

If your country has a problem with religious sects claiming otherwise, that that is a problem specific to your country. How your country decides to solve or not solve this problem, is up to the citizens of said country. It is not up to "Biology".

[Fnord]

Agreed. So, how do we manage to communicate the idea that the Theory of Evolution is a form of guided selectivity, where nature is the guide, and not a "who" (intelligence)?

By first convincing tham that it takes no intelligence to "guide" something.

"Well, what about a railroad track, Mr. Wizard? It's already there, and an engineer doesn't steer anything!"

"Nice try, Tommy! But an intelligence laid down those tracks, so intelligence is still a guide."

It'll be a long, uphill battle.

The aim is not necessarily to convince them that the Theory is correct (although that would be a nice side effect), but to at least get them to STOP claiming evolution is random, for a change.

Then scientists should stop using the term "random" when referring to changes in DNA due to things like cosmic ray strikes.

If we could get creationists to at least understand what the Theory is, in the first place, we can worry about winning them over with it, later. But, there is little hope in convincing them, if they keep getting it completely wrong, all the time.

"They" are not the only ones getting it wrong. The very tools that are used to nullify Biblical truths are used by Creationists to nullify Scientific truths.

"Too many contradictions! No fossil evidence! Exagerations!"

Also, keep in mind that Creationism is an easy short cut to explaining the universe. "Goddidit" is the answer to everything, and it doesn't involve any math or understanding of how to perform an experiment. Or, as the bumper snicker says...

"Goddidit. I believe it. That settles it."


This might cover most Creationists. But, in my experience, there are also plenty of non-religious folks who still do not accept Evolution on grounds that they think it all relies on random chance.

You would have to explain random chance in a way that a Creationist would understand and accept. Understanding might be easyier than acceptance, however...

"Now, my children, let us examine the sin of gambling. See these dice?"

I wonder then, if framing the issues, like this, might help:

* Show them that there are at least three ways of explaining anything:
1. Creation: such as Biblical God or ...


Stop right there! To a Creationist, God is all you need to explain anything. As soon as you hit the word "or" the fundie has already cut you off. According to them, there is no "or" - only God, nothing more

... the more generic Intelligent Designer
2. Randomness: Complete and utter lucky accidents and sheer improbability
3. Inevitable Algorithms: Things that happen in nature, due to physics and such

* Explain that science tends to like the 3rd option better, because the predictions of such algorithms can be tested for.

Fundie: "Of course science likes the 3rd option! Scientists set up the rules, scientists run the tests, scientists interpret the results, and scientists get paid to do it!" Sounds like a JREF challenge loser-weanie, eh?

* Once that is done, explain to them that the Theory of Evolution, and its algorithm of Natural Selection is supposed to be an example of that third category, not the second one.

Is this a viable portion for a workable strategy?


Maybe. Again, you're going up against The Absolute Standard, and not some third-grade fairy tale. You might convince a Fundie/Creationist that the Theory of Evolution makes sense in principle, but he will always know what the Real Truth is.

Minor, but important correction: Science is the provisional truth. Science does not seek Ultimate Truth, but merely builds reliable models of reality.


What?!! "Provisional Truth"? To a fundie, you've just broken the 9th commandment. There is only Absolute Truth or lies - no middle ground allowed. Nope! Not gonna hear it! I can't hear you anymore! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA- (et cetera).

You know it, I know it, and just about every other reasonable adult knows that your description of science is correct or very nearly so. To a fundie, a model is something you play with when you can't obtain the real thing.

Some might deliberately want to misunderstand.
Others might understand, but deliberately wish to promote distortions.
Still, others simply never understood, but might change their mind if they did understand.

And some already understand, but don't care, because they already know The Absolute Truth.

Look, if you want to win over a fundie/creationist, you have to learn how they think ... neo-cons, with GOD instead of GWB at the top. Anything that even hints at contradicting the word of God sets off alarm bells in the fundie's mind. Try reading Scripture (Book of Genesis) to them and deconstructing it in scientific terms. Then maybe - maybe - they'll let you off with only a harsh look and a snort of derision.

[mijopaalmc]

What biology needs to understand is that evolution by natural selection works even if both mutation and natural selection are random and that no amount of creationist hemming and hawing or biologists' insistence that the probability theoretic definition of "random" "makes everything random" will ever change that.

[Meadmaker]

I think the key here is to find out what they mean when they say “evolution is random”. Then, after finding out what they mean, you have to ask whether or not they are correct.

As we have seen in many threads on the subject, the phrase “evolution is random” or its sister-phrase, “evolution is not random” has practically no meaning at all. It could mean almost anything, depending on the mood, background, and intent of the speaker.

Having read a fair amount of what creationists write, I think I can safely say that they mean all sorts of different things when they say “evolution is random”, or some variation thereof. The most common variation is, “evolution says that life came about by random chance”.

So what do they mean by that. They mean that none of the events which gave rise to life were part of a plan, or had a purpose. They mean that the theory of evolution states that chance interactions of molecules are responsible for all life we see on Earth.

Some of them are more than happy to acknowledge the role natural selection plays in the theory of evolution. They are willing to do that because appeals to natural selection cannot address the main argument. Their argument is that the structures of life are too complex to have come about by random chance. The failed counterargument is to claim that natural selection isn’t random. It fails because natural selection doesn’t create. Natural selection throws out the losers, and makes room for the winners to multiply. Whatever natural selection selects had to be created as a result of random interactions.

That bears repeating, because it is so often misunderstood.

The creationist argument:

Random interactions cannot create complex entities.

The reply:

Anything not suited will be discarded through natural selection, which is not random.


Do you see why it fails to refute the argument? Their argument is that a complex, organism that is well matched to its environment cannot come into being at all by random events. The attempt to counter is to say that if an entity is not matched to its environment, it will not survive. The refutation ignores the original argument entirely.

So, is there a way to refute the argument? Of course there is, but lets go slow to see what’s wrong with it. First, we’ll have to see what’s right with it.

But, I think that will have to wait. For another time.

Brief summary: In order to refute the argument, you have to understand and address the argument. The argument is wrong, but you have to see why it is wrong in order to craft an argument that can win against it. And of course, it can’t really win in all cases, because the people who make it have a powerful will to believe it, despite all the evidence.

[Wowbagger]

No, "Biology" does not need to work harder at this; indeed it doesn't need to work at all on this. If Biology wants to gain the respect of the people, it has the responsibility to work harder communicating its ideas to people. For too long it has allowed the "random chance" myth to fester.

I am willing to help. I am not a professional biologist, but if I can develop such a strategy, I could see myself becoming something like the "Mark Roberts of the Random Myth"!!


By first convincing tham that it takes no intelligence to "guide" something.

"Well, what about a railroad track, Mr. Wizard? It's already there, and an engineer doesn't steer anything!"

"Nice try, Tommy! But an intelligence laid down those tracks, so intelligence is still a guide."

It'll be a long, uphill battle. Perhaps a tornado would be better. Its path is guided, ultimately, by physics. Most people I have debated accept that tornados are not driven by God. And, this has lead to some mild success. One guy, on DebateNation, no longer argues that Evolution is random chance, but now refutes the evidence that physics is behind the particular non-randomness of life. Not perfect, but at least it is an improvement.

Then scientists should stop using the term "random" when referring to changes in DNA due to things like cosmic ray strikes. Absolutely!!

I suggest a "ban" on using the word random, at all, when describing Evolution to the public, because that has probably been the biggest cause of this mess.

You would have to explain random chance in a way that a Creationist would understand and accept. Understanding might be easyier than acceptance, however... Right. Understanding comes first. We will deal with acceptance later.

Stop right there! To a Creationist, God is all you need to explain anything. As soon as you hit the word "or" the fundie has already cut you off. According to them, there is no "or" - only God, nothing more Perhaps the first step, for those folks, might be to pry their imaginations open a bit, to the idea that other people disagree with that, and foster alternative explanations.

Fundie: "Of course science likes the 3rd option! Scientists set up the rules, scientists run the tests, scientists interpret the results, and scientists get paid to do it!" So, let the Fundies say that! If we can get them to acknowledge Evolution is the 3rd option, and not the 2nd, at least it will be progress.
And then, we can eventually hit them with all the progress science has made, since then.

You might convince a Fundie/Creationist that the Theory of Evolution makes sense in principle, but he will always know what the Real Truth is. And, that would be tremendous progress, at least!!


What?!! "Provisional Truth"? To a fundie, you've just broken the 9th commandment. There is only Absolute Truth or lies - no middle ground allowed. Nope! Not gonna hear it! I can't hear you anymore! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA- (et cetera). We could argue that, since science is only provisional models, it does NOT replace the Absolute Truth they are used to; but can be used to supplement their understanding of their Universe.

"Hey, don't be frightened of Evolution. It's only a model!"
"Oh yeah?! Then why push it on us, if it might not be true?!"
"We like models. You can accept this one, or not. But, now you know it does not defeat your beliefs."

To a fundie, a model is something you play with when you can't obtain the real thing. And this is different from science, how?

No one has ever obtained perfect knowledge about the real world. Science only plays with models: very good, high quality models, of course. But, they are only models.

Look, if you want to win over a fundie/creationist, you have to learn how they think ... neo-cons, with GOD instead of GWB at the top. Anything that even hints at contradicting the word of God sets off alarm bells in the fundie's mind. Try reading Scripture (Book of Genesis) to them and deconstructing it in scientific terms. Then maybe - maybe - they'll let you off with only a harsh look and a snort of derision. Not all creationists are fundies. I agree the fundies are much more difficult. But, my aim is much broader. Virtually all creationists, of every level, seem to suffer this particular distortion.
For example, I do not think Ben Stein is really a fundie, but he seems to suffer from it.

[Wowbagger]

What biology needs to understand is that evolution by natural selection works even if both mutation and natural selection are random and that no amount of creationist hemming and hawing or biologists' insistence that the probability theoretic definition of "random" "makes everything random" will ever change that. What you need to understand is that, in the context of this thread, Random is defined, quite specifically, as "completely unpredictable", which is what most Creationists seem to think Evolution is. They use words like "random chance", "blind chance", "happy accident", or "dice roll", etc. We would be extremely lucky to be here!!!!!!!!

I am sure even you, mijo, agree that Evolution is not really random in that way. It might be random according to other definitions, and contexts, but not the one I am attacking in this thread.

(And, in case you really do think Evolution is a theory about random chance: You would be wrong, and your view of it is distorted. Those who study Evolution aim to remove chance from the picture, as much as possible.)

I think the key here is to find out what they mean when they say “evolution is random”. Then, after finding out what they mean, you have to ask whether or not they are correct. I have asked. And, virtually all of the Creationists give one of those phrases I mentioned above: "random chance", "happy accident", etc.

Of course, Evolutionists give a different answer: They might say "mutations are random with respect to the life form's survival", or "random is just a quick way of saying 'we need a more powerful computer'". Both of which do not conflict with what the Theory says.

So what do they mean by that. They mean that none of the events which gave rise to life were part of a plan, or had a purpose. that part would be correct, if that is all they meant, however...

They mean that the theory of evolution states that chance interactions of molecules are responsible for all life we see on Earth. ...this part would conflict with the goals of those studying the theory! "Chance interactions" does not help us describe reality to any precise detail. Biologists might use that phrase, temporarily, until they can learn more details. (Perhaps if they had a much more powerful computer to calculate the interactions, they would not use it at all). But, the ultimate aim is to remove chance from the picture, as much as possible.

Their argument is that the structures of life are too complex to have come about by random chance. The failed counterargument is to claim that natural selection isn’t random. It fails because natural selection doesn’t create.
First of all, it does not matter if it fails to convince them, yet. The first step is to have them acknowledge that any claim of random chance goes against what the theory says, and they should stop using those words, unless they only wish to make Strawman arguments all the time.

Second of all, you can bring on examples to show how natural selection does "create" complexity, over time. They still might not accept it, but at least they will know what they are up against. And, that would be progress.

Natural selection throws out the losers, and makes room for the winners to multiply. Whatever natural selection selects had to be created as a result of random interactions. If that is what the Creationists claim, then tell them they got the theory wrong. "random interactions" offers nothing of value to science, so scientists seek to avoid relying on those arguments.

The refutation ignores the original argument entirely. So, we must find ways of telling them "that's because your original argument does not really describe the theory. Physics ultimately dictates selection, not random interactions."

And of course, it can’t really win in all cases, because the people who make it have a powerful will to believe it, despite all the evidence. I will have to accept whatever progress we can make, one step at a time.

[Fredrik]

I think the real problem is to get them to start thinking at all. I have spent enough time debating various issues with people who think the way creationists do to know that this is what's going to happen almost every time we try to debate them:

1: The creationist says that "life obviously didn't happen by random chance".
2: The science nerd explains what's wrong with the creationist argument.
3: The creationist ignores the refutation and moves on to talk about "gaps in the fossil record" or just quotes someone with a fancy title who once said something negative about the theory of evolution.
4: The science nerd explains what's wrong with that argument.
...
n: The creationist points out another imaginary flaw with the theory of evolution.
n+1: The science nerd refutes it.
n+2: The creationist leaves the debate.
n+3: The creationist starts talking to someone else, and says that "life obviously didn't happen by random chance".
...
(...and so it continues until the creationist dies).

I've seen this type of behavior so many times the past 6 years that it has significantly lowered my opinion of our entire species. I don't have a solution to it either. Maybe we could kidnap them one at a time, and keep them locked in a room where they only get food those days when they have debated some issue with us using logical arguments.

[Wowbagger]

I think the real problem is to get them to start thinking at all.Many prominent creationists are capable of thinking. If we could get them to represent the Theory properly, (even if they still do not accept it), it could eventually trickle down the other folks.

Maybe we could kidnap them one at a time, and keep them locked in a room where they only get food those days when they have debated some issue with us using logical arguments.Well, aside from the kidnapping, denial of food, and other crimes and inhumanities (which I assume you were joking about).....

Discussing these issues with each of them, on a one-on-one basis, has been shown to work, with some people. Though, hitting a broader audience is a different, and much more challenging, beast.

[Meadmaker]

What you need to understand is that, in the context of this thread, Random is defined, quite specifically, as "completely unpredictable", which is what most Creationists seem to think Evolution is.

I don't think this is an accurate presentation of creationist views. Of course, "creationist views" aren't uniform anyway. There is no one "creationist view" of evolution, or of creation.

I have asked. And, virtually all of the Creationists give one of those phrases I mentioned above: "random chance", "happy accident", etc.

Certainly that is true. It also happens to be accurate. Name any example of an event which increased the diversity of life on Earth that was not accidental.

"random is just a quick way of saying 'we need a more powerful computer'". Both of which do not conflict with what the Theory says.


I'm afraid they do. See the "Evolution not random" thread for a recap of why it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is.


Second of all, you can bring on examples to show how natural selection does "create" complexity, over time.

I certainly can't, because I don't know any. Indeed, I'm fairly certain there aren't any. Natural selection eliminates and chooses from the available organisms, but it doesn't create them. They are created by random variation.

If that is what the Creationists claim, then tell them they got the theory wrong. "random interactions" offers nothing of value to science, so scientists seek to avoid relying on those arguments.

You had best tell the physicists about this. They are under the impression that they are quite significant.

[sol invictus]

Those who study Evolution aim to remove chance from the picture, as much as possible.)


I really have to take issue with the way you're talking about this. The people that study evolution are scientists, and the aim of science is to understand the world.

If chance plays a role (and I think it does - a central and important one) then those who study evolution aim to understand and characterize it, not "remove" it (whatever that even means).

If that is what the Creationists claim, then tell them they got the theory wrong. "random interactions" offers nothing of value to science, so scientists seek to avoid relying on those arguments.

There are certainly very well-understood cases in physics where the results of an experiment are totally unpredictable (what I would term "random"), and will never be predictable no matter how precisely you know the initial state of the system or how powerful of a computer you have. The world is fundamentally random in that sense, like it or not - and those processes are crucial for evolution (because they can cause mutations, for example).

[jimbob]

How about games of chance?

Roulette is random, but in the long run the house is going to win. Natural selection is "random" in a similar way.

I read many creationist arguments as this:

"Scientists say that evolution is random, and that makes no sense because how could something haphazard create all the wonderful animals that you see in the world?"

There often seems a (deliberate?) confusion of what "random" means, and a pretense that in this case it is synonomous with "haphazard".

Try it, you can almost always replace "random" with "haphazard" in the creationist arguments about evolution, which is inappropriate in the context of evolution.

ETA:

Most people, if they think about it do understand that "random" can include events of different probabilities. Our pet creationist at work simply refers to evolution as "heresy", . But he does talk a lot about it... Yes I am in the UK, so virtually everyone else thinks this is a demonstration of a very narrow mindset, and most people probably think of him as a great advertisment for atheism...

[Complexity]

Biology needs to continue to work hard at understanding life.

Don't task biology or any other field of endeavor for the existance of cretins.

[Cardelitre]

I've seen this type of behavior so many times the past 6 years that it has significantly lowered my opinion of our entire species.
I have made the same observation and I agree with your feeling about humanity, sadly.
I don't have a solution to it either. Maybe we could kidnap them one at a time, and keep them locked in a room where they only get food those days when they have debated some issue with us using logical arguments.
I like this idea. :D
We should just make sure Amnesty International doesn't hear of it...

[Wowbagger]

Okay, I will acknowledge that chance might play a role in Evolution. However, if it is an important or central role, it is only so in a provisional manner. The more we learn about the process, and its initial conditions, the more that role will shrink. There is also "smearing" that occurs at larger scales of observation.

In physics, there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. You probably already know the drill: Can't precisely measure the position and speed of an atom at the same time, etc., etc.
This fundamental uncertainty leads to heavy usage of probability in quantum mechanics. However, those probabilities "smear out", when you examine the world at a large scale, so their influence is minimized, if not completely removed.

I do not think the same kind of chance has been demonstrated in life forms, as the Uncertainty Principal has been at the atomic scale.

Right now, there is a chance that an atom in a pen, on your desk, is "spontaneously" leaping a centimeter to the left. It is only a very small chance, but the chance is still less than zero. And if it does, it would go unnoticed, being only a single atom.

However, we do not expect the entire pen to "spontaneously" leap a centimeter to the left. The chances of all the atoms in the pen doing so are... well... practically nil as far as we are concerned.
Hence the uncertainty of the quantum level is smeared out at the large scale we live in.

There are those who might try to say: "Okay, if you admit chance plays a small role, then that means Evolution is a theory about chance after all!" That claim misses the point I make in the first paragraph of the post.
Scientists might use chance to model biology, but they do so only as a provisional model. Their understanding is that the reality of the process does not rely on chance. They would rather see as much stuff fit into functions of physics and other aspects of the fitness landscape, as possible.

If Evolution was supposed to be about random chance, you would see scientists ripping stuff out of their self-organizing patterns, and their cumulative adaptive measurements, and physics; and they would just stuff everything into the box marked "random chance". Instead, we see the opposite trend.


It also depends on how you define "chance". Physics will inevitably lead life forms down certain paths of Evolution. Which ones are lead, could be up to chance, as far as we understand it, now. That would be like the lottery example: It is inevitable that someone will eventually win the big jackpot. But, who specifically, is up to "chance".

[Wowbagger]

I don't think this is an accurate presentation of creationist views. Of course, "creationist views" aren't uniform anyway. There is no one "creationist view" of evolution, or of creation. The phrase "completely unpredictable" is functionally equivalent to "random chance", "accident", etc. All those words imply fundamental unpredictability.

I agree that there is no one-single "creationist view" of evolution. However there is one inaccuracy of such views that I find too common amongst MOST creationists, of any sort. And, that is the aspect I am battling, here.

Certainly that is true. It also happens to be accurate. Name any example of an event which increased the diversity of life on Earth that was not accidental. Oh, not you, too!

Name such an event that was accidental.

I'm afraid they do. See the "Evolution not random" thread for a recap of why it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is. You misunderstand. Using the word "random" as a shortcut for "we need a more powerful computer" does not conflict with the theory. However, that does not imply that there are certain aspects of the process we may never be able to calculate, anyway.

It is like predicting the weather. No one (worth mentioning) thinks anything in the weather is random chance. We understand that it is all fundamentally driven by physics and stuff. We just can not build a powerful-enough computer to track all the variables; and our understanding of the "initial conditions" is limited.

Back to life: The more we understand about the process of Evolution, and its initial conditions, the less of it will be in the box marked "chance". Although, there is a good chance we will never have perfect knowledge to remove the box, completely.

I certainly can't, because I don't know any. Indeed, I'm fairly certain there aren't any. Natural selection eliminates and chooses from the available organisms, but it doesn't create them. They are created by random variation. Read these, for starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html


You had best tell the physicists about this. They are under the impression that they are quite significant. Name one, outside those talking about the quantum level. I accept the quantum level as driven by chance. But, that chance is minimized at larger scales.

If chance plays a role (and I think it does - a central and important one) then those who study evolution aim to understand and characterize it, not "remove" it (whatever that even means). I mean removing unpredictability. The more they understand and characterize it, the more predictable things become.

There are certainly very well-understood cases in physics where the results of an experiment are totally unpredictable (what I would term "random"), and will never be predictable no matter how precisely you know the initial state of the system or how powerful of a computer you have. The world is fundamentally random in that sense, like it or not - and those processes are crucial for evolution (because they can cause mutations, for example). I cover this in the last post. I accept the quantum level as driven by chance. But, that chance is minimized at larger scales.


I read many creationist arguments as this:

"Scientists say that evolution is random, and that makes no sense because how could something haphazard create all the wonderful animals that you see in the world?"

There often seems a (deliberate?) confusion of what "random" means, and a pretense that in this case it is synonomous with "haphazard".

Try it, you can almost always replace "random" with "haphazard" in the creationist arguments about evolution, which is inappropriate in the context of evolution. Yep. "haphazard" would be another synonym for the creationist distortion of Evolution.

Biology needs to continue to work hard at understanding life.

Don't task biology or any other field of endeavor for the existance of cretins.

Right now, disrespect of biology is causing real damage to the science. Biology is weakened by the poor way in which it is communicated and taught to (most) students and the general public.

Biologists should do more, if they wish to garner more respect from the people. This is important for the sake of the health and welfare of all life forms on Earth.

Biology should continue working hard to understand life. However, I think it would a good idea to work a bit harder on the P.R. The better informed the people, the more of them will help out, in the endeavor to understand life.

[tsg]

I think the whole argument is kind of pointless unless you acknowledge the misunderstanding of the role of chance in evolution is a result of their desire to not believe in evolution rather than the cause of it.

[Meadmaker]

Okay, I will acknowledge that chance might play a role in Evolution. However, if it is an important or central role, it is only so in a provisional manner. The more we learn about the process, and its initial conditions, the more that role will shrink. There is also "smearing" that occurs at larger scales of observation.


The discussion in the "Evolution not Random" thread was actually quite good on this subject. The section where some of us were discussing with Belz the role of quantum mechanics and chaos theory went pretty well. If you're interested, I suggest reading that. Here's the executive summary:

Quantum events really are truly random, and no amount of observation or knowledge can ever reveal anything which will eliminate the randomness.

Quantum events can have macroscopic consequences, which can be magnified to genuinely global scale consequences.

As applied to evolution, this means that extinction events, mutations, births, deaths and all the other events that occur and influence evolution can be a consequence of quantum events, which means they are also truly random. We cannot predict the end results of evolutionary process, and this inability is not just a consequence of incomplete measurements or inability to analyze data. It truly hasn't been determined yet.

[Meadmaker]

The phrase "completely unpredictable" is functionally equivalent to "random chance", "accident", etc. All those words imply fundamental unpredictability.

When I roll a die, I say that the outcome is due to random chance. Despite this, I know that I will not roll a 7. The result is not completely unpredictable.

Oh, not you, too!

Name such an event that was accidental.

I'm afraid so.

All right, I will. Chimpanzees and humans have different numbers of chromosomes. I can't recall the details of who has more, but it is known that at some point in the gene line of the common ancestor of the two, two chromosomes combined. (Or maybe one split. I can't recall the details.) Scientists can say which two chromosomes in one of the genomes are equivalent to the single chromosome in the other genome.

That chromosome changing event was random. It was an accident. It just happened for no particular reason.

(Apply similar reason to every other variaion of life. These things just happen.)


It is like predicting the weather. No one (worth mentioning) thinks anything in the weather is random chance.

I'm afraid this is incorrect. See the other discussion, although we can rehash it here if you are interested.

200 years ago, Laplace famously said that an intellect who could measure and analyze every part of the universe in sufficient detail could know all the past and the future. 150 years later, modern science decided Laplace was mistaken.

[Meadmaker]

Read these, for starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html


Only the first deals with something that has been the subject of this thread, so I;ll discuss it.

He insists that evolutionst are in unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. So, if I can find an evolutionists who doesn't agree, the statement would be disproved, would it not? Do you really want me to go there? You know that I can find evolutionists who disagree with the statement. However, rather than citing an expert, let's just look at what is stated in the next paragraph.

Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

How does "selection" produce anything? It doesn't. As a graduate student, I worked with various genetic algorithms and related subjects, and the process was quite routine. Generate variations. Test them (somehow) for fitness. Throw out the unfit ones. Repeat as necessary. The "test them for fitness" part was analogous to natural selection. What happened in that step? Things were removed. Nothing was created.

If I had had a hugely fast processor and a huge memory store, I could have skipped the deletion process, and I would have evolved things faster. Selection didn't help, it just was part of a recognition that there were finite resources available.

[godless dave]

First, de-personify Evolution. It is a process, not a person. It has no goal, which would imply a plan, which in turn would inply intellect.

In other words, Mother Nature doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.

[mijopaalmc]

Okay, I will acknowledge that chance might play a role in Evolution. However, if it is an important or central role, it is only so in a provisional manner. The more we learn about the process, and its initial conditions, the more that role will shrink. There is also "smearing" that occurs at larger scales of observation.

In the mathematics that describes random processes, such as most of quantum mechanics, the "smearing out" is called convergence of random variables and arguably occur because the system is described by random variables rather than in spite of it. Convergence of random variables is observed quite frequently in simple probabilistic experiments such as coin tossing or dice rolling in the fact that in repeated trials the proportion of a certain event happening out of all the other events approaches a fixed value.

[sol invictus]

It is like predicting the weather. No one (worth mentioning) thinks anything in the weather is random chance. We understand that it is all fundamentally driven by physics and stuff. We just can not build a powerful-enough computer to track all the variables; and our understanding of the "initial conditions" is limited.

That statement is false in two important ways:

1) the weather is ultimately determined by quantum mechanics, which is truly random, and

2) the weather is chaotic, which means tiny variations in the initial conditions (for example, small errors in measurement or small quantum fluctuations) get magnified enormously over time.

The result is that certain aspects of the weather are fundamentally unpredictable, regardless of the size of the computer used. For example, the exact temperature a week from this moment at the tip of the Eiffel tower cannot be predicted, period.

However certain other aspects of the weather are predictable - that it will be warmer on average in July than January in the northern hemisphere, for example.

The same is true for evolution - certain general features are predictable, but the specific details are not.

[jimbob]

How does "selection" produce anything? It doesn't. As a graduate student, I worked with various genetic algorithms and related subjects, and the process was quite routine. Generate variations. Test them (somehow) for fitness. Throw out the unfit ones. Repeat as necessary. The "test them for fitness" part was analogous to natural selection. What happened in that step? Things were removed. Nothing was created.

If I had had a hugely fast processor and a huge memory store, I could have skipped the deletion process, and I would have evolved things faster. Selection didn't help, it just was part of a recognition that there were finite resources available.

Of course all the crud is removed, as well as a lot of "good stuff". And finite is what is real. I know you understand this, but feel it could do with reiterating.

Without random variation, you would either run out of variation, or you would need some nonrandom source of variation. Without random variation, you would be limited, and probably would require an intelligence able to understand the most complex organisms tio develop them. With random variation you need no intelligence.

An analogy from electronics, (actually quoted earlier, in passing by Meadmaker).

When designing electronic circuits, the classical approach is to analyse every subsystem, and predict how the subsystems work, then analyse how these subsystems interact. This way, surprisingly complex systems can be comprehended and analysed and designed.

However evolutionary algorithms have also been used with FPGAs WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array), and one interesting feature is that the "evolved" circuits are often not amenable to analysis by our current techniques, because they rely on complex interactions with "parasitic components" and non-ideal behaviours. The evolved circuits rely on characteristics that human design can't analyse easily, so can't design with, and have to work around.

A simple "dumb" process producing a solution that we currently couldn't have "intelligently designed". And all due to (pseudo)random variation and a selection algorithm.

[Alric]

You know. And what would be the problem if randomness does play a part in evolution by natural selection? Tough. Evolution happened. We've got fossils (with transitional forms, thank you very much), DNA and anatomic morphology and all of science confirming evolution. If someone has a problem with the small detail that mutations are random because of a delusion its up to them to educate themselves.

Like we did.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
I don't think this is an accurate presentation of creationist views. Of course, "creationist views" aren't uniform anyway. There is no one "creationist view" of evolution, or of creation.
The phrase "completely unpredictable" is functionally equivalent to "random chance", "accident", etc. All those words imply fundamental unpredictability.

I know that it has been mentioned, elsewhwere, but there is a conceptal difference between unpredictability and randomness.

To someone who doesn't know, the next word in this phrase would be unpredictable "Sir I bear a magic vers with mystic words and magic ...."

It is a mnemonic for the digits of pi, looking at the number of letters. The next word is "spelling".

That was unpredictable with inadequate information, but not random, and would be predictable with sufficient information. A truly random event is unpredictable with any amount of non-supernatural information.



Originally Posted by Meadmaker
Certainly that is true. It also happens to be accurate. Name any example of an event which increased the diversity of life on Earth that was not accidental.
Oh, not you, too!

Name such an event that was accidental.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
I'm afraid they do. See the "Evolution not random" thread for a recap of why it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is.
You misunderstand. Using the word "random" as a shortcut for "we need a more powerful computer" does not conflict with the theory. However, that does not imply that there are certain aspects of the process we may never be able to calculate, anyway.

It is like predicting the weather. No one (worth mentioning) thinks anything in the weather is random chance. We understand that it is all fundamentally driven by physics and stuff. We just can not build a powerful-enough computer to track all the variables; and our understanding of the "initial conditions" is limited.

Back to life: The more we understand about the process of Evolution, and its initial conditions, the less of it will be in the box marked "chance". Although, there is a good chance we will never have perfect knowledge to remove the box, completely.

The weather is one reason why I say that natural selection is not only best modelled probabilisically, but is actually probabilistic. A chaotic system like the atmosphere will, over a long enough time, (several weeks?) be significantly affected by the presence or absence of a few ions caused by aradioactive decay event, and their consequent alteration of the "seed conditions". This means that the occurance of any particular weather event would be significantly affected by random factors. This will affect the "selection" of which organisms reproduce.

In short, even if all initial conditions on Earth were identical, in two seperate "trial universes", say at the time of the KT impact, both versions would have different species evolving.


Originally Posted by sol invictus
If chance plays a role (and I think it does - a central and important one) then those who study evolution aim to understand and characterize it, not "remove" it (whatever that even means).
I mean removing unpredictability. The more they understand and characterize it, the more predictable things become.

I'd disagree, you could quantify odds, and (in principle) the chances of particular set of traits evolving but what you are doing is to quantify the odds. If something is truly random that is the best that the analysis can produce.

This is surprisingly powerfull, with some very simple assumptions and numbers, can actually provide meaningful analysis:

A successful pair of barn owls could easily produce 25 chicks over that 5 years. However the population is declining in many parts of the world.

This means that on average, fewer than two chicks per pair will produce breeding offspring. The odds of a barn-owl chick surviving to breed could be *about* 1:12.


full argument below:


Actually I think of it modulating the mean value for the number of reproducing offspring per parent, and thus the chance of the traits being transmitted or surviving for a particular number of generations. (Assuming a poisson distribution, which I would argue is probably adequate.)

Thinking about the actual odds, the stability or otherwise of populations and the brood-sizes, you can conclude that any individual organism at birth is unlikely to breed.

Barn owls, for example, have a clutch-size of about 5, (many sources, for example here (http://www.barnowl.co.uk/owl/wowl/wbarnowl.asp)), mates at one year old, tends to live for 1-5 years inthe wild, and 15-20 years in a more benign environment, they can have two broods in a year.

A successful pair of barn owls could easily produce 25 chicks over that 5 years. However the population is declining in many parts of the world.

This means that on average, fewer than two chicks per pair will produce breeding offspring. The odds of a barn-owl chick surviving to breed could be *about* 1:12.

It is thus far more likely for a deleterious to be removed than for an advantageous one of a similar effectiveness to be retained.

Suppose a chick had a trait that doubled its chances of successfull reproduction; it would now have a 1:6 chance of successful reproduction. This particular trait, arising in a single individual is 6x more likely to die out in one generation than survive.

Suppose a chick had a trait that halved its chances of reproduction; it would now have a 1:24 chance of successful reproduction. This trait, arising in a single evolution, is 24x more likely to die out within a single generation than to survive.

If the advantageous trait conferred a 11.5x advantage compared to the lack of trait, then the odds of the chances of survival for one generation would be 11.5:12=23/24, and the odds of the trait being removed would be 1:24, the same as the odds of the original deleterious trait surviving.

Given a large enough population, and enough time, of course some beneficial traits will survive, and once established, will spread through the population.

Again, how likely this is for a particular trait, can best be explored with a probabilistic treatment.




Originally Posted by jimbob
I read many creationist arguments as this:

"Scientists say that evolution is random, and that makes no sense because how could something haphazard create all the wonderful animals that you see in the world?"

There often seems a (deliberate?) confusion of what "random" means, and a pretense that in this case it is synonomous with "haphazard".

Try it, you can almost always replace "random" with "haphazard" in the creationist arguments about evolution, which is inappropriate in the context of evolution.
Yep. "haphazard" would be another synonym for the creationist distortion of Evolution.



I'd point out that no scientist is saying evolution is haphazard. If you are trying to convey the subtle difference between "random" and the subset of random that is "haphazard", I think the casino description works. The game of roulette is random, but in the long term, the house wins.

Unequal odds can still be random. (With a fair die, I'll win if I shake the numbers 1-5 and you can win if I shake the number 6...)

[Vorticity]

You had best tell the physicists about this. They are under the impression that they are quite significant.
Name one, outside those talking about the quantum level.
Me. I could give you an endless list of others, but you've asked for one.
I accept the quantum level as driven by chance. But, that chance is minimized at larger scales.
Not necessarily. There are many trivial and not-trivial examples where the chance certainly does not cancel out at larger scales.

See, for example, this paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/19/7741

I am one of the authors of this paper, but I'm not going to specify which one. Suffice to say, the point of the paper is that what we call "atomistic fluctutaions" (i.e. QM randomness) can and does have an effect on the behavior of (in this example) turbulent, macroscopic fluids.

The argument you're making above may be a road you don't want to go down. The effect of randomness (especially QM-level randomness) on large-scale systems is becoming a hot topic in physics lately.

[Wowbagger]

I happen to agree with what most of you are saying here; and most of what I was trying to say does NOT really contradict most of it, either. But, before I get to specific responses, perhaps we should start over a little bit.

Here is a quote from Ben Stein's Expelled web site:
educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

I suspect virtually every science-loving person here will agree that this is not a valid argument for Intelligent Design, nor does it adequately address the Theory of Evolution. If my methods of communicating why have been flawed, I would like to know how everyone else would phrase their response to it.

Thanks!

[Vorticity]

I suspect virtually every science-loving person here will agree that this is not a valid argument for Intelligent Design, nor does it adequately address the Theory of Evolution.

Agreed.

Hey: Does Stein list any of these supposedly fired individuals?

[Meadmaker]

In other words, Mother Nature doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.:) I didn't catch that the first time through.

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Creationists' deliberate misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution doesn't excuse biologists' ignorance (deliberate and willful or otherwise) of probability and the apparent equivocation in which both creationists and biologists engage when discussing randomness and evolution.

[Meadmaker]

My response to this:


educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

First of all, I would castigate Mr. Stein for inaccurate statements. No one ever got fired for believing in evidence of design. If they got fired, they were fired for not following the curriculum. As for whether or not anyone has been denied tenure, that gets a little bit more dicey. At the college level, there have been cases where someone was denied tenure and their association with the ID movement has been blamed. In the cases with which I am familiar, the scientists in question may have been denied tenure for that reason, but their science record was less than stellar. If he has a case where an accomplished science professor was denied tenure because of ID, I would like to see it. The most famous case I am aware of is Guillermo Gonzalez, who might be said to fit the description Stein gave, but the case is hardly clear cut.

As for ridicule, well, buck up whiners. A lot of people think your beliefs are goofy.

As far as life being the result of accidental random chance, that is what the evidence shows. Any appearance to the contrary is due to lack of comprehension of physics and mathematics. Some patterns, once they appear, are stable, and so if they come about by random chance are likely to persist. Others are unstable, and likely to disappear. This process is true even for life itself. In biology, we call this "natural selection". and the understanding of this phenomenon is necessary to understand how complex life can arise without the need for design.

[Wowbagger]

I think the whole argument is kind of pointless unless you acknowledge the misunderstanding of the role of chance in evolution is a result of their desire to not believe in evolution rather than the cause of it. They can desire anything they want. If they want to defeat Evolution, they should learn to "know thy enemy".

Quantum events really are truly random, and no amount of observation or knowledge can ever reveal anything which will eliminate the randomness.

Quantum events can have macroscopic consequences, which can be magnified to genuinely global scale consequences.

As applied to evolution, this means that extinction events, mutations, births, deaths and all the other events that occur and influence evolution can be a consequence of quantum events, which means they are also truly random. We cannot predict the end results of evolutionary process, and this inability is not just a consequence of incomplete measurements or inability to analyze data. It truly hasn't been determined yet. Fine. That still does not eliminate one of the goals of scientists: to reduce as much of the randomness as possible, and to make as much of the process as predictable as possible. Even if they will never get 100% of the job done, due to quantum fluctuations.

It is disingenuous to claim the Theory of Evolution is all about random chance, for that reason, and others.

When I roll a die, I say that the outcome is due to random chance. Despite this, I know that I will not roll a 7. The result is not completely unpredictable. Dang English language. "Unpredictable" has multiple meanings as well, from non-deterministic (the more you know, the better the predictions, but you will never achieve 100% accuracy), to just flat-out-never-can-tell (never can achieve even 1% accuracy).
In my experience, too many Creationists lean into the later, than the former, when describing Evolution.

All right, I will. Chimpanzees and humans have different numbers of chromosomes. I can't recall the details of who has more, but it is known that at some point in the gene line of the common ancestor of the two, two chromosomes combined. (Or maybe one split. I can't recall the details.) Scientists can say which two chromosomes in one of the genomes are equivalent to the single chromosome in the other genome.

That chromosome changing event was random. It was an accident. It just happened for no particular reason. That context of "accident", I accept. That is the non-deterministic type. The more we investigate why the accident happened, the more we will learn about it, even if we never achieve 100% of the story. And, the probability of that accident occurring, somewhere, over time, was reasonable, anyway.

The type of accident I was referring to, was the mythical kind, where you would never, in principal, be able to ever figure anything out, as to how and why it happened. And/Or the type accident, where the probability of it occurring was 1 in many, many trillions, and the age of the Universe would have to be multiplied by a billion or two, before the event is likely to happen.

In my experience, too many Creationists think Evolution is an example of that last type of accident.

I'm afraid this is incorrect. See the other discussion, although we can rehash it here if you are interested. Actually, like biologists, meteorologists seek to reduce chance, as much as possible, in weather systems, as well. Even if they can never achieve 100% accuracy.

So, for that reason, my analogy to the weather holds. Although, I should have probably made that part clearer.

200 years ago, Laplace famously said that an intellect who could measure and analyze every part of the universe in sufficient detail could know all the past and the future. 150 years later, modern science decided Laplace was mistaken. And, yet science is still driven by developing and testing predictions. Modern science may have demonstrated Laplace was mistaken, but that does not mean science gives up the entire ship.

He insists that evolutionst are in unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. So, if I can find an evolutionists who doesn't agree, the statement would be disproved, would it not? They would have to demonstrate that chance plays a fundamental role, in the end results of Natural Selection, to the same satisfaction that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal demonstrates it in the quantum level.

How does "selection" produce anything? It doesn't You misunderstand.

My point was that the entire process of Natural Selection does build complex structures. The process has two halves: Selection and Modification. Neither one, alone, can build complexity. But, when you combine them into one algorithm, they can. That is what I meant.


In the mathematics that describes random processes, such as most of quantum mechanics, the "smearing out" is called convergence of random variables and arguably occur because the system is described by random variables rather than in spite of it. Convergence of random variables is observed quite frequently in simple probabilistic experiments such as coin tossing or dice rolling in the fact that in repeated trials the proportion of a certain event happening out of all the other events approaches a fixed value. In the long run, the more convergence tends to happen, the more predictable the process. So, even though you have a lot of randomness behind the scenes, the end result is something we could predict a thing or two about, with some semblance of good accuracy.

That statement is false in two important ways:

1) the weather is ultimately determined by quantum mechanics, which is truly random, and

2) the weather is chaotic, which means tiny variations in the initial conditions (for example, small errors in measurement or small quantum fluctuations) get magnified enormously over time.

The result is that certain aspects of the weather are fundamentally unpredictable, regardless of the size of the computer used. For example, the exact temperature a week from this moment at the tip of the Eiffel tower cannot be predicted, period. Maybe I exaggerated the point. However...

However certain other aspects of the weather are predictable - that it will be warmer on average in July than January in the northern hemisphere, for example.

The same is true for evolution - certain general features are predictable, but the specific details are not. ...for this reason, and others, I say the essence of my analogy holds up fairly well.

Most creationists tend to agree that many aspects of the weather are predictable, and that the whole thing is not just a futile study of completely random chance. However, they also tend to assume Evolution is the opposite.
So, more (accurate) analogies with the weather might be a good thing.


(snip)
A simple "dumb" process producing a solution that we currently couldn't have "intelligently designed". And all due to (pseudo)random variation and a selection algorithm. A very nice analogy, actually.

If someone has a problem with the small detail that mutations are random because of a delusion its up to them to educate themselves. But, they won't. And, their ignorance is damaging science. You want to help stop the damage? Help us develop ways to educate them.


I know that it has been mentioned, elsewhwere, but there is a conceptal difference between unpredictability and randomness. See beginning of this post, on the different meanings of "unpredictable". The Creationist usage is usually not the same as the scientific one.

See also my above comments about the weather. I may have exaggerated my point, but the essence of the analogy still holds.


I'd point out that no scientist is saying evolution is haphazard. If you are trying to convey the subtle difference between "random" and the subset of random that is "haphazard", I think the casino description works. The game of roulette is random, but in the long term, the house wins.
To many creationists, all those words mean pretty much the same thing. There is no subtle difference to them. But, I think the Casino analogy could work to illustrate some points.

Not necessarily. There are many trivial and not-trivial examples where the chance certainly does not cancel out at larger scales.

See, for example, this paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/19/7741

I am one of the authors of this paper, but I'm not going to specify which one. Suffice to say, the point of the paper is that what we call "atomistic fluctutaions" (i.e. QM randomness) can and does have an effect on the behavior of (in this example) turbulent, macroscopic fluids.

The argument you're making above may be a road you don't want to go down. The effect of randomness (especially QM-level randomness) on large-scale systems is becoming a hot topic in physics lately. Ah, very good! I like when I am proven wrong with evidence!! I wish more folks on this forum would bring forth such studies, instead of merely arguments.

Would you agree that Science tries to develop predictable results, as much as possible, even if they do realize they would never achieve 100% success, due to quantum-level randomness?

If so, would you consider it disingenuous for someone to criticize the Theory of Evolution, as relying on random chance?

If not, how would you respond to someone who does criticize Evolution in that way?

Hey: Does Stein list any of these supposedly fired individuals? I only read about half the content on that site (including the blogs and some of the press articles). I do not recall seeing such a list. Maybe he runs off one in the film.


Creationists' deliberate misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution doesn't excuse biologists' ignorance (deliberate and willful or otherwise) of probability and the apparent equivocation in which both creationists and biologists engage when discussing randomness and evolution. Agreed. But, I don't think professional biologists are prone to be ignorant of probability nor are they prone to use equivocation. Perhaps my problems is that I am not a professional.

I any case, do you agree or not that it is disingenuous for someone to criticize the Theory of Evolution, as relying on random chance?

As for ridicule, well, buck up whiners. A lot of people think your beliefs are goofy. To that I would add: "Yeah, quit yer belly-achin' and show us some empirical evidence!!!"

As far as life being the result of accidental random chance, that is what the evidence shows. Have you read any modern books on Evolution, and/or self-organizing systems? The evidence is tantalizing that life was practically inevitable to spring up, somewhere!

Some patterns, once they appear, are stable, and so if they come about by random chance are likely to persist. Others are unstable, and likely to disappear. This process is true even for life itself. In biology, we call this "natural selection". and the understanding of this phenomenon is necessary to understand how complex life can arise without the need for design. That is one way to put it. But, that kinda seems to contradict the notion that life is the result of accidental random chance. If a stable pattern is capable of emerging, that makes the accident all the more likely to happen.

[jimbob]

Wowbagger, this is where I think we have to clarify ethe meanings.

Firstly I'd say that evolution the creationist argument pretends that any mentioning of the word "random" means "flat-out-never-can-tell (never can achieve even 1% accuracy).", or "haphazard", and evoloution is not that. Should they claim stupidity, "Oh, I can't understand the difference - maybe there isn't one", firstly you are not going to convince them even if you had a time machine and ould follow back to the primeval ooze, and secondly you could try pointing out various different games of chance often rely on non-uniform odds - see the rolling dice example...


Another point, and this I do find slightly surprising, because so much of the work in probability and statistics was developed by biologists, but it seems as if there is a cultural divide, depending on peoples scientific background. People with a physical-science background seem perfectly happy that you can have probabilities, quantify them, and still make useful predictions. It seems that many biologists use the same maths, and use the terms in an similar manner, in technical writing, but use a different term in talking to the public.

The phrase, "almost inevitable" to me screams probability. I'd also say that it describes many evolutionary "results". Flight and sight for example.

Randomness allows "choices" to be made without intelligence. IIRC, there are theories that say the entire structure of the universe, (locations of galaxies and preponderence of matter over antimatter) could be explained by random fluctuations in the uniformity of the rapidly expanding universe. Can a singularity be anything other than uniform*? If not how does tjhe universe have any structure?



*A sincere question for someone with better physich knowledge than me...

[Meadmaker]

Have you read any modern books on Evolution, and/or self-organizing systems? The evidence is tantalizing that life was practically inevitable to spring up, somewhere!


Yes. I've read a few books and lots of papers on evolution. As a grad student, I spent plenty of time with neural networks, genetic algorithms, artificial life, and related topics. I'm quite familiar with self organizing systems.

The fact that an accident was very likely to occur somewhere does not mean it wasn't an accident. Sooner or later, someone will hit the lottery. When it happens, it will be the result of random chance.

Scientists today do not know if life was extremely likely to occur, or whether it was highly unlikely to occur, and we just got lucky. However, that doesn't really matter to this discussion. It was the result of random chance either way. We just don't know what the probabilities are.

There's a lot of talk about "what creationists believe" or "what creationists mean when they say...". In my experience, there's a lot of variation in what they mean, and there's no point in trying to refute an argument from some hypothetical, generic, creationist. Such things don't exist in the real world.

What Ben Stein said, and meant, was that the theory of evolution says that life evolved without purpose and without design. It's just a coincidence that we are here, and we could easily have not been here. He's right. That's exactly what the theory says.*

*ETA: For clarification, that's a small, tiny, part of what the theory says.

[tsg]

They can desire anything they want. If they want to defeat Evolution, they should learn to "know thy enemy".

I don't disagree, but it doesn't address the problem. They don't want to believe evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Even if you can get them to understand the role chance plays, it won't change the underlying motivation for trying to find something wrong with it even if they have to make it up. It also doesn't address those who do understand it and are deliberately misrepresenting it to further their agenda.

"Biology" can clearly state in terms that a four-year-old can understand on billboards thirty feet high on every major highway in the world what it means by "random" and the role it plays in evolution and it won't change a thing.

[Wowbagger]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.

I know it is probably not perfect, yet. This type of statement might turn some religious off of science, completely. But, at least it might be driven into their heads what the game is.

Any feedback would be appreciated!!

(I will respond to the other new posts, in here, later.)

[Walter Wayne]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

...

That only applies if one believes that quantum fluctuations have a small influence on evolution. Sure, the pressure a gas exerts on its container is technically random. But if you apply the classical equation PV=nRT and then measure the physical system you will find that the result consistent, plus or minus an itty-itty bit. I would say that it is "technically" random but with such little variation that the randomness is inconsiquential to almost anything we do.

This is in contrast to evolution, in which the mutation that happens, and the timing of that mutation can affect the path the evolution of an organism takes. And the path that organism takes can change the environment for the organisms around it.

The end result is that in complex systems, seemingly insignificant quantum fluctuations can have a significant effect on the progress of the system.

Walt

[Meadmaker]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.

I know it is probably not perfect, yet. This type of statement might turn some religious off of science, completely. But, at least it might be driven into their heads what the game is.

Any feedback would be appreciated!!

(I will respond to the other new posts, in here, later.)

I would definitely eliminate the theology response. It just doesn't belong. It reveals that you are interested in talking philosophy, not science.

Other than that, it's a good response, although I think it might be a good response for reasons other than what you are thinking.

What it does is acknowledge that the randomness really is there, and say, "So what?" Of course, that's the real bugaboo to the creationist. They don't like the "So what?" part. They want to be part of a grand plan by the architect of the universe, and the suggestion that our existence could be just a coincidence really frosts them.

(I just had an image of God sitting up in the heavens and saying, "Hmmm. That's funny. It looks like something weird is going on over in that one galaxy over in quadrant IV. I'm kinda busy this weekend. Son, could you take a look at that one for me?" It just doesn't have quite the same ring as "And he saw that it was good.")

[mijopaalmc]

That only applies if one believes that quantum fluctuations have a small influence on evolution. Sure, the pressure a gas exerts on its container is technically random. But if you apply the classical equation PV=nRT and then measure the physical system you will find that the result consistent, plus or minus an itty-itty bit. I would say that it is "technically" random but with such little variation that the randomness is inconsiquential to almost anything we do.

This is in contrast to evolution, in which the mutation that happens, and the timing of that mutation can affect the path the evolution of an organism takes. And the path that organism takes can change the environment for the organisms around it.

The end result is that in complex systems, seemingly insignificant quantum fluctuations can have a significant effect on the progress of the system.

Walt

Seconded.

The thing about evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't work at all without the initial variation, which is by definition governed by "random quantum fluctuations".

[fls]

I'm not so sure about that. Probability distributions can be insensitive to assumptions about the details - for example, they can emerge from components that are deterministic, such as a coin toss. So the existence of variation does not necessarily mean that the underlying atoms vary.

Linda

[sol invictus]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.


Looks pretty good. I agree with Mead that you'd be better off removing the crack about theology.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not so sure about that. Probability distributions can be insensitive to assumptions about the details - for example, they can emerge from components that are deterministic, such as a coin toss. So the existence of variation does not necessarily mean that the underlying atoms vary.

Linda

Except, to the best our knowledge, quantum mechanical events are random no matter how you try to constrain the variables. While it is mathematically true that a function of a random variable is itself a random variable*, it is not very useful in describing real world physical processes, because every actual physical process is based on quantum mechanics. However, it still important to make a distinction between non-chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to small variations in final conditions) and chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to large variations in final conditions). Evolution is most likely the latter because it takes place in a in an environment that is dependent on other chaotic systems (e.g., climate and weather). This means that exact predictions cannot be made about specific elements of adaptation, whereas predictions about the general course of adaptation can be made and are best handled in a probabilistic/statistical framework.

*meaning that random mutation based on probability leads to random evolution by natural selection regardless of whether natural selection itself is random or deterministic

[sol invictus]

Except, to the best our knowledge, quantum mechanical events are random no matter how you try to constrain the variables. While it is mathematically true that a function of a random variable is itself a random variable*, it is not very useful in describing real world physical processes, because every actual physical process is based on quantum mechanics. However, it still important to make a distinction between non-chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to small variations in final conditions) and chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to large variations in final conditions). Evolution is most likely the latter because it takes place in a in an environment that is dependent on other chaotic systems (e.g., climate and weather). This means that exact predictions cannot be made about specific elements of adaptation, whereas predictions about the general course of adaptation can be made and are best handled in a probabilistic/statistical framework.

I couldn't have said it better myself...

[fls]

Except, to the best our knowledge, quantum mechanical events are random no matter how you try to constrain the variables.

I'm not saying quantum events aren't random, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether or not they are random in order for evolution to be a chaotic system, since both chaotic and non-chaotic systems arise from particles that are described by quantum mechanics. That is, it is not the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics that is responsible for the chaos.

Linda

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not saying quantum events aren't random, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether or not they are random in order for evolution to be a chaotic system, since both chaotic and non-chaotic systems arise from particles that are described by quantum mechanics. That is, it is not the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics that is responsible for the chaos.

Linda

But that doesn't really address the point that the genetic mutations that are responsible for providing a constant source of variation necessary for evolution are inherently quantum mechanical phenomena and are therefore random. Again, evolution by natural selection has randomness at its center and possibly further out where a organism's phenotype confers a probability of survival and reproduction on it.

[jimbob]

I'm not so sure about that. Probability distributions can be insensitive to assumptions about the details - for example, they can emerge from components that are deterministic, such as a coin toss. So the existence of variation does not necessarily mean that the underlying atoms vary.

Linda

They can be, but in the case of natural selection, there is a significant random effect. See the discussion about chaotic systems and sensitivity to quantum events.

Back to Wowbagger's point about life being practically inevitable.

This reminds me of the simulations of solar-system formation, where given certain type of starting condition, a certain percentage of the simulated systems develop certain features. (For example, in a certain percentage of cases where a Jupiter analogue started, an Earth-like planet and orbit also developed, in other very similar simulations this dod not happen). You can begin to get an appreciation of the odds by running these simulations with very subtly different starting conditions, and seeing how many times certain features develop. This is probably the best method for quantifying the probabilities, and conceptually it might be possible to do something similar with evolution, beyond the simulators that are already used.

O/T but possibly tangentially involved: Derren Brown's "The System" was quite interesting form this point of view:

Unfortunatly I missed a lot of it, but he showed one women that he had sent sucessfull tips for (six, six horse-races?) in a row predicting the winner. He also showed how he did this:


Originaly there were 6^6 respondants, and they were arranged into six equal groups for the first race, and each group was sent a tip for a differen thorse. "A failure in the system" was blamed for the 5/6 of those who had failed, and an apologetic letter and a refund was sent out.

The next time, those who had been in the winning group were again divided into six equal groups, and so on...

He had asked for the participants to send in video diaries, so at the end we saw lots of footage of the other people who had been sent wrong information somewhere along the line...

I presume the last bit, when he placed the woman's £4k on a horse, that he substituted the betting sloip when she was despondent that her horse hadn't come in, and had again placed bets on every horse...

[rocketdodger]

I think the problem wowbagger is concerned with are the conversations like this, which seem to be cropping up more and more:

E: "... yes we are the result of random chance, when you get down to it ..."

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "No, that isn't a valid estimation, because thats not the kind of random chance we are talking about when it comes to evolution."

C: "Nonsense. Random chance is random chance."

C: <cuts off conversation before evolutionist can explain why creationist is wrong, and creationist ends up looking like the winner by default>

[jimbob]

I think the problem wowbagger is concerned with are the conversations like this, which seem to be cropping up more and more:

E: "... yes we are the result of random chance, when you get down to it ..."

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "No, that isn't a valid estimation, because thats not the kind of random chance we are talking about when it comes to evolution."

C: "Nonsense. Random chance is random chance."

C: <cuts off conversation before evolutionist can explain why creationist is wrong, and creationist ends up looking like the winner by default>

How about:

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "No, it wasn't haphazard, and the odds weren't extremely low"

C: "Nonsense. Random chance is random chance."

E: "OK, what are the odds of shaking ten sixes with these ten dice.... If I can keep shaking them and keep every six that turns up"

[fls]

They can be, but in the case of natural selection, there is a significant random effect. See the discussion about chaotic systems and sensitivity to quantum events.

But mutation could be deterministic and evolution would still be exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions. Whether or not we can predict in advance the exact timing of a mutation changes not one whit our (in)ability to make exact predictions on the outcome.

Linda

[fls]

But that doesn't really address the point that the genetic mutations that are responsible for providing a constant source of variation necessary for evolution are inherently quantum mechanical phenomena and are therefore random. Again, evolution by natural selection has randomness at its center and possibly further out where a organism's phenotype confers a probability of survival and reproduction on it.

It happens to be random, but it's not necessary for it to be random.

I have no objection to the use of the word 'random' (I realize that some people do) or to the recognition that some processes may be described as random. It just seems to be immaterial.

Linda

[jimbob]

Mutation is even more affected by random factors, the classic being mutations caused by ionising radiation

[mijopaalmc]

But mutation could be deterministic and evolution would still be exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions. Whether or not we can predict in advance the exact timing of a mutation changes not one whit our (in)ability to make exact predictions on the outcome.

Linda

But the point is that, to the best of our knowledge, mutation is not deterministic, because it is by quantum mechanics. You are right that chaotic systems are chaotic because they are sensitively dependent of initial conditions (which mathematically speaking derives from the fact that they have a dense set of periodic orbits and are topologically transitive), but the fact that evolution is chaotic independent of its being random does not the fact that the observed phenomena of evolution are random on an event level.

[jimbob]

ETA:
pseudorandom could work to produce adaptations, which I think you are describing Linda? (It is what is generally used in evolutionary algorithms after all).

However if mutation and selection were merely pseudorandom processes, then the course of evolution would be predetermined, unpredictable but still predetermined. Humanity would have been inevitable at the origin of life. This is far from the case.

Also, introducing the concept of "pseudorandom" numbers would really would confuse people

[fls]

ETA:
pseudorandom could work to produce adaptations, which I think you are describing Linda? (It is what is generally used in evolutionary algorithms after all).

However if mutation and selection were merely pseudorandom processes, then the course of evolution would be predetermined, unpredictable but still predetermined.

Is that a problem?

Humanity would have been inevitable at the origin of life. This is far from the case.

Only in the sense that the all the same things that did happen would have to happen.

Also, introducing the concept of "pseudorandom" numbers would really would confuse people

Confusion seems to be a matter of personal choice, anyway (to go back to my original point on this thread). :)

Linda

[jimbob]

Its only a problem in that it is wrong, and probably harder to understand than reality.

ETA:

I am also thinking about the "light blue touchpaper and retire deist". (e.g. RE teacher at school. "Maybe God created the world 4.5 billion years ago, but set up the rules of evolution so that humans would evolve")

That is probably why I am so sensitive to arguments about inevitability.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My Bad!

I should have said the goal of The Theory of Evolution.

I know evolution has no goals.
I meant to say that the Theory's goal is to demonstrate evolution is not random.

I apologize for the bad wording, and made the correction in the OP.

ETA: Perhaps the phrasing "The goal of those studying evolution is to..."Knowing there are 2 pages in this thread I have yet to read and that this has likely been addressed, I make these probably redundant comments:

The "goal" of any scientific theory is to describe a process or phenomena as accurately as possible, and the test of meeting that goal is to be able to make accurate predictions based on the theory.

The evidence is followed to its conclusion regardless of where the evidence goes. It matters not whether evolution is a random process or as I have described it, a non-random process overall with a small random component. What matters is that the theory is correct.

A few mathematicians on the board have been arguing that having any random component in a process makes the process random. I see evolution as a process of active non-random selection from a randomly generated pool of genetic code. There are also processes being discovered that indicate control over the rate of random genetic change has been selected over time and organisms can speed up mutations or slow them down by means of repairing or not those mutations which occur.

In addition, specific features of genetic code allow for some segments to be more likely to mutate, such as the genes controlling surface proteins of the influenza virus, while other segments of code mutate much less often such as the genes which control viral core. In addition to that we have the long segments of conserved repeating DNA in the human and other animal genomes for which the function is not fully understood, but the consistency from generation to generation is a clear indication these segments are in no way there by random processes.

And of course there is the genetic sharing going on among microorganisms where they obtain specific gene segments from other microorganisms such as via plasmids. By however this mechanism is functioning, these are not random gene segments but segments specific to resistance to hazards to the organism like antibiotic resistance genes.

Back to the problem of the Creationists' arguments. This is merely manipulation of the facts and cherry picking data in order to support the debunked idea of "intelligent design". One needs to look at the tactics here, not the unsupportable ID argument. The argument fails to be supported by the scientific data. If there really were a viable question of the data not supporting the theory of evolution, or a viable scientific argument that we don't understand exactly how the evolutionary processes gave us the end result, then these folks would be arguing this stuff in scientific circles and Behe wouldn't be hiding his face.

The last tactic being emphasized by the Creationist/ID crowd was to change the question. When they could not convince the scientific community there was any validity to the ID argument, they took the argument to the public. Then as persuasion tactics dictate, the Creationists/IDers changed the debate from the science where they were losing the argument to arguing "fairness in science classes" and "teach the controversy". Classic straw man tactics.

Here they are cherry picking then arguing cherries.

So rather than focusing on the finer points of whether evolution is an overall random process (because you are a math theorist who doesn't let reality get in the way of your thought processes ;) * ) or whether it is an overall non-random process with a small random component, I suggest you resist battling their straw men and picked cherries, and instead turn the argument back to the evidence.

I like to point out the fact Creationist/IDer arguments rely on decades old science and that they seem totally oblivious to the last couple decades of incredible discoveries in the field of genetic science which have overwhelmingly shown the theory of evolution is absolutely correct.


(*Sorry, couldn't resist. But please argue that in the appropriate thread if you must respond, thanks.)

[jimbob]

Skeptigirl, natural selection is inherently random, or (I would prefer to say probabilistic) Different traits alter the probability of reproduction but do not guarantee reproduction. Meteor strikes could deal with most adaptations...

[Walter Wayne]

It happens to be random, but it's not necessary for it to be random.

I have no objection to the use of the word 'random' (I realize that some people do) or to the recognition that some processes may be described as random. It just seems to be immaterial.

LindaIt could be immaterial assuming that you don't refute creationists by saying "but it isn't random."

One can also argue that it is immaterial whether the base process is random or not. In the gas pressure example I mentioned previously, whether the uncertainty in where the next gas particle will hit the container is a function of randomness or measurement uncertainty, the fact is that the pressure one measures will be very predictable. Whether it is technically random or not at the fundamental level, it is highly predictable at the macro-level.

At the same time, if a new theory was to supplant current knowledge of how mutations occur and it was discovered that uncertainty at the quantum level is part of fundamental measurement problems, then while evolution would then be technically determistic, at the macro-level it would still be random for all intents and purposes.

From what we know at the moment, evolution is random in both the technical details and the macroscopic outcomes. As such I think it is wrong to inform creationist that it isn't random.

Walt

[Meadmaker]

I think the problem wowbagger is concerned with are the conversations like this, which seem to be cropping up more and more:

E: "... yes we are the result of random chance, when you get down to it ..."

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "No, that isn't a valid estimation, because thats not the kind of random chance we are talking about when it comes to evolution."

C: "Nonsense. Random chance is random chance."

C: <cuts off conversation before evolutionist can explain why creationist is wrong, and creationist ends up looking like the winner by default>

That probably is what wowbagger is up against, and I've seen lots of variations on those arguments. Here's how I would fight that argument (with the caveat that real arguments will actually be slightly different, but this is hardly a gross misrepresentation.)

E: "... yes we are the result of random chance, when you get down to it ..."

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "Well then, there must be some other way that we came into existence. It couldn't have just been throwing a bunch of atoms into a bucket and hoping they arrange themselves correctly. The theory of evolution postulates a series of slow, incremental steps. We know that DNA doesn't copy itself exactly every generation. Therefore, the probability of some sort of change happening is quite high. Of course, we don't know what change will happen, but some change certainly will. If it works, that change will become part of the gene pool. If not, it will be discarded by natural selection. After each change, there can be another change, and another, and another, until after a long time the resultant organism barely resembles its ancestors. Of course, it's a slow process. It seems to have taken six hundred million years to change from simple arthropods to all the life forms, like us, that exist today."

At that point, the conversation can take all sorts of different turns, depending on the particular creationist you are talking to, and then you have to deal with whatever comes up.

The important thing is to acknowledge whatever happens to be correct in what they say, and only address the incorrect things. It is true that if you throw atoms in a bucket, you aren't going to pull out life just by random arrangement of atoms. There's no harm done in agreeing with that part of the statement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.
Bingo!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."
Hey, you're quoting Dembski!

~~ Paul

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, natural selection is inherently random, or (I would prefer to say probabilistic) Different traits alter the probability of reproduction but do not guarantee reproduction. Meteor strikes could deal with most adaptations...
Ahem...other thread please. At least if you want to argue with my position on random vs not random. If you want to discuss the merits with other people in this thread, be my guest.

[rocketdodger]

Hey, you're quoting Dembski!

~~ Paul

Seriously, was that actually a sentence he used? I just made it up as a paraphrase of what I have seen people say...

[rocketdodger]

How about:

C: "So then the probability of us existing must be the probability that all the atoms making us up assembled into us by random chance, which I calculate to be extremely low."

E: "No, it wasn't haphazard, and the odds weren't extremely low"

C: "Nonsense. Random chance is random chance."

E: "OK, what are the odds of shaking ten sixes with these ten dice.... If I can keep shaking them and keep every six that turns up"

No, that doesn't work, for the reason I posted earlier:

C: <cuts off conversation before evolutionist can explain why creationist is wrong, and creationist ends up looking like the winner by default>

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seriously, was that actually a sentence he used? I just made it up as a paraphrase of what I have seen people say...
Best damn paraphrase I've seen in a long time.

Gee, what's the probability of a flagellum falling together from available chemicals? Pretty darn tootin' low, I tells ya! But that's what happens when you treat a flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

He wondered how his mother (who plays the game a lot) seemingly gets so many Yahtzees when his calculation showed them as being rare.

So we talked about how the ability to re-roll select dice reduce the odds considerably and is a decent analogy for natural selection. He seemed to get it.

I think that works very well as an analogy.

I may be complicating the issue, but there's also the point that the goal is not five of any particular number, just five of the same. As a Yahtzee. that works. Analogously evolution wasn't about producing this particular outcome, just something that has worked.

Worked to get this far, anyway. Unlike Yahtzee, evolution is a game without end. You can't win, but oh boy can you lose.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

He may work out the strategy his mother's using from that. I think I know it (I've played Yahtzee, there was quite a craze for it in the 80's).

[Fredrik]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.

I assume you mean that this is a possible response to the claim that evolution is "accidental random chance". I love the fact that they use three words that mean pretty much the same thing to emphasize just how unlikely evolution is. :)

Even though what you're saying is correct, I don't think it's a good answer. What they're suggesting is that evolution can only happen if some absurdly unlikely* events happen once in a while (or all the time). The only good way to answer that (assuming we're talking to someone who's willing to listen) is to explain to them why evolution doesn't need absurdly unlikely things to happen.

* By "absurdly unlikely" I don't mean one in a trillion. I mean something like one in 10^(10^100).

[CapelDodger]

Best damn paraphrase I've seen in a long time.

Gee, what's the probability of a flagellum falling together from available chemicals?

There's worse than that; all the atoms had to come together, all in the right place at the right time, each floating entirely freely up to that point.

[CapelDodger]

* By "absurdly unlikely" I don't mean one in a trillion. I mean something like one in 10^(10^100).

Oh come on, if "absurd" isn't absolute, what is :)?

[mijopaalmc]

Ahem...other thread please. At least if you want to argue with my position on random vs not random. If you want to discuss the merits with other people in this thread, be my guest.

Except the claim of evolution being random is largely what this thread is about, it seem that most people here on the board (including you) are content to with the incorrect rejoinder "but it's not random (and we need to work at reducing the perception of randomness)". Unfortunately, evolution is random and it is impossible to remove the randomness from it.

[kev]

One example I use in my HS classroom is to use a sentence -

"What are the odds of spelling this sentence correctly."

I ask the kids what the probability of dumping random letters out on the floor and having them randomly spell the sentence. I put 26 letters in a bowl, pick one out at a time and place it back after - so each time I have a 1/26 chance of getting it right. I draw for every letter in the sentence and end up with gibberish. I ask them how it is possible to get something complex, from random process. This leads to a good discussion about probability etc. Ultimately, as I press them for how evolution can "randomly" result in seemingly complex design, someone comes up with the observation that it is not completely random, because it does not always "start over" like I am doing.

We then draw the letters out and keep the ones that are "right". Currently, we are 182 generations in, and we only need 4 more letters. I repeatedly emphasize that evolution has a random component - like mutation, meiosis, etc. But, there is nonrandom selection of traits adapted to the current environment. And, if something is beneficial, it is retained and further improved.

This also allows them to see that the complete random example is virtually impossible, but, the random chance with nonrandom selection is virtually inevitable.

In addition, it allows me to ask them "what is wrong with my example" - which is the idea that we are working toward a known goal - a sentence, whereas evolution is not "trying to make whales" for example. It is obviously a pretty simple example, but it works good for HS level, and, because we do it everyday for 3-4 weeks, we constantly revisit this topic.

[tsg]

E: "Well then, there must be some other way that we came into existence. It couldn't have just been throwing a bunch of atoms into a bucket and hoping they arrange themselves correctly. The theory of evolution postulates a series of slow, incremental steps. We know that DNA doesn't copy itself exactly every generation. Therefore, the probability of some sort of change happening is quite high. Of course, we don't know what change will happen, but some change certainly will. If it works, that change will become part of the gene pool. If not, it will be discarded by natural selection. After each change, there can be another change, and another, and another, until after a long time the resultant organism barely resembles its ancestors. Of course, it's a slow process. It seems to have taken six hundred million years to change from simple arthropods to all the life forms, like us, that exist today."


C: "A tornado isn't going to blow through a junkyard and leave a 747 no matter how long you give it."

[Walter Wayne]

I assume you mean that this is a possible response to the claim that evolution is "accidental random chance". I love the fact that they use three words that mean pretty much the same thing to emphasize just how unlikely evolution is. :)I think this is one of the things we don't call them on enough. If I deal five cards to you, the odds of getting a royal flush in hearts is the same as any other hand. No matter what you're dealt, you can exclaim "What are the odds of the that!" Even if we do draw poker, where you can do one draw of up to three cards, your odds of any given hand are pretty low, but the odds become skewed towards higher hands. You can still express wonder over the odds of getting that Ace, King of clubs, Nine, Seven and Two of diamonds hand.

Similar thing with evolution. Any animal that evolves the capacity to contemplate its origins can exclaim "what are the odds of us arising!" (Having seen daytime talk-tv, I think were more like a pair of deuces that a royal flush though.)

Walt

[CapelDodger]

This might cover most Creationists. But, in my experience, there are also plenty of non-religious folks who still do not accept Evolution on grounds that they think it all relies on random chance.

The religious are mostly a lost cause. The other audience is the only one worth any effort.

So you could go the route of equating their concerns about randomness with religious belief. If they can't accept the randomness in their own existence - how many sperm did their's win out over? - they have to be assuming some sort of plan that includes them.

Creationists always concentrate on the outcome of evolution because they regard themselves as so frickin' central to everything. Even their god reeks of primate. How could such a wondrous target be hit from thousands of millions of years ago if there was any random element?

Take the focus away from this particular outcome we live in, with monstrous primates dominating the world. Nobody saw that coming 200m years ago, but evolution by natural selection of random variation dictated that there would be an outcome. It just happened to be this one. Absent an asteroid or two, it could as easily have been another one. Absent the "sperm that could" it would be yet another one.

[CapelDodger]

Unfortunately, evolution is random and it is impossible to remove the randomness from it.

What is certain is that life will evolve as long as it's physically possible. Just what it evolves into is to some extent random, but there will be an outcome. The only thing special about this outcome is that it happened. Spin a roulette wheel twenty times and there will be an outcome.

The outcome is constrained to what works, of course, and it's audited every step of the way. That still leaves a lot of potential outcomes, though. There are many potential outcomes from this one. (Not including the Rapture, of course, which is the imbecilic peak of egocentrism, in space and time.)

So anyway, the "random" thing doesn't really matter, does it? There was going to be a thing, and it turned out to be this thing. Which is fortunate for me, and hopefully for you.

[CapelDodger]

I think this is one of the things we don't call them on enough. If I deal five cards to you, the odds of getting a royal flush in hearts is the same as any other hand. No matter what you're dealt, you can exclaim "What are the odds of the that!"

Absolutely. The only thing special about the hand you're dealt is that it's the one you're currently stuck with. There's nothing random about you getting dealt a hand in the first place. As long as you're winning you have to keep playing; only losers get to leave the game.

But hey, it's the only game in town ...

[mijopaalmc]

What is certain is that life will evolve as long as it's physically possible. Just what it evolves into is to some extent random, but there will be an outcome. The only thing special about this outcome is that it happened. Spin a roulette wheel twenty times and there will be an outcome.

The outcome is constrained to what works, of course, and it's audited every step of the way. That still leaves a lot of potential outcomes, though. There are many potential outcomes from this one. (Not including the Rapture, of course, which is the imbecilic peak of egocentrism, in space and time.)

Is rolling a standard six-sided die "not random" because you can only get an integer between 1 and 6?

[CapelDodger]

In addition, it allows me to ask them "what is wrong with my example" - which is the idea that we are working toward a known goal - a sentence, whereas evolution is not "trying to make whales" for example. It is obviously a pretty simple example, but it works good for HS level, and, because we do it everyday for 3-4 weeks, we constantly revisit this topic.

Your approach strikes me as excellent.

You're aiming for a specified sentence; as follow-up, have you considered the goal of any syntactically correct sentence? No meaning necessary, just words and grammar. I can see that idea generating lots of argument :).

[CapelDodger]

Is rolling a standard six-sided die "not random" because you can only get an integer between 1 and 6?

It will come up with a face showing. There will be an outcome. Nothing random about that.

If I'm not being too forward, why do you think randomness is a big issue? This thread is about how to convey the fact that it really isn't, so any counter-argument you can make will be widely appreciated.

[CapelDodger]

They can desire anything they want. If they want to defeat Evolution, they should learn to "know thy enemy".

Ain't gonna happen. And it's a storm in a teacup. Even in the US, after eight years of Reagan and nearly eight of Bush Minor, what have the fundies got? Squat. And lots of uncool publicity in the meantime.

[Meadmaker]

C: "A tornado isn't going to blow through a junkyard and leave a 747 no matter how long you give it."

E: "That's true. 747s must have come about in some other fashion."

[mijopaalmc]

It will come up with a face showing. There will be an outcome. Nothing random about that.

But that is simply not what most people (even creationists) mean when they use the word "random".

If I'm not being too forward, why do you think randomness is a big issue? This thread is about how to convey the fact that it really isn't, so any counter-argument you can make will be widely appreciated.

No, the thread is about eliminating randomness from the description of evolution which is impossible because the source of variation on which natural selection acts is by definition random.

[jimbob]

The religious are mostly a lost cause. The other audience is the only one worth any effort.

So you could go the route of equating their concerns about randomness with religious belief. If they can't accept the randomness in their own existence - how many sperm did their's win out over? - they have to be assuming some sort of plan that includes them.

Creationists always concentrate on the outcome of evolution because they regard themselves as so frickin' central to everything. Even their god reeks of primate. How could such a wondrous target be hit from thousands of millions of years ago if there was any random element?

Take the focus away from this particular outcome we live in, with monstrous primates dominating the world. Nobody saw that coming 200m years ago, but evolution by natural selection of random variation dictated that there would be an outcome. It just happened to be this one. Absent an asteroid or two, it could as easily have been another one. Absent the "sperm that could" it would be yet another one.

The weak anthropic principle... Of course this Universe has all the physical constants to support life, if it didn't, nothing would be there to comment on the fact.

I think there is a Feynman quote that is relevant here, to paraphrase:

"I just saw a car with the number plate 'XFR 354 T' isn't that amazing, what are the odds of me seeing that?" When making a similar point to yours, about assigning significance to chance events.


Further to Rocketdodger's posts, I'd say it is only worth discussing evolution with someone who wants to have a proper discussion, and if it is in the form of a debate; the, "laa laa laa can't hear you", looks a little silly to undecided members of the audience (in print or real life) if the other person is answering the questions and pointing out the errors.

For a similar reason, and given that evolution isn't difficult to understand I think it is better for non-biologists to publicly debate creationists rather than biologists, because it gives the creationist position the respect it deserves.

Behe debating with Dawkins looks better for Behe than Behe debating with Randi...

[hammegk]

Further to Rocketdodger's posts, I'd say it is only worth discussing evolution with someone who wants to have a proper discussion,
Paraphrasing, "with those I can convince I am Right, and they are Wrong".


and if it is in the form of a debate; the, "laa laa laa can't hear you", looks a little silly to undecided members of the audience (in print or real life) if the other person is answering the questions and pointing out the errors.
Labeling all who might question the, shall we say, "completeness" of Theory of Evolution, as CREATIONISTS([rule8]ing retards) may or may not be a good strategy.


For a similar reason, and given that evolution isn't difficult to understand I think it is better for non-biologists to publicly debate creationists rather than biologists, because it gives the creationist position the respect it deserves.
Somehow I doubt you will ever discover why any CREATIONIST([rule8]ing retard) actually questions your viewpoint. :)

Behe debating with Dawkins looks better for Behe than Behe debating with Randi...
In either case, much sound and fury signifying nothing for either side.

[Meadmaker]

If I'm not being too forward, why do you think randomness is a big issue? This thread is about how to convey the fact that it really isn't, so any counter-argument you can make will be widely appreciated.

The OP is rather different, though. The thread topic says we have to work against the claim of random chance, and it has two exclamation points for emphasis.

I would say we have to embrace the claims of random chance, but we have to guard against false implications of the claims.

[rocketdodger]

Paraphrasing, "with those I can convince I am Right, and they are Wrong".

That is a pretty crappy paraphrase. More like "with those who are at least open to the possibility that they may be wrong." See the difference, obscurantist?


Labeling all who might question the, shall we say, "completeness" of Theory of Evolution, as CREATIONISTS([rule8]ing retards) may or may not be a good strategy.

It is probably a bad strategy -- in particular, because anyone who accepts the theory of evolution implicitly accepts that it is very incomplete. Didn't you know that?


Somehow I doubt you will ever discover why any CREATIONIST([rule8]ing retard) actually questions your viewpoint. :)

Yeah, especially when they don't know themselves. If they did, they would be willing to discuss it, which they are not.

[fls]

It could be immaterial assuming that you don't refute creationists by saying "but it isn't random."

Am I allowed to say, "so what?" :)

One can also argue that it is immaterial whether the base process is random or not. In the gas pressure example I mentioned previously, whether the uncertainty in where the next gas particle will hit the container is a function of randomness or measurement uncertainty, the fact is that the pressure one measures will be very predictable. Whether it is technically random or not at the fundamental level, it is highly predictable at the macro-level.

At the same time, if a new theory was to supplant current knowledge of how mutations occur and it was discovered that uncertainty at the quantum level is part of fundamental measurement problems, then while evolution would then be technically determistic, at the macro-level it would still be random for all intents and purposes.

From what we know at the moment, evolution is random in both the technical details and the macroscopic outcomes. As such I think it is wrong to inform creationist that it isn't random.

Walt

To expand on what Wowbagger mentioned earlier, it is random in the same way that science in general is random (not just whether or not quantum events are random, but also the attempt to draw order from apparent randomness, the discovery that some elements are chaotic or non-linear, that probabilistic functions can evolve deterministically, etc.). I realize that some people here are heavily invested in the idea that the word random should be in the description and some people are heavily invested in the idea that it should not. But that seems to have nothing to do with the actual characteristics of the theory and everything to do with how people want to misunderstand it.

'Random' does not serve as a necessary, sufficient, or useful way to distinguish the characteristics of evolution through natural selection from any other idea or theory explaining parts of the natural universe. I agree that there's no point in saying evolution isn't random, but it also adds no special meaning to say that it is.

Linda

[CapelDodger]

The OP is rather different, though. The thread topic says we have to work against the claim of random chance, and it has two exclamation points for emphasis.

I would say we have to embrace the claims of random chance, but we have to guard against false implications of the claims.

Absolutely. Take it in and disarm it. What were the chances of our parents meeting? Our grandparents? What were the chances of the "sperm that could" triumphing in the crucial encounter? Unless you believe The Lord has a special plan involving you, randomness quickly loses significance.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think CapelDodger and others have touched on this already, but the problem creationists have with "random" evolution is they know the purpose of evolution is human life.

Perhaps we'll just have to wait for the aliens to land...

BTW mijo (and others), I was not aware the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was the only one considered possibly correct:

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html

Q25 Why am I in this world and not another?
---------------------------------------
Why does the universe appear random?
------------------------------------
These are really the same questions. Consider, for a moment, this analogy:

Suppose Fred has his brain divided in two and transplanted into two different cloned bodies (this is a gedanken operation! ). Let's further suppose that each half-brain regenerates to full functionality and call the resultant individuals Fred-Left and Fred-Right. Fred-Left can ask, why did I end up as Fred-Left? Similarly Fred-Right can ask, why did I end up as Fred-Right? The only answer possible is that there was *no* reason. From Fred's point of view it is a subjectively *random* choice which individual "Fred" ends up as. To the surgeon the whole process is deterministic. To both the Freds it seems random.

Same with many-worlds. There was no reason "why" you ended up in this world, rather than another - you end up in all the quantum worlds. It is a subjectively random choice, an artifact of your brain and consciousness being split, along with the rest of the world, that makes our experiences seem random. The universe is, in effect, performing umpteen split-brain operations on us all the time. The randomness apparent in nature is a consequence of the continual splitting into mutually unobservable worlds.

(See "How do probabilities emerge within many-worlds?" for how the subjective randomness is moderated by the usual probabilistic laws of QM.)

Split brain experiments *were* performed on epileptic patients (severing the corpus callosum, one of the pathways connecting the cerebral hemispheres, moderated epileptic attacks). Complete hemispherical separation was discontinued when testing of the patients revealed the presence of two distinct consciousnesses in the same skull. So this analogy is only partly imaginary.

[Meadmaker]

I think CapelDodger and others have touched on this already, but the problem creationists have with "random" evolution is they know the purpose of evolution is human life.


I think that's exactly correct.

Now, to me, the interesting question is why so many evolutionists have such a problem with "random". Dawkins went on and on about it in chapter 4 of "The God Delusion". Talkorigins says that if you hear someone call it random, that's a sure sign they don't understand evolution. At the Dover trial, it became a point of contention because one of Miller's collaborators had said "evolution is random and undirected", and it got into one edition of their textbook. This bothered Miller a great deal, but are we to assume he was collaborating with someone who didn't understand the theory?

It fascinated me that evolutionists would object to it, sometimes quite vehemently.

(To reiterrate my opinion, for those who haven't followed the many threads, saying "evolution is random" or "evolution is not random" are nearly meaningless statements. Evolution is a complex phenomenon, and you cannot sum it up in one sentence. Depending on what aspect of evolution you are looking at, and the context in which you make the statement, either statement could be correct or incorrect. Neither statement should be taken either as an indicator of ideology, or an indicator that someone doesn't understand the theory.)

[jimbob]

(To reiterrate my opinion, for those who haven't followed the many threads, saying "evolution is random" or "evolution is not random" are nearly meaningless statements. Evolution is a complex phenomenon, and you cannot sum it up in one sentence. Depending on what aspect of evolution you are looking at, and the context in which you make the statement, either statement could be correct or incorrect. Neither statement should be taken either as an indicator of ideology, or an indicator that someone doesn't understand the theory.)
Indeed, and because of this, saying it is nonrandom, is wrong; just as is saying it is random, without qualifications as to what you mean...

[AkuManiMani]

I am starting to get frustrated on this point. After debating a bunch of creationists, and reading their books and web sites, it seems the one thing they all have in common is the notion that Evolution is, somehow, all based on random chance, and happy accidents and stuff like that.

If scientists like Dawkins would stop blathering on about chance chance chance, random random random the creationists wouldn't have as much fodder.

Sure, all events (natural and man made) are governed by chance an probability but is is by no means random.

I agree with you. Its time for a change in the terminology that scientists use to describe evolution to people, because the disconnect between what they say and what laypeople understand them to say is very big indeed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think I could better explain evolution to a person of average intelligence (who had not already been got at by religion) using non-random metaphors and analogies for the selection function. That it can (and does in nature) have infrequent "random" step-changes, and/or a slow "random" drift is an extra level of detail, which I see as (conceptually) separable components and not necessary for evolution to take place or be understood.

[mijopaalmc]

BTW mijo (and others), I was not aware the Copenhagen interpretation of QM was the only one considered possibly correct.

Saying that quantum mechanics is, to the best of our knowledge, random does not preclude all interpretations other than the Copenhagen interpretation from being true. In fact not only are most interpretations of quantum mechanics probabilistic but some deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (e.g., many-worlds) that also allow for the appearance of randomness within any collection of non-interacting "reference frames".

[Wowbagger]

Just chiming in to let everyone know that I am not abandoning this thread, or anything. I think the discussion has been brilliant for the most part, so far. (That's my way of saying: I might have been corrected on a few mistaken words I wrote.) And, I look forward to more of it!

However, I am way too busy, right now, to respond to everyone that I would like to. I will get back to y'all in another day or so.

[hammegk]

That is a pretty crappy paraphrase.
To each his own.:)


More like "with those who are at least open to the possibility that they may be wrong." See the difference, obscurantist?
I see it very very well. The coin has two sides.


It is probably a bad strategy -- in particular, because anyone who accepts the theory of evolution implicitly accepts that it is very incomplete. Didn't you know that?
You think I don't? The 'incompleteness' is not a topic that gets a lot of discussion here, imo. I do see lots of preaching to the choir.


Yeah, especially when they don't know themselves. If they did, they would be willing to discuss it, which they are not.
Define 'creationist'. :)

Maybe you've only imagined the correct characteristics needed to describe one.

[mijopaalmc]

Sure, all events (natural and man made) are governed by chance an probability but is is by no means random.

Actually, that is exactly what mathematicians and mathematical biologists mean when they model or describe a biological process as a random process. In fact the great power of this approach is that one does not need to to know the initial conditions of a system with infinite accuracy (which may be impossible in practice) in order to obtain a system that converges to a fixed value under constant selection criteria.

[rocketdodger]

Define 'creationist'. :)

Maybe you've only imagined the correct characteristics needed to describe one.

I am pretty sure "believing in creation" is a canonical description.

[hammegk]

Did you ever hear of something called the Big Bang?

[Walter Wayne]

Am I allowed to say, "so what?" :)Of course. :)
To expand on what Wowbagger mentioned earlier, it is random in the same way that science in general is random (not just whether or not quantum events are random, but also the attempt to draw order from apparent randomness, the discovery that some elements are chaotic or non-linear, that probabilistic functions can evolve deterministically, etc.).I am not sure what you mean by "the same way that science in general is random". Many systems are not random at the macroscopic level.
I realize that some people here are heavily invested in the idea that the word random should be in the description and some people are heavily invested in the idea that it should not. But that seems to have nothing to do with the actual characteristics of the theory and everything to do with how people want to misunderstand it.

'Random' does not serve as a necessary, sufficient, or useful way to distinguish the characteristics of evolution through natural selection from any other idea or theory explaining parts of the natural universe. I agree that there's no point in saying evolution isn't random, but it also adds no special meaning to say that it is.

Linda
Of course, I can't think of anyone on either side who has left the explaination at "it isn't random" or "it is random". My concern is that those who pointed to things like gas laws, to show that random process have very determistic characteristics at the large scale, seem to be missing something about how evolution works. And some have gone so far as to say "but it is natural selection that is the important part". They have failed to understand how the two come together to shape the evolutionary process.

Again, I have no problem with those how avoid the term random. I object saying it isn't though.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by martillo
Define 'creationist'.


I am pretty sure "believing in creation" is a canonical description.

Did you ever hear of something called the Big Bang?

How about: believing in one or more "creators" that influenced the development of life on Earth?

[fls]

Of course. :)
I am not sure what you mean by "the same way that science in general is random". Many systems are not random at the macroscopic level.

Those things I included in the parentheses were meant to be examples. The action of a pendulum is chaotic. The movements of the planets are random until you discover a simple principle underlies their movements. By those measures it can be said that Gravity is random, as well as every law or theory that helps explain the natural world.

Of course, I can't think of anyone on either side who has left the explaination at "it isn't random" or "it is random". My concern is that those who pointed to things like gas laws, to show that random process have very determistic characteristics at the large scale, seem to be missing something about how evolution works. And some have gone so far as to say "but it is natural selection that is the important part". They have failed to understand how the two come together to shape the evolutionary process.

Again, I have no problem with those how avoid the term random. I object saying it isn't though.

It's like saying that humans are different because they have skin and other mammals have fur. If one argues that 'skin' is not the distinguishing characteristic, should that be taken to mean that humans don't have skin?

Wowbagger may be on the right track - agreeing that humans have skin, but so do other mammals, may abort that particular argument. But it seems to me that critics on both sides are determined to misunderstand, anyway.

Linda

[hammegk]

How about: believing in one or more "creators" that influenced the development of life on Earth?
You mean accepting that might be true, rather than categorically denying it?

[jimbob]

Believing that one or more creators influenced life on Earth, usually supernatural (i.e. they violate the laws of nature)

[jimbob]

martillo,

What do you think about fossils?

What do you think about Young Earth Creationists?

[hammegk]

martillo,

What do you think about fossils?
That over time changes in phenotype occured, which directly implies changes in genotype.

What do you think about Young Earth Creationists?
That their obvious claim, god did it in 6 days and provided a bunch of other stuff that allows science to arrive at the conclusions it does, is unassailable. I'm pretty sure they don't see randomness in their god's work.