Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[Wowbagger]

Here is a thread to discuss how the word "random" applies, or does not apply, to the Theory of Evolution, depending on how you define the word, and stuff like that.

I have started this thread, so that no others need to get derailed on this (often semantically and mathematically confusing) topic. (I hope it's not too late!)

Here is a summary of my current position, for starters:

The word "random" is often used, in different contexts, when describing evolution. But, it does not need to be used. And, its usage often contributes to confusion, which is why I like to avoid it, myself.

Although, I will admit there are both valid and invalid uses of the term.

Valid usage includes, but might not be limited to:

* Describing mutations where the word "indifferent" could be a substitute. For example, instead of saying "mutations are random to the life form's survival", you could say "mutations are unconsciously indifferent to the life form's survival". (This is more or less the context I have seen Richard Dawkins use.)

* Describing a model of evolution, where our knowledge is not perfect. Such usage implies that the Evolution is actually deterministic behind the scenes. But, information about its initial conditions are lost to time and thermodynamics; and the number of variables involved in the current conditions are too many for us to handle. Therefore, we resort to simplified models that utilize either stochastic algorithms and/or random variables. As the models improve, the less we rely on these things.

Invalid usage includes, but might not be limited to:

* "Random chance", "blind chance", "happy accident", etc. Any term that implies Evolution is all about complete and utter randomness. Evolution is an algorithm, and one that was practically inevitable to crop up somewhere in the Universe (likely more than one place). To imply evolution is random, in this manner, is to misconstrue its nature. In part, because it implies lack of predictive power.

* Appeals to quantum uncertainty. While quantum uncertainty might have some small impact on the course of evolution, it would be unfair to "out" Evolution as a theory of randomness because of this, simply because quantum uncertainty makes an impact on all of the other sciences, as well. Also, most quantum fluctuations are averaged out (or "smeared out") in large scales, anyway.

* Referring to Arthur Dent's daughter. She has nothing to do with this!

In any definition of the term, the more we study about life, the more precision we can make in our predictions, and the less randomness plays a role. If Evolution was supposed to be a theory about randomness, you would think the opposite trend would take place.

Your thoughts?

[Walter Wayne]

* Referring to Arthur Dent's daughter. She has nothing to do with this!

...

Your thoughts?
I'd like to point out that Arthur Dent's daughter, being responsible for the extinction of human kind and all other earth species, is by no means a bit player in evolution.

I will get to the rest of the post when I have more than just a lunch break to post, but thought that such an egregious error had to be correct as soon as possible.

Walt

[Belz...]

I've always thought that "random" either means we have not enough information to predict the outcome or that it implies acausal processes.

[Vorticity]

Sweet Jesus. Not again.

This thread will come to a bad end.

[shadron]

* Describing mutations where the word "indifferent" could be a substitute. For example, instead of saying "mutations are random to the life form's survival", you could say "mutations are unconsciously indifferent to the life form's survival". (This is more or less the context I have seen Richard Dawkins use.)

I'll cite http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/6/R50, which says:

Among three sources of evolutionary innovation in gene function - point mutations, gene duplications, and gene shuffling (recombination between dissimilar genes) - gene shuffling is the most potent one.

The first two are, perhaps, covered by the point above; their result is, indeed, indifferent to the survival of the individual sufferer. The third, being a naturally occurring random process, is not covered, but needs to be; it is the major "reason" for sexual reproduction being a valuable process to a genome. And it make cats interesting, as well.

[Taffer]

From the previous thread:

You seem to have missed the posts where cyborg has said that acausality is necessary to randomness:

If, as cyborg claims, acuasality is necessary to randomness, then randomness cannot be without acausality; therefore, one must have acausality to have randomness, acuasality defines randomness, and random means acausal.

Belz understood it. All truely random events are acausal. But for "random" to mean "acausal", all situations of acausality must be considered random. However, that does not follow from the premise "all random events are acausal".

You are trying to say:
If A then B
∴ If B then A
∴ A = B

Which is not a valid argument.

[Almo]

I would say that evolution as a process harnesses random events (mutations) as a means of generating variety.

[Wauthan]

I'd say that mutation is random within limits. If you mutate too much, or against selective pressure, you can't have kids. If you mutate too little, or get "locked inside" a specialized biological niche, you can't adapt to changes in the enviroment.

Mutation might be random but evolution follows rules. Squeeze mutation through evolution and you end up with sort-of-randomness.

[Belz...]

You are trying to say:
If A then B
∴ If B then A
∴ A = B

Which is not a valid argument.

It's amazing how many people make that mistake.

[mijopaalmc]

From the previous thread:



Belz understood it. All truely random events are acausal. But for "random" to mean "acausal", all situations of acausality must be considered random. However, that does not follow from the premise "all random events are acausal".

You are trying to say:
If A then B
∴ If B then A
∴ A = B

Which is not a valid argument.

You're still missing the point (why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:). At no point did either cyborg or I say that acausality was the only characteristic of randomness. However, as cyborg has said several time in the other thread acausality is a necessary condition for randomness. Since randomness simply would not exist without acausality, as acausality is a necessary condition for randomness in part defines randomness, acausality in part defines randomness, and therefore, random means in part acausal.

[Third Eye Open]

I think a better word for the things most people call 'random' would be 'chaotic'.

[Taffer]

You're still missing the point (why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:). At no point did either cyborg or I say that acausality was the only characteristic of randomness. However, as cyborg has said several time in the other thread acausality is a necessary condition for randomness. Since randomness simply would not exist without acausality, as acausality is a necessary condition for randomness in part defines randomness, acausality in part defines randomness, and therefore, random means in part acausal.

You're still missing the point (why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:). Something doesn't mean something else unless the are equivalent. Belz understood this. Unless you are now trying to say random only partly means acausal, in which case you would only be partly correct, wouldn't you?

This is pointless anyway. Let us grant you that "randomness" equates to "acausal". What does this get us? It means nothing to evolution by natural selection - the acausal element only creates variation, variation which could arise by any means at all and evolution would still occur.

What is your point with all this?

[mijopaalmc]

You're still missing the point (why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:). Something doesn't mean something else unless the are equivalent. Belz understood this. Unless you are now trying to say random only partly means acausal, in which case you would only be partly correct, wouldn't you?

I''m sorry, but are you saying that a necessary condition does not provide part of the meaning to its possessor?

This is pointless anyway. Let us grant you that "randomness" equates to "acausal". What does this get us? It means nothing to evolution by natural selection - the acausal element only creates variation, variation which could arise by any means at all and evolution would still occur.

What is your point with all this?

Randomness is not necessarily acausal. One of the line of reasoning is therefore that none of the definitions of "random" is "acausal".

[Taffer]

I''m sorry, but are you saying that a necessary condition does not provide part of the meaning to its possessor?

Ok, I admit I'm slightly confused. Aren't you claiming that evolution is random, and don't you agree that randomness is acausal?

Randomness is not necessarily acausal. One of the line of reasoning is therefore that none of the definitions of "random" is "acausal".

What? How does that answer my question "what does this mean for evolution?"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sweet Jesus. Not again.
No kidding.

Evolution is a stochastic process, because at least some of the mechanisms involved are stochastic (that is, random). However, it is misleading to call evolution a "random process, full stop" because selection is not random with respect to the local environment.

Note that the definition of random is "not deterministic."

~~ Paul

[Walter Wayne]

Here is a thread to discuss how the word "random" applies, or does not apply, to the Theory of Evolution, depending on how you define the word, and stuff like that.

...

Although, I will admit there are both valid and invalid uses of the term.

Valid usage includes, but might not be limited to:

* Describing mutations where the word "indifferent" could be a substitute. For example, instead of saying "mutations are random to the life form's survival", you could say "mutations are unconsciously indifferent to the life form's survival". (This is more or less the context I have seen Richard Dawkins use.)

"random to the life form's survival" isn't something I've ever heard someone say, and odd since non-random doesn't imply that it isn't indifferent.
* Describing a model of evolution, where our knowledge is not perfect. Such usage implies that the Evolution is actually deterministic behind the scenes. But, information about its initial conditions are lost to time and thermodynamics; and the number of variables involved in the current conditions are too many for us to handle. Therefore, we resort to simplified models that utilize either stochastic algorithms and/or random variables. As the models improve, the less we rely on these things.

I'd agree, but I'd say it can also be used to describe evolution, not just the model for reasons I'll mention later.
Invalid usage includes, but might not be limited to:

* "Random chance", "blind chance", "happy accident", etc. Any term that implies Evolution is all about complete and utter randomness. Evolution is an algorithm, and one that was practically inevitable to crop up somewhere in the Universe (likely more than one place). To imply evolution is random, in this manner, is to misconstrue its nature. In part, because it implies lack of predictive power.

Random chance seems appropriate to me. Random, as I've mention before, does not mean that all possibilities are equal, and I've manage to explain that easily to layman with the simple sum of two dice example. If one acknowledges randomness I wouldn't see an objection to happy chance or bad luck, as in "it was bad luck that apes ever stood upright."

I agree with your objection to blind chance, as it implies that it was unifluenced by surroundings (the environment).

However, while evolution is a process that crops up elsewhere, it is characteristics the constituent processes that make biological evolution what it is. A different means of descent with modification and a selection process unlike our "biosphere" might create a non-random evolution.
* Appeals to quantum uncertainty. While quantum uncertainty might have some small impact on the course of evolution, it would be unfair to "out" Evolution as a theory of randomness because of this, simply because quantum uncertainty makes an impact on all of the other sciences, as well. Also, most quantum fluctuations are averaged out (or "smeared out") in large scales, anyway.
Quantum uncertainty is the engine of mutation. And those mutations have an undeniable and significant impact on the course of biological evolution. The "smeared out" argument doesn't apply because of the vary nature of the biological system. Even if you believe a certain mutation is bound to happen, whether it is beneficial or not depends on the dynamic environment. One that is beneficial at one time, may be deleterious at another. And once a mutation becomes fixed, it influences the environment of those around it.

Biological evolution is not the nicely behaved type of process that we are generally familiar with where variations "average out in the long run".
Your thoughts?
I'd say from the technical point of view, current knowledge implies evolution is random. A particular mutation influences not only the individual it is in, but it influences the environment of individuals around them, possibly affecting there "selection process". This compounding affect will result in large variation at the macro-level rather than the "smearing-out" people are accustommed to discussing.

From the laymans point of view, this will be random in almost every sense I can think of other than that all possibilities are equal. I would go further and state, that even if our knowledge of mutation and selection changed and we found out they were determistic, evolution would still be random in the laymans sense. The innumerable variables were small details can have significant affects would make it "random".

As an example, if it turns out that fundamental particles interactions are determistic in nature, thermal noise while fundamental determistic would be random for all practical purposes.

I agree it is often best to avoid the term, but in most senses biological evolution is random.

Walt

Edited to add: Crap, more text than I intended.

[Walter Wayne]

On the subject of causality, people who deal with the subject of randomness do not equate it with acausal in anyway.

The simplist example off the top of my head is a random number generator. The random action of electrons creates a voltage, which is compared to 0V and a logical "1" or "0" is produced based on whether it is above or below.

The voltage, determined by electron position is said to be random. The logic 1 or 0, generated by the determistic comparator-circuit, is said to be random. This is because no amount of information about the system will tell you the state a few moments from now. The linking of random and acausal is not something that is done by those who actually study such systems.

Walt

[Taffer]

No kidding.

Evolution is a stochastic process, because at least some of the mechanisms involved are stochastic (that is, random). However, it is misleading to call evolution a "random process, full stop" because selection is not random with respect to the local environment.

Note that the definition of random is "not deterministic."

~~ Paul

See, I have no problem with this. It is misleading to call evolution random, full stop. As I said before, random variation could be replaced with designed variation, and evolution would still happen.

I don't quite understand what your point is, mij.

[mijopaalmc]

See, I have no problem with this. It is misleading to call evolution random, full stop. As I said before, random variation could be replaced with designed variation, and evolution would still happen.

I don't quite understand what your point is, mij.

Overall, I want to know how evolution by natural selection is not "random" by the definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution".

In reference to what you and I have been discussing most recently, I am arguing randomness is not necessarily acausal, so evolution by natural selection's possessing a causal structure does not imply in any way that evolution by natural selection is non-random.

[Taffer]

Overall, I want to know how evolution by natural selection is not "random" by the definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution".

In reference to what you and I have been discussing most recently, I am arguing randomness is not necessarily acausal, so evolution by natural selection's possessing a causal structure does not imply in any way that evolution by natural selection is non-random.

Ok. So evolution is random.

So what?

[mijopaalmc]

Ok. So evolution is random.

So what?

It gives us yet another easy way of attacking creationists for abusing scientific terminology.

[ImaginalDisc]

It gives us yet another easy way of attacking creationists for abusing scientific terminology.

But, it doesn't. Evolution is not random. You're still wrong about this.

[mijopaalmc]

But, it doesn't. Evolution is not random. You're still wrong about this.

Any more blind assertions?

Would you care to elaborate on your totally unscientific statement?

Although the really disquieting the terminological debate about is that it show how willing some scientists and science popularizers are to commit the same abuses that creationists do, while deceiving themselves that they are actually helping.

[Belz...]

You're still missing the point (why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:). At no point did either cyborg or I say that acausality was the only characteristic of randomness. However, as cyborg has said several time in the other thread acausality is a necessary condition for randomness.

Mijo, are you by any chance trying to deflect attention by trying to win a minor point on some irrelevant detail ?

[Belz...]

Overall, I want to know how evolution by natural selection is not "random" by the definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution".

Because that would mean that everything is random and that would make the term bloody useless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In reference to what you and I have been discussing most recently, I am arguing randomness is not necessarily acausal, so evolution by natural selection's possessing a causal structure does not imply in any way that evolution by natural selection is non-random.
Could you describe some randomness that is causally based?

~~ Paul

[EHocking]

Any more blind assertions?

Would you care to elaborate on your totally unscientific statement?The statement is neither a blind assertion nor an unscientific one. It is backed by the theory and observation of evolution.

Here is a pretty concise summation: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html)
Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.
Although the really disquieting the terminological debate about is that it show how willing some scientists and science popularizers are to commit the same abuses that creationists do, while deceiving themselves that they are actually helping.I can barely parse that sentence, but I hope the above quote might help you on the definition of random when applied to the theory of evolution. Also, find anything written by Richard Dawkins, esp. "The Blind Watchmaker" for a more complete explanation.

[fls]

Just out of curiosity, is the regular appearance of these "Evolution is Not Random" threads for any purpose other than getting mijopaalmc to stop saying it is?

Linda

[sol invictus]

Overall, I want to know how evolution by natural selection is not "random" by the definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution".

I'm pretty sure you finally admitted somewhere that this definition applies to everything in the real world, making it useless. Have you forgotten that? Want me to dig up your quote?

Could you describe some randomness that is causally based?


Semantic debates are soooo boring.

Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.

[JoeEllison]

Sweet Jesus. Not again.

This thread will come to a bad end.

I promise you that the middle won't be particularly enjoyable either.

[JoeEllison]

Just out of curiosity, is the regular appearance of these "Evolution is Not Random" threads for any purpose other than getting mijopaalmc to stop saying it is?

Linda

No... maybe we should just offer him money?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just out of curiosity, is the regular appearance of these "Evolution is Not Random" threads for any purpose other than getting mijopaalmc to stop saying it is?

I'll take koans involving equivocation for $800 Alex.

Perhaps those of you who feel it's worth your time to interact with an intransigent might try getting him to accept that mutations are random, but evolution is not. Would that be verbiage he could agree with, or would we still need to clad it in several layers of defining definitions and explaining explanations plus a nice whipped metaphysical topping?

What about it mijo? Would a simple, cut and dried statement like "mutations are random, but evolution is not" be satisfactory for you to give up all the non-sense you've wasted server space with or will you continue to obfuscate and equivocate?

[Belz...]

Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.

Very well put.

[Wowbagger]

Sorry for the late responses. I have been too busy, and the replies have come too fast, for me to catch up, until now.

Just out of curiosity, is the regular appearance of these "Evolution is Not Random" threads for any purpose other than getting mijopaalmc to stop saying it is? I would, honestly, like to get to the bottom of the issue. If I am wrong about something, and if mijo is right about something, I want it to come out, now!

These threads may be painful for some folks, but at least we can try to get to the bottom of this now, so if the subject erupts again, we can refer to this thread (or maybe its best posts). In the meantime, we won't interrupt any other threads with this battle.

Sweet Jesus. Not again.

This thread will come to a bad end. No doubt.

I've always thought that "random" either means we have not enough information to predict the outcome or that it implies acausal processes. That is one of my valid usages.

The first two are, perhaps, covered by the point above; their result is, indeed, indifferent to the survival of the individual sufferer. The third, being a naturally occurring random process, is not covered, but needs to be; it is the major "reason" for sexual reproduction being a valuable process to a genome. And it make cats interesting, as well. I see no reason why gene shuffling could not be covered by the valid usages, above. You could think of it as just another "mutation", but one controlled by the genome itself. An adaptation of adaptability.

I would say that evolution as a process harnesses random events (mutations) as a means of generating variety. That is one way to put it.

Though, "harness" sounds like there is conscious intention involved. As long as it is understood not to be the case, the verbiage is otherwise fine, in my opinion.

I'd say that mutation is random within limits. If you mutate too much, or against selective pressure, you can't have kids. If you mutate too little, or get "locked inside" a specialized biological niche, you can't adapt to changes in the enviroment. Yes, average mutation rate could well have emerged out of the process of evolution, because of such selection pressures.

I think a better word for the things most people call 'random' would be 'chaotic'. In the sense of Complexity Theory, you would be right. And, that would be part of my second valid usage.

Though, I am not sure I like using the word "chaotic", because it has lots of other meanings on its own, and would be bound to cause confusion among the masses.

Evolution is a stochastic process, because at least some of the mechanisms involved are stochastic (that is, random). However, it is misleading to call evolution a "random process, full stop" because selection is not random with respect to the local environment. Correct.

Note that the definition of random is "not deterministic." That is just one definition, and is one I consider invalid towards describing Evolution.

"random to the life form's survival" isn't something I've ever heard someone say, and odd since non-random doesn't imply that it isn't indifferent. Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins, in his essay "Darwin Triumphant", which can be found in his book A Devil's Chaplain:

Mutations are, of course, caused by physical events, for instance, cosmic ray bombardment. When we call them random, we mean only that they are random with respect to adaptive improvement.

It is my own contribution to use the words "unconsciously indifferent", because I think it is less confusing than "random", to the average person, in this context.

Random chance seems appropriate to me. Random, as I've mention before, does not mean that all possibilities are equal, and I've manage to explain that easily to layman with the simple sum of two dice example. If one acknowledges randomness I wouldn't see an objection to happy chance or bad luck, as in "it was bad luck that apes ever stood upright." "Luck" too is subjective to human bias.

The patterns of biological convergence seems indicative that evolution is not best modeled as random chance.

"Random chance" is wholly inadequate to describe stuff like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

Quantum uncertainty is the engine of mutation. And those mutations have an undeniable and significant impact on the course of biological evolution. The "smeared out" argument doesn't apply because of the vary nature of the biological system. The fact that we see similar solutions evolve in life forms facing similar selection pressures, (within their survival strategy niche) indicates that the "smeared out" argument certainly does apply.

From the laymans point of view, this will be random in almost every sense I can think of other than that all possibilities are equal. If that were true, Evolution would cease to have predictive powers, and utterly fail as a valuable scientific theory. We would do just as well by rolling appropriately-sided dice.

Evolution is better than random dice rolls, because it describes an algorithm of natural selection. And, one that seems to work pretty well, so far.

The innumerable variables were small details can have significant affects would make it "random". This is covered by the second valid usage in my first post.

I'd like to point out that Arthur Dent's daughter, being responsible for the extinction of human kind and all other earth species, is by no means a bit player in evolution. But, unless you are living in a universe controlled by such reverse temporal engineering technologies, it would be useless to describe Evolution in terms of "Random Dents".


Here is a pretty concise summation: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html)
Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all.
(snip) It's good to have these summations, in threads like this. I was going to write my own, but I figured the opening post was long enough.
Thanks!

So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random. ...in the sense of the second valid usage I wrote about. Yes.

Perhaps those of you who feel it's worth your time to interact with an intransigent might try getting him to accept that mutations are random, but evolution is not. Would that be verbiage he could agree with, or would we still need to clad it in several layers of defining definitions and explaining explanations plus a nice whipped metaphysical topping? Well, it would be a start!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.
Yes, but what I want from Mijo is a random process that is causally based, using the actual definition of random, not a folk definition.


That is just one definition, and is one I consider invalid towards describing Evolution.
You gots some other definition of random?

~~ Paul

[Wowbagger]

You gots some other definition of random? Well, there are five bullet points in my opening post...



Perhaps it might pay to clarify these things, for those who need it:

Mitchell's definitions of Random (summarizing the bullet points in the OP):
1. Analagous to "indifferent"
2. A stochastic model
3. A "happy accident"
4. Quantum uncertainty
5. Arthur Dent's daughter

There could be others.

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, are you by any chance trying to deflect attention by trying to win a minor point on some irrelevant detail ?

It's not a minor point when people get seemingly incensed at me for engaging in a "semantic argument" when I argue that evolution is mathematically random but then they insist they didn't say "random means acausal" based on a sematic argument.

[mijopaalmc]

Because that would mean that everything is random and that would make the term bloody useless.

No it doesn't. If you bothered to actually examine what the mathematical definitions of "random" and "deterministic", you would see that "random" means that identical initial condition don't always yield identical final conditions, whereas "deterministic" means that identical initial condition always yield identical final conditions. The problem is that, depending on how we define the initial conditions, we may have trouble measuring the initial conditions with arbitrary precision, making it impossible to determine whether the system is random or chaotic (i.e., deterministic, but sensitively dependent on initial conditions).

[mijopaalmc]

Could you describe some randomness that is causally based?

~~ Paul

Mutations: they don't "just happen". For instance, ionizing radiation causes two pyrimidine dimers to dimerize which causes a transcription error.

[Ron_Tomkins]

The only problem I have with the word random is that when it comes to use it with the general public, it tends to trigger the typical negative reaction:

"Oh so you're just saying that everything that is, is nothing but the consequence of a bunch of random events?? I can't believe you want me to swallow that"

And then they throw the one about the airplane parts and the tornado that can't randomly build a plane and blablabla.

So the word random needs to be either dismantled and re-defined or replaced by a different word, such as " chaotic" (already mentioned here).

[Almo]

Though, "harness" sounds like there is conscious intention involved. As long as it is understood not to be the case, the verbiage is otherwise fine, in my opinion.

Yes, you're absoulutely right.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not a minor point when people get seemingly incensed at me for engaging in a "semantic argument" when I argue that evolution is mathematically random but then they insist they didn't say "random means acausal" based on a sematic argument.

Actually it is a minor point. And it is semantics.

This is precisely what happens when you take terminology from one area of discourse and introduce it into another area for which it wasn't devised. It will stick if it is useful. Right now, it doesn't seem useful for anything beyond derailing existing threads and generating new threads to rehash the same old arguments.

[Wowbagger]

The only problem I have with the word random is that when it comes to use it with the general public, it tends to trigger the typical negative reaction:

"Oh so you're just saying that everything that is, is nothing but the consequence of a bunch of random events?? I can't believe you want me to swallow that"

And then they throw the one about the airplane parts and the tornado that can't randomly build a plane and blablabla. Exactly!

All those examples fall into the "happy accident" category, in the opening post.

Yes, you're absoulutely right.
Sometimes you can't help it. I've read about how birds "calculate the most effective ratio of egg-count to yolk-content", for example. It doesn't mean the birds are really consciously calculating anything. It just means that, over time, genes that were more prone to result in effective ratios have emerged through selection pressures.

We still use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" even though we know better.

[jimbob]

Just out of interest:

Are there any chaotic physical systems that wouldn't be significantly influenced by quantum uncertanites given enough time?

Yes, but what I want from Mijo is a random process that is causally based, using the actual definition of random, not a folk definition.

Would the drunkard's walk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk) count? (or at least the mathematical concept of the drunkard's walk)

ETA: Thinking about it, probably no...

[mijopaalmc]

Actually it is a minor point. And it is semantics.

This is precisely what happens when you take terminology from one area of discourse and introduce it into another area for which it wasn't devised. It will stick if it is useful. Right now, it doesn't seem useful for anything beyond derailing existing threads and generating new threads to rehash the same old arguments.

Actually, scientists (including evolutionary biologists) use the definition of "random" that I use every time the perform a statistical test, so I don't see what the problem is with applying it to yet another object of study.

[mijopaalmc]

So the word random needs to be either dismantled and re-defined or replaced by a different word, such as " chaotic" (already mentioned here).

But "chaotic" does not mean "random". A chaotic system is by definition deterministic but sensitively dependent of initial conditions. A random system is by definition not deterministic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another valid use of "random" is to mean "directionless". I'd prefer a more accurate term like "directionless".

Evolution does not have any goal or end point. Knowing any given "starting" point will not enable you to predict future forms. (Remember the Twilight Zone episode with the machine that let you "fast forward" or "rewind" evolution? Yeah--that's not right in the least.)

The story of the evolution of the modern horse, for example, is not accurately portrayed as starting with a smaller animal with more toes and somehow trying to perfect that form as the modern horse by selecting larger animals with fewer toes.

[Taffer]

Actually, scientists (including evolutionary biologists) use the definition of "random" that I use every time the perform a statistical test, so I don't see what the problem is with applying it to yet another object of study.

Can you elaborate on this? How exactly are these random elements included in said statistical tests?

[Earthborn]

So the word random needs to be either dismantled and re-defined or replaced by a different word, such as " chaotic" (already mentioned here).The average person is not likely to know the scientific definition of "chaotic" either. I don't think it will make much difference to say "chaotic" instead of "random". Perhaps it is even worse; when you say "random" you can explain how many random events sometimes lead to predictable outcomes, such as casino owners getting richer. The term "chaotic" conjures up associations that pretty much anything can happen, no matter how wild and unlikely.

Wowbagger's favourite term "unconciously indifferent" will evoke a "Huh? What?" to most people. The word "indifferent" has the connotation of a person not caring about about something he could care about. Wowbagger needs feels the need to add "unconciously" to it in a futile attempt to remove the connotation, but it only makes the term an oxymoron.

Let's not forget that many people have a bit of a problem understanding what is mean with the word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution". Replacing words for complex scientific concepts with other words is not going to give the general public a better understanding of the science. The scientific concepts are non-intuitive, and there simply are no everyday words that are commonly understood by non-scientists that accurately describe them.

Using the word "random" to describe evolution is fine, but in popular science texts perhaps need to be explained what is meant with it. It doesn't mean that in a given environment all organisms have an equal chance of survival; some are more likely to 'win' than others. But because random events play a role in shaping organisms and their environments, organisms play a role in shaping their environments and environments play a role in shaping organisms, if evolution had taken a slightly different route early on, things would have looked very differently today. We really are the result of many rolls of God's* dice.

* 'God' in the metaphorical and not necessarily in the metaphysical sense...

[mijopaalmc]

Can you elaborate on this? How exactly are these random elements included in said statistical tests?

Have you ever taken a statistics course?

The null hypothesis is most often assumed to yield a certain distribution, and then the sample statistic is tested against this distribution, which in turn determines probability of the null hypothesis being true given the data collected due purely to variations in the sample.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mitchell's definitions of Random (summarizing the bullet points in the OP):
1. Analagous to "indifferent"
2. A stochastic model
3. A "happy accident"
4. Quantum uncertainty
5. Arthur Dent's daughter
I understand 2 and 4, which are the same thing. What are the other three?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mutations: they don't "just happen". For instance, ionizing radiation causes two pyrimidine dimers to dimerize which causes a transcription error.
But the ionizing radiation is random with respect to which base is affected. So a random event triggers a deterministic chemical process.

This is exactly why it is confusing to say "evolution is random, full stop."

~~ Paul

[jimbob]

Evolution is a stochastic process, because at least some of the mechanisms involved are stochastic (that is, random). However, it is misleading to call evolution a "random process, full stop" because selection is not random with respect to the local environment.

I would argue that selection is probabilistic ("random" gust of wind etc affecting survival). However, we can still see how different traits affect the odds of producing reproducing offspring. I think a valid analogy might be between weather and climate. The individual slection event might be "random" but the efffect over a large enough population means that some beneficial traits will propagate.

Doing the sums, I would conclude that most "beneficial" traits that arise probably don't survive more than one generation.

This is because the odds are against any individual organism reproducing, for virtually any species (possibly except our own currently). For example, the Barn Owl population is roughly stable, but it tends to have a clutch sizes of about 3-7 and sometimes breed twice a year, and live for 1-5 years in the wild (25 years in captivity). Of the total brood size over the lifetime of the pair, on average only two offspring will breed if the population is stable.

Say this equates to 5 clutches, of 4 birds. Then there is 90% chance of any individual not breeding, and a 10% chance of it breeding. To get an evens chance of a particular trait making it past the first individual, it would need to confer a 500% advantage compared to its peers...

However we are dealing with big numbers, and some (enough) advantageous traits will survive and get passed on...

Disadvantageous traits are almost certain to vanish very quickly. In the barn owl example, a neutral trait already has a 90% chance of not getting passed on.

[mijopaalmc]

But the ionizing radiation is random with respect to which base is affected. So a random event triggers a deterministic chemical process.

But you have to follow a chain of causality backward to get to the actual acausal event. If it is in appropriate to call evolution by natural selection because mutations are random, why is it appropriate to call mutation acausal because the production of ionizing radiation (or base tautomerization) is acausal?

This is exactly why it is confusing to say "evolution is random, full stop."

Where have I ever said that it was not confusing to say "evolution is random, full stop"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So the word random needs to be either dismantled and re-defined or replaced by a different word, such as " chaotic" (already mentioned here).
But a chaotic process is not a random process.

~~ Paul

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Why are you trying to define "random" is such a way that it if precluded from being random by definition?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But you have to follow a chain of causality backward to get to the actual
acausal event. If it is in appropriate to call evolution by natural
selection because mutations are random, why is it appropriate to call
mutation acausal because the production of ionizing radiation (or base
tautomerization) is acausal?
I can't quite parse this. Could you reword it?


Where have I ever said that it was not confusing to say "evolution is
random, full stop"?
Way back when all this started. Or was it someone else? As I've said before, I have no idea where you're going with this.

~~ Paul

[jimbob]

Wowbagger, I would partially take issue with this "invalid description" in your OP:

* Appeals to quantum uncertainty. While quantum uncertainty might have some small impact on the course of evolution, it would be unfair to "out" Evolution as a theory of randomness because of this, simply because quantum uncertainty makes an impact on all of the other sciences, as well. Also, most quantum fluctuations are averaged out (or "smeared out") in large scales, anyway.

Mutations, that have a selective effect (advantageous or disadvantageous) must affect the selective landscape for other organisms in the ecosystem. Which mutations occur first could affect the "direction" of the selective pressures.

My expansion on the other thread below:

If identical conditions do not lead to the same outcome every time, then I would consider that to be a working definition of "random".

Agreed.

I would argue that a quantum decay event is the archetypal "random event".

Also agreed.

In the context of evolution, I would argue that because weather is a highly nonlinear system, quantum events can be magnified to have a significant effect on the weather. If this is the case, then there is going to be a random element in natural selection. I would also argue that the relationships between organisms is even more nonlinear than the weather, and a chance mutation happening befoore anonther could alter the selective pressures on other organisms within the ecosystem, and thus alter the "direction" of evolution in the ecosystem.

If we assume weather to be affected at a significant level by quantum events, I would agree with you. I also agree that interorganism interactions are very complex, and specific mutation events are boardering on quantum randomness. Of course, we don't know that for certain, but so far that is how it looks.

This means that should one have the luxury of creating identical universes just before the KT impact, the course of evolution in each of these initially identical universes would diverge.

Agreed.

Given the low chance of any individual organism managing to have reproducing offspring, I would contend that there was noting inevitable about the emergence of hominids, until some time after the last common ancestor with apes.

Agreed.

Evoulution would happen in all the other cases, it is just that the species mix, and indeed occupied niches would probably differ in each case. There is nothing special abut the emergence of humanity, except to us...

Yep, couldn't put it better myself.

Walter Wayne, this is a perfect example of what I asked for.

I can think of one (convoluted) mechanism where quantum events should affect the weather. A radioactive decay event causs a cancer that kills an animal prematurely. This is no longer wandering around, so that is definitly of a size to affect weather patterns. Of course it actually looks as if weather patterns should be directly affected by quantum events too. But, I believe it is not confirmed yet.



On to the statement about predictions:

I'd say that we can make certain predictions with a high level of confidence.

If there are steady selective pressures, then there will be a steady "direction" to the evolution. A classic case being the experiments with heat tolerance of e-coli colonies.

However the mechanism ofr this adaptaiton is not predetermined. A classic case being the experiments with heat tolerance of e-coli colonies, when moved to cool environments: most of the heat-adapted strains did worse than the parental strains, but some did better, they had evolve different mechanisms that gave improved heat-tolerence.

We can make predictions about drug resistance too.

In the wider world we can make predictions about particular niches that are likely to be filled. (Large herbivore, predator of large herbivore, parisites of these animals for example).

We can also state that sight and flight are traits that are advantageous enough to have evolved independently many times, so these are likely to occur in suitable ecosystems.

Conversely, should the need for flight vanish (for example in an isolated island) the energy costs would make flight a disadvantageous trait, and so you would expect to see flightless animals that had flying ancestors.

What you can't predict is how future evolved organisms will interact, and how these will modulate the selective pressures.

Catastrophic events, e.g. the KT impact also have the effect of clearing out many niches, sometimes removing them completely and creating others, essentially Year-Zero. Large carnivores and large herbivores, but a triceritops isn't a rhino...

[mijopaalmc]

I can't quite parse this. Could you reword it?

The most common argument against evolution by natural selection's being random is that mutation is random but natural selection isn't. Therefore, one cannot appeal to the randomness of mutation to say that evolution by natural selection is random. You seem to be arguing that mutation is acausal because the things that ultimately cause it are acausal.

Isn't your argument regarding acausality and mutation both self-contradictory and inconsistent in light of your argument regarding randomness and evolution?

Way back when all this started. Or was it someone else?

You might want to check this post out for my position on saying "evolution is random, full stop":

You can't possibly be serious:eye-poppi. This comment implies that you have not actually read anything that or anyone else who claims that evolution is random has written. I specifically cited Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80924) because there are several posts that give dictionary definitions of "random" (#47 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2568546#post2568546), #49 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2568732#post2568732)) and discuss why all but the mathematical and statistical definition do not describe evolution (#65 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2571760#post2571760), #69 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2571807#post2571807), #71 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2571872#post2571872), #73 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2571994#post2571994),
#75 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2572320#post2572320)). I also made it quite clear that I favored "stochastic" or "probabilistic" over "random" because they have very specific definitions that avoid the common associations and therefore misinterpretations of "random" (#103 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2598575#post2598575), #189 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2606912#post2606912), #234 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2609996#post2609996), #252 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2611299#post2611299)). Furthermore, I explained in great detail several times in this thread exactly why evolution is probabilistic or stochastic (#158 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2606116#post2606116), #230 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2609885#post2609885)).

[Ichneumonwasp]

Actually, scientists (including evolutionary biologists) use the definition of "random" that I use every time the perform a statistical test, so I don't see what the problem is with applying it to yet another object of study.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just that this is what happens. When words are used across disciplines they create some controversy. Useful words continue to be used and words that don't work well die.

We don't know about this word yet. The only problem that anyone has with it is that it is used as a strawman argument by creationists, as you know, so it has created a maelstrom here.

I think we all have a pretty good idea about the underlying processes, so the only real controversy is whether or not to use this particular word. I guess part of the issue comes from folks worried that ideas that don't fit are being jammed into the 'random' carton, but really, it's just a word.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The most common argument against evolution by natural selection's being random is that mutation is random but natural selection isn't. Therefore, one cannot appeal to the randomness of mutation to say that evolution by natural selection is random. You seem to be arguing that mutation is acausal because the things that ultimately cause it are acausal.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Why can't I appeal to the randomness of mutation to argue that evolution is a random process?

Isn't your argument regarding acausality and mutation both self-contradictory and inconsistent in light of your argument regarding randomness and evolution?
What do you think my argument about randomness and evolution is? It's nothing more than suggesting that "evolution is random" is a misleading statement. I didn't say "incorrect," just "misleading."


You might want to check this post out for my position on saying "evolution is random, full stop":
I must have had you confused with someone else.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here we go:

http://www.puc-rio.br/marco.ind/stoch-a.html


Following Dixit & Pindyck's textbook (p.60): "Stochastic process is a variable that evolves over time in a way that is at least in part random".


And then the definition of pure random process:

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3807

Evolution is a stochastic process, but not a pure random process. I believe that when most people hear "random process" they think "pure random process."


~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Sweet Jesus. Not again.

This thread will come to a bad end.


If we're lucky. It might not end.

(And of course, after I read more of it, I'll probably comment.)

[mijopaalmc]

I'll take koans involving equivocation for $800 Alex.

Perhaps those of you who feel it's worth your time to interact with an intransigent might try getting him to accept that mutations are random, but evolution is not. Would that be verbiage he could agree with, or would we still need to clad it in several layers of defining definitions and explaining explanations plus a nice whipped metaphysical topping?

What about it mijo? Would a simple, cut and dried statement like "mutations are random, but evolution is not" be satisfactory for you to give up all the non-sense you've wasted server space with or will you continue to obfuscate and equivocate?

It's always funny when the people who insist that I am obfuscating and equivocation are the ones what are actually obfuscating and equivocating.

I think Vorticity said it best way back in May of last year:

Here's another thing that's been bugging me:
...
If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.
This idea has been stated in several forms in this thread, i.e. that while the mutation process is certainly random, the process of natural selection by which less-well-adapted variants are culled from the population is deterministic.

This seems to me to be a highly dubious claim. I'm having trouble seeing how the natural selection process could be completely deterministic. Certainly, the more-well-adapted variants will have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing. Perhaps siginificantly higher. Likewise, a poorly-adapted variant will have a much higher chance of becoming lunch. But it's not a certitude. These probabilities are not 1 and 0.

To put it another way, suppose we know the set of gene/allele frequencies of a population in a given generation. Even if we suppose that no mutation events will occur between this generation and the next, we cannot in advance specify the precise gene/allele content of the next generation. There is still significant randomness left over. Who will be eaten, who will reproduce, how much will they reproduce, etc. Now of course this is a sort of 'directed randomness', in the sense that the more adapted variants have a much better chance. But this does not suddenly make it nonrandom.

I repeated this sentiment in my OP in What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?:

The title of the thread says it all. I understand that evolution is a process directed through natural selection, but, as I understand it, natural selection is based on the probability, not certainty, of an organism with a specific "fitness complement" (i.e., the set of genes that contribute to its survival and reproduction relative to others of the same species). An individual whose fitness complement confers a greater chance of survival and reproduction is only more likely to survive and reproduce that one with a fitness complement that a lesser chance, but the survival and reproduction is not determined to such an extent that all the individuals with a specific fitness complement don not survive and reproduce. Thus, it is possible for one individual with a certain fitness complement to survive while another individual with the same fitness complement doesn't.

I only ask this, because I am thoroughly disappointed in the evidence that I have received from the posters in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80924). No-one to my knowledge has either explained how a process that operates on probability is non-random or directed me toward a resource that does. They all seem to be more interested, as is most of the literature on the internet that doesn't specifically deal with non-random genetic processes such as mutation and unequal cross over, in refuting the creationist straw man that holds that organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me toward some literature (especially of the peer-reviewed kind)that explain clearly and concisely why evolution is non-random.

Thus far, I have only received responses that explain why evolution is non-random in every other way than the way in which I defined it, which is equivocation on the part of the respodants.

[Wowbagger]

Are there any chaotic physical systems that wouldn't be significantly influenced by quantum uncertanites given enough time? None that I can think of. Which is why it is futile to single Evolution out as random for that reason. Everything would be random in that way, and so the word becomes meaningless, in that context.

Another valid use of "random" is to mean "directionless". I'd prefer a more accurate term like "directionless". I can agree with that! Perhaps "directionless" would be better than "unconsciously indifferent"?

Wowbagger's favourite term "unconciously indifferent" For the record, my favorite term happens to be "paredolia", which is followed closely by "The Tyranny of a Discontinuous Mind", "psychological neotny", and then "hoopy frood". I would say "unconsciously indifferent" probably ranks somewhere towards the bottom of the Top 200 list.

The word "indifferent" has the connotation of a person not caring about about something he could care about. Wowbagger needs feels the need to add "unconciously" to it in a futile attempt to remove the connotation, but it only makes the term an oxymoron. Not necessarily. What I mean is "Not just indifferent, but indifferent in the way only a cold, unconscious thing could be."

The scientific concepts are non-intuitive, and there simply are no everyday words that are commonly understood by non-scientists that accurately describe them. We can at least try. And, it might be better to experiment with language, here, before using phrases in a more formal manner.

What do you think of "directionless" as a substitute for "indifferent"?

Using the word "random" to describe evolution is fine, but in popular science texts perhaps need to be explained what is meant with it. I agree with that. Though, that does not mean the readers are going to pick up on it. One look at the word "random", and they will automatically assume they know what it means, and ignore the explanation.

I understand 2 and 4, which are the same thing. What are the other three? I would say 2 and 4 are related to each other, but not the same thing. Not all variables in a stochastic model are precise enough to reach the quantum level.

In the OP, it should be clear why I separated them out. It is valid to use stochastic models to help us describe Evolution. However, it would be invalid to dismiss it as invalid due to quantum uncertainty, because every other science would then be "invalid" in the same way. And, yet, we all know all the legit sciences work pretty darn well, in spite of that.

The other three are just other uses of the term, that I have seen around.

I think definition #3 could better be summarized as "pure random", incidentally.

Why are you trying to define "random" is such a way that it if precluded from being random by definition?Correct me if I am wrong, but I do think I am using the word in a similar manner as you, in the second bullet point about stochastic processes.

If I am wrong, then please inform me of how your definition is different. (And, optionally, how that difference is relevant to Evolution, if at all.)

Mutations, that have a selective effect (advantageous or disadvantageous) must affect the selective landscape for other organisms in the ecosystem. Which mutations occur first could affect the "direction" of the selective pressures. I agree with that, but fail to understand how that is an objection to the bullet point you quoted.

On to the statement about predictions:
(snip) Exactly! And, of course, all those examples you gave work against the idea of Evolution being purely random. The Creationists don't know what they're missing!

If we're lucky. It might not end. I think I might be a gluten for punishment.

[Taffer]

Have you ever taken a statistics course?

Yes. They were a requirement for my degree.

The null hypothesis is most often assumed to yield a certain distribution, and then the sample statistic is tested against this distribution, which in turn determines probability of the null hypothesis being true given the data collected due purely to variations in the sample.

That is how hypotheses are tested against a null hypothesis. You said that randomness, as you have defined it, was used in the specific statistical tests used for evolutionary biology. I don't dispute this. What I dispute is that your definition is the one used, since it makes no difference to the tests. Further, we test AGAINST a random null hypothesis, to show that the data is not random.

[mijopaalmc]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do think I am using the word in a similar manner as you, in the second bullet point about stochastic processes.

If I am wrong, then please inform me of how your definition is different. (And, optionally, how that difference is relevant to Evolution, if at all.)

Here is your bullet point:

* Describing a model of evolution, where our knowledge is not perfect. Such usage implies that the Evolution is actually deterministic behind the scenes. But, information about its initial conditions are lost to time and thermodynamics; and the number of variables involved in the current conditions are too many for us to handle. Therefore, we resort to simplified models that utilize either stochastic algorithms and/or random variables. As the models improve, the less we rely on these things.

You are quite explicit that your are intent on only describing the models as stochastic and not the actual process of evolution by natural selection. I, on the other hand, think that the way evolutionary biologists describe the process of evolution by natural selection as it occurs in the physical world is inherently stochastic (and not necessarily just because of out lack of knowledge of the details of the process) and that the existing data that we have corroborates this interpretation.

[sol invictus]

Thus far, I have only received responses that explain why evolution is non-random in every other way than the way in which I defined it, which is equivocation on the part of the respodants.

That's because your definition is totally useless, as we already established in that other horrible thread.

It also doesn't correspond to any of the 10 or so definitions from various sources which were posted there, including the one from a standard text on probability and statistics.

[mijopaalmc]

That is how hypotheses are tested against a null hypothesis. You said that randomness, as you have defined it, was used in the specific statistical tests used for evolutionary biology. I don't dispute this. What I dispute is that your definition is the one used, since it makes no difference to the tests. Further, we test AGAINST a random null hypothesis, to show that the data is not random.

I'm sorry but that is how hypotheses are tested. For a parametric test, the statistic defines a tail on the distribution for which the null hypothesis true just by the variation in the sample. The p-value is then the area in the tail, which translates to the probability that the null hypothesis is true by the variation in the sample. If p-value is greater than the confidence level, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. If p-value is less than the confidence level, the null hypothesis is rejected.

[mijopaalmc]

That's because your definition is totally useless, as we already established in that other horrible thread.

It also doesn't correspond to any of the 10 or so definitions from various sources, including the one from a standard text on probability and statistics.

And where did you provide these examples?

For instance the definition you provided from the Oxford English Dictionary does in fact back up my definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:

random, n., a., and adv.

<snip noun definitions>

B. adj. (from phr. at random: see A. 3).

1. a. Not sent or guided in a special direction; having no definite aim or purpose; made, done, occurring, etc., at haphazard.

b. Statistics. Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; also, produced or obtained by a random process (and therefore completely unpredictable in detail); random distribution, a probability distribution, esp. the Poisson distribution; random error: see ERROR 4d; random noise (see quot. 1954); random number, a number selected from a given set of numbers in such a way that all the numbers in the set have the same chance of selection; also, a pseudorandom number; random process, (a process characterized by) a sequence of random variables (see also quot. 1937); random sample, a sample drawn at random from a population, each member of it having an equal or other specified chance of inclusion (sometimes contrasted with quota sample s.v. QUOTA n. 4); so random sampling; random selection, a random sample; random sampling; random variable, variate, a variable whose values are distributed in accordance with a probability distribution; random walk, the movement of something in successive steps, the direction, length, or other property of each step being governed by chance independently of preceding steps.

The Poisson distribution is not in anyway uniform, so can't be properly described by the first sense in 4, so it must be random by some other metric.

[sol invictus]

Dear god.

Really? So why not name one?

Every single example you gave was a mathematical model. Should I remind you (again) of what they were? One particularly entertaining one was "orbital dynamics", by which you meant the ideal N body problem with only classical Newtonian gravity acting.



Nowhere in there is a definition of random, let alone one like yours. I just checked two books on probability on amazon using booksearch. Neither appears to define "random" (although both use the word quite a lot).

Here are a long list of web definitions, not a single one of which comes even close to yours:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+random

[mijopaalmc]

Dear god.

Really? So why not name one?

Every single example you gave was a mathematical model. Should I remind you (again) of what they were? One particularly entertaining one was "orbital dynamics", by which you meant the ideal N body problem with only classical Newtonian gravity acting.



Nowhere in there is a definition of random, let alone one like yours. I just checked two books on probability on amazon using booksearch. Neither appears to define "random" (although both use the word quite a lot).

Here are a long list of web definitions, not a single one of which comes even close to yours:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+random

Congratulations, you managed to find merely the most commonly used definition of "random" (and probably the only definition of "random" used on those sites) and are now trying to pass it off as only definition in use in the English language.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think I might be a gluten for punishment.

I'll strand by you.

[mijopaalmc]

Does anyone else recognize that "evolution by natural selection is random (stochastic)" and "evolution by natural selection is a random (stochastic) process" could mean different things?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Does anyone else recognize that "evolution by natural selection is random (stochastic)" and "evolution by natural selection is a random (stochastic) process" could mean different things?
Since evolution is a process, I don't see how they could mean different things. But I'm willing to learn.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

I said it before and I'll say it again:

Variation is non-deterministic with respect to form.
Selection is deterministic with respect to form.

It does not matter ONE BIT whether or not that variation is caused by quantum mechanics, a die roll, a list of numbers, or even, horrors, a deterministic process, etc.. the important part is the deterministic relationships.

If variation is based on form then mutation is not the mechanism of change in form - previous forms are.

If selection is not based on form then what variations arise are inconsequential to what forms persist.

These are the basic and fundamental conditions that must be satisfied for any system that would be considered "evolutionary" - be it biological or a abstract model.

NOTA BENE deterministic with respect to is not the same as wholly determined by - yes mijo, I am thinking of you and your twins. Their form does not wholly dictate their selection but to argue that their selection is not deterministic with respect to it would be WRONG.

[sol invictus]

Congratulations, you managed to find merely the most commonly used definition of "random" (and probably the only definition of "random" used on those sites) and are now trying to pass it off as only definition in use in the English language.

So mijo, you really don't remember that long and excruciatingly annoying discussion we had in the "Evolution Not Random" thread about how your definition is useless, since according to it every single process in the world is random?

Strange, because here you are in a different thread more recently parroting almost verbatim what I was telling you there all along:

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

[Taffer]

I said it before and I'll say it again:

Variation is non-deterministic with respect to form.
Selection is deterministic with respect to form.

It does not matter ONE BIT whether or not that variation is caused by quantum mechanics, a die roll, a list of numbers, or even, horrors, a deterministic process, etc.. the important part is the deterministic relationships.

If variation is based on form then mutation is not the mechanism of change in form - previous forms are.

If selection is not based on form then what variations arise are inconsequential to what forms persist.

These are the basic and fundamental conditions that must be satisfied for any system that would be considered "evolutionary" - be it biological or a abstract model.

NOTA BENE deterministic with respect to is not the same as wholly determined by - yes mijo, I am thinking of you and your twins. Their form does not wholly dictate their selection but to argue that their selection is not deterministic with respect to it would be WRONG.

There was a farmer, had a dog, and...

[Taffer]

I'm sorry but that is how hypotheses are tested. For a parametric test, the statistic defines a tail on the distribution for which the null hypothesis true just by the variation in the sample. The p-value is then the area in the tail, which translates to the probability that the null hypothesis is true by the variation in the sample. If p-value is greater than the confidence level, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. If p-value is less than the confidence level, the null hypothesis is rejected.

I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing about whether your definition of random is important in statistics.

[jimbob]

Are there any chaotic physical systems that wouldn't be significantly influenced by quantum uncertanites given enough time? None that I can think of. Which is why it is futile to single Evolution out as random for that reason. Everything would be random in that way, and so the word becomes meaningless, in that context.

There are non-chaotic physical systems where this isn't the case. The key word is "significantly".

I design and develop power transistors; these rely on the law of large numbers to average out quantum uncertainties, which make them work with very large numbers of electrons. Because they are power devices, they have to be large enough to manage high electric fields, so "normal" semiconductor physics (dealing with conduction bands and Fermi-Dirac statistics is valid, in a way that is getting less so for very small devices.)


Mutations, that have a selective effect (advantageous or disadvantageous) must affect the selective landscape for other organisms in the ecosystem. Which mutations occur first could affect the "direction" of the selective pressures. I agree with that, but fail to understand how that is an objection to the bullet point you quoted.

I would argue that this means that the selection pressures, and thus the "direction" of evolution is subject to change due to random events.

If the direction is subjected to random change, then surely this is "random".


On to the statement about predictions:
(snip) Exactly! And, of course, all those examples you gave work against the idea of Evolution being purely random. The Creationists don't know what they're missing!


I think this is mostly an issue of semantics. I think that the interesting aspect is that the actual mechanism and implications. I would agree that evolution isn't "completely random", but I would argue that nor is it determined either.

I would argue that, in stable environments, the random mechanisms would tend to produce repeatable results (i.e. the stability of the environment provides a constant enough selective pressure). For these conditions I would argee that describing evolution as random, is unhelpful.

Over long timescales, with unstable environments, I would argue that the random element is important, as it will alter the direction of the selection pressures. This is important if one is discussing the evoultion of humanity, as the KT impact, the ice-ages, the cambrian extinction, Toba, etc could have altered the course of evolution so that intelligent hominids wouldn't evolve, maybe so that nothing occupied the ecological niche of complex-tool and fire using social animals.

[Wowbagger]

I, on the other hand, think that the way evolutionary biologists describe the process of evolution by natural selection as it occurs in the physical world is inherently stochastic (and not necessarily just because of out lack of knowledge of the details of the process) and that the existing data that we have corroborates this interpretation. How do you know? Stochastic implies that the system is ultimately deterministic, anyway. We just can't determine everything, because our knowledge is imperfect.

If you think the nature of Evolution is fundamentally stochastic, you are going to have to find a source or mechanism of indeterminism, in the system (other than quantum uncertainty, which is largely wiped out in the scales Evolution works in).

Until such a new source of "random" fluctuations are discovered, it seems best to think of Evolution as ultimately deterministic, so that we may continue making discoveries and formulating predictions with it.

You seem to have a very strong mathematical background, mijo. Perhaps your training is making you forget that science is based on evidential support, not what someone thinks.

There are non-chaotic physical systems where this isn't the case. The key word is "significantly". Ah, good to emphasize the key words.

I would argue that this means that the selection pressures, and thus the "direction" of evolution is subject to change due to random events.

If the direction is subjected to random change, then surely this is "random". It might be a matter of resolution. In the large scales Evolutionary models work in, such random events usually have a miniscule impact on the system, if any at all. The patterns of convergence we see is testimony to that.

Over long timescales, with unstable environments, I would argue that the random element is important, as it will alter the direction of the selection pressures. This is important if one is discussing the evoultion of humanity, as the KT impact, the ice-ages, the cambrian extinction, Toba, etc could have altered the course of evolution so that intelligent hominids wouldn't evolve, maybe so that nothing occupied the ecological niche of complex-tool and fire using social animals.But your examples (the KT impact, ice ages, etc.) were large enough events that any small changes in random fluctuation would not have stopped them from happening. In that sense, they are NOT random.
(Though, in another sense, you could use random to mean "unanticipated" by the life forms on the planet. But, such usage is probably not useful in describing the Evolutionary process.)

[jimbob]

Wowbagger,

I think we are emphasising slightly different things here. I also suspect that I have a lower "threshold of significance" than you, i.e. you are looking very broad-brush, whilst I am looking at the level of particular niches:

There are many pressures that are almost univeral and which act upon every member of say a kingdom, maybe even higher.

All animals will need to eat; they are unlikely to be able to afford to "waste" energy, so there will always be a pressure in favour of "frugality". Sometimes there are also opposing pressures, for example towards flight, however the ability to fly has a cost in energy, so should the need for flight vanish, the "frugality" pressure will act to reduce the ability to fly.

Is this the level of "significance" that you are talking about? (or indeed, the level of resolution that you are talking about).

At that resolution I would agree with you, however I am thinking about a *slightly* finer resolution.

Suppose our ancestors went through a stage of scavenging in the savannah, and in a slightly different universe, there was an animal that was a lot better at this than them, but that there was slightly less competition back in the trees. The surviving hominids could have ended up occupying similar niches to the chimps or bonobos, and not as ancestors to fire-using social animals.

An entire niche could remain unocupied/unavailable due to a slightly different set of competing organisms due to a different order of mutations altering the fitness landscape for other organisms.

This above example isn't terribly clear, I'm afraid, but I hope you can see what I am getting at.

[jimbob]

Maybe a clearer example would be to say that the rhino and triceretops seem to occupy/have occupied similar niches (ones that are highly likely to be filled). But I would argue that there are significant differences, and many of them are due to the randomness of the process.

[Walter Wayne]

Wowbagger,

Stochastic does not mean ultimately determistic.

Of course mijo is confusing the model with reality. The use of a stochastic model imples that the process is random or that it has hidden/unknown variables. So the use of the stochastic model doesn't tell us much about the randomness or lack of thesystem.

Walt

[mijopaalmc]

Since evolution is a process, I don't see how they could mean different things. But I'm willing to learn.

~~ Paul

I was thinking along the lines of the idea that bird dog doesn't mean a bird that is also a dog, or vice versa. In other words, maybe the phrase "random process" means something different than the sum of the words "random" and "process". I asked this question partially because "random process" has a exact and rigorous definition within probability theory and it therefore avoid the definitional problems that people insist on have with the single word "random".

[mijopaalmc]

I said it before and I'll say it again:

Variation is non-deterministic with respect to form.
Selection is deterministic with respect to form.

It does not matter ONE BIT whether or not that variation is caused by quantum mechanics, a die roll, a list of numbers, or even, horrors, a deterministic process, etc.. the important part is the deterministic relationships.

If variation is based on form then mutation is not the mechanism of change in form - previous forms are.

If selection is not based on form then what variations arise are inconsequential to what forms persist.

These are the basic and fundamental conditions that must be satisfied for any system that would be considered "evolutionary" - be it biological or a abstract model.

NOTA BENE deterministic with respect to is not the same as wholly determined by - yes mijo, I am thinking of you and your twins. Their form does not wholly dictate their selection but to argue that their selection is not deterministic with respect to it would be WRONG.

You are choosing to redefine the words "random" and "deterministic" to preclude evolution from being random, cyborg. In fact, you are ignoring that even if there were no bias in selection and no novel mutations introduced into the population that evolution would still occur purely by regression toward the mean. That is why you are wrong.

[Wowbagger]

I think we are emphasising slightly different things here. I also suspect that I have a lower "threshold of significance" than you, i.e. you are looking very broad-brush, whilst I am looking at the level of particular niches: The threshold is variable. And, yes, perhaps we are both right, but in different parts of the range.

Suppose our ancestors went through a stage of scavenging in the savannah, and in a slightly different universe, there was an animal that was a lot better at this than them, but that there was slightly less competition back in the trees. The surviving hominids could have ended up occupying similar niches to the chimps or bonobos, and not as ancestors to fire-using social animals. No need for DA tags, in that one. I would agree with it.

But, think about how much different the world would have needed to be, in order for that alternative scenario to take place. We are no longer talking about differences from mere randomness, there.

A bucket of water with one less drop in it, is still a bucket of water, in the end.

The flapping of a butterfly's wings may contribute to a hurricane, but would never, by themselves, generate one.

An entire niche could remain unocupied/unavailable due to a slightly different set of competing organisms due to a different order of mutations altering the fitness landscape for other organisms. It is possible, I suppose. But, I wonder: How often are slight differences really responsible for such things?

Can anyone offer examples where some slight difference clearly did make a huge impact on the course of evolution for some life form, that would not otherwise have occurred?

Maybe a clearer example would be to say that the rhino and triceretops seem to occupy/have occupied similar niches (ones that are highly likely to be filled). But I would argue that there are significant differences, and many of them are due to the randomness of the process. IIRC, Kangaroos and antelopes are another example of similar niches being filled by different-looking animals.

But, no matter what the details, we could still have predicted the niche would be filled.

Stochastic does not mean ultimately determistic. Well, perhaps, strictly speaking, yes. However...

The use of a stochastic model imples that the process is random or that it has hidden/unknown variables. So the use of the stochastic model doesn't tell us much about the randomness or lack of thesystem. ...for scientific purposes, it seems Occam's Razor would have determinism as the simplest explanation, unless evidence otherwise (with Heisenberg-like precision) is found.

If mijo thinks Evolution is fundamentally random, he has to deliver such evidence.

[mijopaalmc]

Congratulations, you managed to find merely the most commonly used definition of "random" (and probably the only definition of "random" used on those sites) and are now trying to pass it off as only definition in use in the English language.

So mijo, you really don't remember that long and excruciatingly annoying discussion we had in the "Evolution Not Random" thread about how your definition is useless, since according to it every single process in the world is random?

Strange, because here you are in a different thread more recently parroting almost verbatim what I was telling you there all along:

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

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote here. I was mainly responding to the fact that I had made the claim earlier in the thread that a function of a random variable (e.g., genomes after mutations) is a random variable, and evolution is therefore a random process because mutation is random. Consequently, I was saying that, even though this is incontrovertibly true from a mathematical standpoint, it is rather useless in describing physical systems if all our measurements are in fact random variables described by probability distributions.

The second part is a bit harder to understand because I seem to be describing a chaotic process in the way in which I would normally describe a stochastic process. However, my point was and still is, if our measurement are inherently imprecise and evolution by natural selection is indeed a chaotic system, it does us little good to think of it as a deterministic system (even though it is by definition deterministic), because (and this is part of the mathematical definition of a chaotic system) no matter how exact our measurements and how complete our knowledge of the systems are there will be some areas of the state space where a small differences in initial conditions are going to lead to large differences in final conditions. Therefore, it is much more practical and precise, due to the chaotic nature of the system, to derive a probability distribution for the possible values the measurements could assume.

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

How is assuming randomness less parsimonious that assuming determinism?

[Wowbagger]

How is assuming randomness less parsimonious that assuming determinism? Randomness lies outside of experimental science. A process that is truly random cannot be recreated in the laboratory, (at least not with any consistency).


ETA: Another, possibly more fitting, answer: The mechanism of randomness would have to be explained, and without evidence of its presence, should be disgarded. Natural determinism in a process needs no extraneous explanation.

[mijopaalmc]

Randomness lies outside of experimental science. A process that is truly random cannot be recreated in the laboratory, (at least not with any consistency).

You're missing the point yet again. Randomness can be tested in the lab (and in fact been tested to an absurdly high degree in the case of quantum mechanics).

ETA: Another, possibly more fitting, answer: The mechanism of randomness would have to be explained, and without evidence of its presence, should be disgarded. Natural determinism in a process needs no extraneous explanation.

Evidence of randomness's presence is identical initial conditions yielding different final conditions. This is how randomness is defined mathematically and scientifically. you are failing quite spectacularly at understanding this.

[Wowbagger]

Randomness can be tested in the lab (and in fact been tested to an absurdly high degree in the case of quantum mechanics). I agree with that. But, you have yet to show us such a source of randomness in the nature of Evolution, that can be tested in the lab.

Quantum mechanics has certainly been thoroughly tested, but its impact is largely erased at the large scales the process of Evolution works in.

Without evidence of a new source of randomness, it is better for the sake of scientific investigation, to assume one does not exist.

Evidence of randomness's presence is identical initial conditions yielding different final conditions. I would love to see some examples of this, in Evolution.

This is how randomness is defined mathematically and scientifically. you are failing quite spectacularly at understanding this. This topic is about how the word Random applies (or does not apply) to Evolution. How are those definitions relevant to Evolution, then?

I suspect that your mathematical training might be keeping you blind to the importance of evidential support.

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Are you trying to tell me that natural selection neatly divides a population into two collections of phenotypes: one where no individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring and the other where every individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring?

That is what I hear when someone claims that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process, and that is the kind of evidence that someone who claim that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process.

By the way, I do understand that evolution by natural selection is non-random (i.e., deterministic) by the way that evolutionary biologist choose to define it, but I think evolutionary biologists' choosing to describe the actual process in this way is extremely inconsistent with the other ways in which evolutionary biologists use the concept of "random" within their own field.

[Taffer]

Wowbagger-

Are you trying to tell me that natural selection neatly divides a population into two collections of phenotypes: one where no individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring and the other where every individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring?

That is what I hear when someone claims that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process, and that is the kind of evidence that someone who claim that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process.

By the way, I do understand that evolution by natural selection is non-random (i.e., deterministic) by the way that evolutionary biologist choose to define it, but I think evolutionary biologists' choosing to describe the actual process in this way is extremely inconsistent with the other ways in which evolutionary biologists use the concept of "random" within their own field.

You keep saying what evolutionary biologists do and do not. Can you please elaborate on how these biologists use inconsistant definitions of random?

[mijopaalmc]

You keep saying what evolutionary biologists do and do not. Can you please elaborate on how these biologists use inconsistant definitions of random?

Again evolutionary biologists use an implicit understanding of randomness that is purely based in probability whenever the perform statistical hypothesis testing. This is especially true if they use parametric statistics, which require them to assume that population is described by a specific distribution (determined by the test they are performing) and test the sample data against that assumed distribution. It should not be hard to see how such a perception of randomness is inconsistent with any of the multitude of definitions that people have provide over the last 10 months.

[Taffer]

Again evolutionary biologists use an implicit understanding of randomness that is purely based in probability whenever the perform statistical hypothesis testing. This is especially true if they use parametric statistics, which require them to assume that population is described by a specific distribution (determined by the test they are performing) and test the sample data against that assumed distribution. It should not be hard to see how such a perception of randomness is inconsistent with any of the multitude of definitions that people have provide over the last 10 months.

Firstly, it's odd because a specific definition of "random" never came up when I was performing multitudes of population genetics and phylogenetics analyses. Secondly, what matters in these cases is what randomness causes, not what causes randomness. In other words, it doesn't matter if "random" means "acausal" or "deterministic but chaotic" or "goddidit". The tests work either way as long as the random null hypothesis is the same.

[Wowbagger]

Are you trying to tell me that natural selection neatly divides a population into two collections of phenotypes: one where no individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring and the other where every individual who possesses one of the constituent phenotypes has reproductively viable offspring? I am not sure I understand the question. But, I will do my best to address what it seems to be addressing:

First of all: the reproductive success of a phenotype depends on the fitness landscape. In some landscapes a phenotype will result in much better survival, in others it could instantly kill the life form. In most situations, it will probably lay anywhere in between. (Keep in mind that the life form's adapted survival strategies and evolutionary heritage are factored into this, as well.)

Second of all: I very much doubt natural selection neatly divides anything into two collections. Nature tends to abhor taxonomy. There will always tend to be gray areas between two extremes. (The appearance of neat categories is the fault of both human bias in perception, and the natural tendency for phase-shifts and clumping to occur in some of the data.)

That is what I hear when someone claims that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process, and that is the kind of evidence that someone who claim that evolution by natural selection is a deterministic process. You probably heard incorrectly.

It is possible for nature to be both deterministic, and fail to neatly divide things into discrete categories.

It is humans who need to taxonomize, not nature.

By the way, I do understand that evolution by natural selection is non-random (i.e., deterministic) by the way that evolutionary biologist choose to define it, but I think evolutionary biologists' choosing to describe the actual process in this way is extremely inconsistent with the other ways in which evolutionary biologists use the concept of "random" within their own field.It might be true that the word "random" is not used consistently throughout the field. (That is why I have so many bullet points in the opening post.) Other words, such as "gene" and "species" are also inconsistently defined, in the field. However, it is important for the working usage to be consistent within the same study. As long as each individual study uses words consistently in themselves, this problem is manageable.

I would certainly like to see words used even more consistently, myself. But, there is little the two of us can do about it. Especially since science is in the business of altering its models. As the models improve, definitions get updated. Even if everyone now uses the words in exactly the same way, it will not stay that way forever.

[sol invictus]

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote here. I was mainly responding to the fact that I had made the claim earlier in the thread that a function of a random variable (e.g., genomes after mutations) is a random variable, and evolution is therefore a random process because mutation is random. Consequently, I was saying that, even though this is incontrovertibly true from a mathematical standpoint, it is rather useless in describing physical systems if all our measurements are in fact random variables described by probability distributions.

The second part is a bit harder to understand because I seem to be describing a chaotic process in the way in which I would normally describe a stochastic process. However, my point was and still is, if our measurement are inherently imprecise and evolution by natural selection is indeed a chaotic system, it does us little good to think of it as a deterministic system (even though it is by definition deterministic), because (and this is part of the mathematical definition of a chaotic system) no matter how exact our measurements and how complete our knowledge of the systems are there will be some areas of the state space where a small differences in initial conditions are going to lead to large differences in final conditions. Therefore, it is much more practical and precise, due to the chaotic nature of the system, to derive a probability distribution for the possible values the measurements could assume.

It doesn't sound like I misunderstood you at all - what you just said in the quote above is what I spent quite a number of posts trying to explain to you in the previous thread. I'm glad I got through.

So it sounds like we agree - your definition of random is useless since it defines all physical processes as random, and hence the statment "evolution is random" is empty. More useful definitions exist (and in fact are the ones used by everyone but you), and according to most of those, evolution is not random.

[articulett]

'Just to weigh-in on this thread... I want to know if jim-bob, walter wayne, or mijo ever make sense or cede a point. I have a feeling that they'll be arguing that it makes sense to call evolution "random" as long as they are forum members... and I have my strong suspicions as to why. Jimbob has his own weird definition that he thinks is fabu (random mutation and probabilistic selection which is almost as empty as mijo's bizarre insistence at calling selection "random" because it can be described in terms of probabilities before the fact...) And I never could figure out Walter Wayne. I've ended up putting them all on ignore figuring that someone would quote them if they said something intelligible... but so far, I'm not seeing any intelligence or comprehension... just their same old insistence that it makes sense somehow to describe evolution in the same manner that Behe describes it no matter how misleading or empty such a definition is.

You have to admire their tenacity, however,-- in fact, it reminds me Behe.

Wowbagger and Sol Invictus... mark my words... you are having a discussion with people who have a vested interest in not understanding. No progress will be made. It's not you... it's not your explanations; it's them. These guys were saying the exact same nothingness over a year ago on Mijo's "evolution is not nonrandom" thread"... truly... nothing has changed. Nothing.

[Walter Wayne]

So it sounds like we agree - your definition of random is useless since it defines all physical processes as random, and hence the statment "evolution is random" is empty. More useful definitions exist (and in fact are the ones used by everyone but you), and according to most of those, evolution is not random.I agree with that mijo definition is useless, but I'm am wondering why you think by most other definitions evolution is not random, or at least which of those definitions would you think would not apply?

Walt

[sol invictus]

I agree with that mijo definition is useless, but I'm am wondering why you think by most other definitions evolution is not random, or at least which of those definitions would you think would not apply?


Here's a typical definition of random: "Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern."

Something like that is what most people mean when they use the word. And that clearly does not apply to evolution - evolution is very predictable in many ways, and it follows patterns that we are quite capable of understanding. Of course its details are not predictable (which is the case for ALL OTHER physical processes too), but many broad patterns are - increase in complexity over time, survival of the fittest rather than the least fit, general characteristics of responses to changes in the environment, etc.

[mijopaalmc]

It doesn't sound like I misunderstood you at all - what you just said in the quote above is what I spent quite a number of posts trying to explain to you in the previous thread. I'm glad I got through.

So it sounds like we agree - your definition of random is useless since it defines all physical processes as random, and hence the statment "evolution is random" is empty. More useful definitions exist (and in fact are the ones used by everyone but you), and according to most of those, evolution is not random.

No, we in fact do not agree.

Again, saying that evolution by natural selection is random simply because mutation is random does yield a meaningless statement in terms of physical systems ; however, saying that evolution by natural selection is random because there are not two distinct distinct groups of phenotypes, one that guarantees the production of reproductively viable offspring and one that precludes the production of reproductively viable offspring, does not yield a description that is useless for describing evolution by natural selection.

[mijopaalmc]

Here's a typical definition of random: "Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern."

Something like that is what most people mean when they use the word. And that clearly does not apply to evolution - evolution is very predictable in many ways, and it follows patterns that we are quite capable of understanding. Of course its details are not predictable (which is the case for ALL OTHER physical processes too), but many broad patterns are - increase in complexity over time, survival of the fittest rather than the least fit, general characteristics of responses to changes in the environment, etc.

Here's a typical definition of "theory": "[a]n assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture".

By the logic you just displayed, evolution by natural selection is a conjecture or guess.

Of course, that is not how scientists how scientists use the word "theory", but we're going to ignore that because we have decided to go with the common definition of "theory".:rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

So mijo, I guess you're unwilling to accept that "mutation is random but evolution is not"?

[mijopaalmc]

So mijo, I guess you're unwilling to accept that "mutation is random but evolution is not"?

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.

[mijopaalmc]

I know that articulett likes to say that I am unintelligible to discredit me, so in the spirit of intelligibility, I present to a bulleted list the essentials of my position in it:


Deterministic evolution by natural selection divides the phenotypes in a population into two mutually exclusive groups individuals in which either

all produce reproductively viable offspring or
all produce fail to reproductively viable offspring.

Stochastic evolution by natural selection allows each phenotype to confer a probability of producing reproductively viable offspring on each individual that possesses it.


Note: In stochastic evolution by natural selection, it is possible for an infinite number of phenotypes to confer a probability of producing reproductively viable offspring of 0. It is also possible for a phenotype to confer a probability of producing reproductively viable offspring of 1.

[cyborg]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

NOTA BENE deterministic with respect to is not the same as wholly determined by - yes mijo, I am thinking of you and your twins. Their form does not wholly dictate their selection but to argue that their selection is not deterministic with respect to it would be WRONG.

[mijopaalmc]

NOTA BENE deterministic with respect to is not the same as wholly determined by - yes mijo, I am thinking of you and your twins. Their form does not wholly dictate their selection but to argue that their selection is not deterministic with respect to it would be WRONG.

You are redefining "deterministic" in a way that is not used by either scientists or mathematicians and that by defintion make evolution deterministic.

Your definition is invalid.

[mijopaalmc]

Seriously some of the people who are arguing that evolution is not random are more skilled at equivocating than creationists.

[Reality Check]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.


That statement is incorrect. A mutation does split the individuals in a population into 2 groups. But the members of one group do not all die while the members of the other group survive.
The survival of individuals in each group depends on their "fitness" to their environment. The mutation will allow individuals in one group more opportunity to reproduce than individuals in the other group. So in the next generation one group of phenotypes is more likely than the other.

[mijopaalmc]

That statement is incorrect. A mutation does split the individuals in a population into 2 groups. But the members of one group do not all die while the members of the other group survive.
The survival of individuals in each group depends on their "fitness" to their environment. The mutation will allow individuals in one group more opportunity to reproduce than individuals in the other group. So in the next generation one group of phenotypes is more likely than the other.

I think you're missing the point of the post. Evolution by natural selection is not deterministic unless phenotypes are divided in to the two mutually exclusive groups mentioned above.

By the way, you explanation is inherently probabilistic and therefore described evolution by natural selectionasa stochastic (or random) process.

[Dancing David]

I'm pretty sure you finally admitted somewhere that this definition applies to everything in the real world, making it useless. Have you forgotten that? Want me to dig up your quote?



Semantic debates are soooo boring.

Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.

Yay!

[Dancing David]

Well, there are five bullet points in my opening post...



Perhaps it might pay to clarify these things, for those who need it:

Mitchell's definitions of Random (summarizing the bullet points in the OP):
1. Analagous to "indifferent"
2. A stochastic model
3. A "happy accident"
4. Quantum uncertainty
5. Arthur Dent's daughter

There could be others.

6. Arthur Dent falling, missing the ground and flying!

[Dancing David]

But "chaotic" does not mean "random". A chaotic system is by definition deterministic but sensitively dependent of initial conditions. A random system is by definition not deterministic.


And that is nice in word space where we can say with certainty what something is. But you are putting the cart before the hosre in reality.

How will you tell a chaotic system from a random system without a lot (and I mean ahuge amount of study)?


So yes in word spece that has meaning, in reality it doesn't.

The atoms/molecule in in Sol Invinctus' example is subject to a very chaotic process, but it is essentially random in expression.

Ooops, i just made a mess in word space too!

[Reality Check]

I think you're missing the point of the post. Evolution by natural selection is not deterministic unless phenotypes are divided in to the two mutually exclusive groups mentioned above.

By the way, you explanation is inherently probabilistic and therefore described evolution by natural selectionasa stochastic (or random) process.

Yes they are mutually exclusive as I said. However individuals in both groups survive and reproduce.

A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic).
Evolution is a multi-stage process involving populations. One stage is that some members in that population undergo mutations. Many mutations (e.g. point mutations) are random (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random). A mutation is an event (not a process) and therefore is not a stochastic process. Evolution by natural selection as a whole can be described as a stochastic process but not mutation.

[Dancing David]

There was a farmer, had a dog, and...

I hope the dog's name was not Random because then , well...

[Dancing David]

You're missing the point yet again. Randomness can be tested in the lab (and in fact been tested to an absurdly high degree in the case of quantum mechanics).



Evidence of randomness's presence is identical initial conditions yielding different final conditions. This is how randomness is defined mathematically and scientifically. you are failing quite spectacularly at understanding this.

Um, sorry, to our current knowledge QM is 'random' at some point we might have more knowledge and then in word space

QM might be
-random
-chaotic-stochastic-deterministc

I don't recall seeing anything that said that he process underlying QM was random, just that it follows some sort of proability that at this time we say 'is considered to be random'.

[Dancing David]

Here's a typical definition of random: "Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern."

Something like that is what most people mean when they use the word. And that clearly does not apply to evolution - evolution is very predictable in many ways, and it follows patterns that we are quite capable of understanding. Of course its details are not predictable (which is the case for ALL OTHER physical processes too), but many broad patterns are - increase in complexity over time, survival of the fittest rather than the least fit, general characteristics of responses to changes in the environment, etc.


I am not arguing with your here but the genome is blind to the enviroment, so the expression of traits is deterministic, however the traits of beings in enviroments and which traits will be expressed is contingent and essentially random.

So the expression of traits is very deterministic in outcome, the availability of traits and which enviroments they will end up in and how they might have benefit to beings is essentially "lack of predicatbility and without systemic pattern", although the traits will be localized for some populations and so the potential expression of traits in an unknown enviroment might show some branching structures.

The genome is blind to the enviroment and as such the future expression of traits in a changing landscape might be characterised as random.

[Dancing David]

No, we in fact do not agree.

Again, saying that evolution by natural selection is random simply because mutation is random does yield a meaningless statement in terms of physical systems ; however, saying that evolution by natural selection is random because there are not two distinct distinct groups of phenotypes, one that guarantees the production of reproductively viable offspring and one that precludes the production of reproductively viable offspring, does not yield a description that is useless for describing evolution by natural selection.

I would say that some parts of evolution are random because th egenome is blind, the future expression of traits in a changing landscape is not predictable.

[Dancing David]

So mijo, I guess you're unwilling to accept that "mutation is random but evolution is not"?

Or that

-the expression of traits which are not currently being expressed but might become expressed and effect future rates of survival is random and not predictable?

[Dancing David]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.

Sorry Mijo, this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The survival of an individual is very chaotic.
The placement of individuals in a landscape is very very chaotic.
The intercation of individuals in the landscape is very very very chaotic.

Which traits might have potential to have a reporductive impact on an individual's rate of reproduction is very very very very chaotic.

The prediction of which traits will be in which individuals in which enviroment with which other players and how they might impact future reproductive success is not possible.

You seem to be in some word space that does not parse for me.

the enviroment does provide causal relationships, the biology of expression provides causal relationships, the interaction of the individual in the enviroment does provide causal relationships

the traits which an idividual has, the enviroment the individual finds itself in, the impact of expressed traits upon reproductive survival are all causal

which individual has which trait in which enviroment and how a change in enviroment impacts reproductive success is not predictable, it is chaotic, stochastic or random

we do not have a knowledge base that would allow for a meaningful differentiation

[Dancing David]

I think you're missing the point of the post. Evolution by natural selection is not deterministic unless phenotypes are divided in to the two mutually exclusive groups mentioned above.

By the way, you explanation is inherently probabilistic and therefore described evolution by natural selectionasa stochastic (or random) process.

fallacy of construction.

[sol invictus]

Here's a typical definition of "theory": "[a]n assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture".

By the logic you just displayed, evolution by natural selection is a conjecture or guess.

What?

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.

Did you mention "logic", mijo? Maybe we should define that for you next?

Anyway you're obviously nothing but a troll, so I'm done with this discussion.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I can think of one process which is deterministic:

mijo saying evolution is a random process.

[mijopaalmc]

What?

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.

You took a common definition of "random" and decided to use it in a technical context, so I demonstrated the absurdity of that approach by applying it to the word "theory".

Anyway you're obviously nothing but a troll, so I'm done with this discussion.

Funny, someone who points out a fundamental flaw in your argument is a troll?

[articulett]

I can think of one process which is deterministic:

mijo saying evolution is a random process.

Yep... no matter how vague and misleading the phrase may be... no matter how many times it's explained to him... Mijo thinks that evolution is random... and People like Dawkins, et. al. who disagree are just "wrong".

His definition of random, of course, is so broad as to make everything random including you, your breakfast, your dog, life, death, and all processes that are not mathematical abstractions. Anything that can be construed to have any randomness, IS random to Mijo. Moreover, his definition of random is "anything related to probability". He's covered all his bases and said nothing at all... just as he was doing a year ago when he started a thread on this very topic.

To get Mijo to enter a thread all you need to do is to say evolution is not random... (or to criticize creationists)--

Deterministic indeed.

[mijopaalmc]

His definition of random, of course, is so broad as to make everything random including you, your breakfast, your dog, life, death, and all processes that are not mathematical abstractions. Anything that can be construed to have any randomness, IS random to Mijo. Moreover, his definition of random is "anything related to probability". He's covered all his bases and said nothing at all... just as he was doing a year ago when he started a thread on this very topic.

Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.

Let me be perfectly clear. Unless everyone reject reality and substitute your own, you are unwilling to accept the simple, straight foreward statement that "mutations are random but evolution is not"?

[jimbob]

'Just to weigh-in on this thread... I want to know if jim-bob, walter wayne, or mijo ever make sense or cede a point. I have a feeling that they'll be arguing that it makes sense to call evolution "random" as long as they are forum members... and I have my strong suspicions as to why. Jimbob has his own weird definition that he thinks is fabu (random mutation and probabilistic selection which is almost as empty as mijo's bizarre insistence at calling selection "random" because it can be described in terms of probabilities before the fact...) And I never could figure out Walter Wayne. I've ended up putting them all on ignore figuring that someone would quote them if they said something intelligible... but so far, I'm not seeing any intelligence or comprehension... just their same old insistence that it makes sense somehow to describe evolution in the same manner that Behe describes it no matter how misleading or empty such a definition is.

You have to admire their tenacity, however,-- in fact, it reminds me Behe.

Wowbagger and Sol Invictus... mark my words... you are having a discussion with people who have a vested interest in not understanding. No progress will be made. It's not you... it's not your explanations; it's them. These guys were saying the exact same nothingness over a year ago on Mijo's "evolution is not nonrandom" thread"... truly... nothing has changed. Nothing.


The same could be said about articulett, and with more reason.

Mijo is probably a bit miffed that articulett keeps referring to him as a creationist. If she read what this thread was about, she might find the difference is aminly about semantics.

If she read my posts, she might find where I consider "nonrandom" to be appropriate, and whre I'd consider "random" to be appropriate.

One point that sems to have eluded her, is that a single instance of even a "beneficial" trait is likely to not survive beyond a single generation. As mutations start with individuals, this has consequences for how evolution works.

There are other subtleties that she misses too:

For example, creationists often claim that mutations are harmful. In a stable environment, that is quite likely to be the case, as reproducing organisms are likely to be well adaptred, so any change will be more likely to move them away from the "optimum" than towards it. If the environment has changed or is changing this is less probable. In other words, the rate of adaption to an envirmnment slows as the organisms are more adapted to this environment.

There is fossil evidence for this too.

[Earthborn]

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.No. The point is: because scientists use a particular definition of the word "random" in the context of evolution, evolution can be said to be random... even if the word "random" has a slightly different meaning to the general public.

[Taffer]

I am not arguing with your here but the genome is blind to the enviroment, so the expression of traits is deterministic, however the traits of beings in enviroments and which traits will be expressed is contingent and essentially random.

So the expression of traits is very deterministic in outcome, the availability of traits and which enviroments they will end up in and how they might have benefit to beings is essentially "lack of predicatbility and without systemic pattern", although the traits will be localized for some populations and so the potential expression of traits in an unknown enviroment might show some branching structures.

The genome is blind to the enviroment and as such the future expression of traits in a changing landscape might be characterised as random.

Not quite true. The genome exists in its own environment, and is subject to evolutionary pressures directly. To explain, many things about a genome are directly acted upon by selection (rather then selection acting upon phenotypes). Such things as methylation, gene sequence, genome folding and structure, introns/transposons, and even such thing as basepair ratio of genes, are all examples of things which selection acts upon directly. So while it is true that genes are not directly acted upon by the selective force of the "outside" environment, it isn't quite true that a genome has no direct selective pressure at all.

[Taffer]

Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?

I'm afraid she's right, mijo. The definition you are using makes any statement involving "random" useless.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc
Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?
I'm afraid she's right, mijo. The definition you are using makes any statement involving "random" useless

Here is a question for mijo:

Do you only consider processes to be random if the randomness has a significant effect on the outcome?

An example:

Was it random when a V2 rocket hit London? No

Was it random whether it hit a particular house and not another? Essentially yes.

[sol invictus]

No. The point is: because scientists use a particular definition of the word "random" in the context of evolution, evolution can be said to be random... even if the word "random" has a slightly different meaning to the general public.

I am a scientist. I use the word "random" quite often in both technical and non-technical settings, and I have never used it in the sense mijo wants. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. When he says "evolution is not random", he too is not using the word the way mijo wants. There is a simple reason for that - the definition mijo likes is totally useless outside of a narrow and specific mathematical context, because every single physical process in the world is random according to it. The statement "evolution is random" is therefore misleading to the point of being simply false.

Some internet troll named mijo likes a particularly stupid definition of a term. That does not mean everybody else must use it that way. Nor does that set of facts imply anything at all about how scientists use the term "theory".

Do you really find that so difficult to grasp?

[mijopaalmc]

I am a scientist. I use the word "random" quite often in both technical and non-technical settings, and I have never used it in the sense mijo wants. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. When he says "evolution is not random", he too is not using the word the way mijo wants. There is a simple reason for that - the definition mijo likes is totally useless outside of a narrow and specific mathematical context, because every single physical process in the world is random according to it. The statement "evolution is random" is therefore misleading to the point of being simply false.

Some internet troll named mijo likes a particularly stupid definition of a term. That does not mean everybody else must use it that way. Nor does that set of facts imply anything at all about how scientists use the term "theory".

The problem here is that scientists and others who argue for evolution get all up in arms when creationists use the common definition of "theory" to imply that evolution is just a guess or when they use their owm ifiosuncratic definition of "transitional form" to declare that evolution has not produced any evidence of such, but have not problem using the common definition "random" to declare that evolution in non-random.

Why is it equivocation when a creationists do it but not when evolutionary biologists do it?

By the way I am not a troll; I am just heartily sick of the preponderance of shoddy reasoning on the part of those who claim evolution is non-random, and I find it interesting that when I point out that they are arguing like a creationist they deem me a troll.

[sol invictus]

The problem here is that scientists and others who argue for evolution get all up in arms when creationists use the common definition of "theory" to imply that evolution is just a guess or when they use their owm ifiosuncratic definition of "transitional form" to declare that evolution has not produced any evidence of such, but have not problem using the common definition "random" to declare that evolution in non-random.

What "common" definition of random, mijo? As usual you're not making any sense.

Last time we discussed this, I looked around and didn't find the definition you gave in ANY source, technical or not. (I found lots that agreed with me, though, including in a standard probability and statistics text.)

You are the one giving an idiosyncratic definition - because you are a troll.

[sol invictus]

Yet another example:


The expression "at random" will be used only with respect to an equiprobable space; formally, the expression "choose a point at random from a set S" shall mean that S is an equiprobable space where each point in S has the same probability.

By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

[mijopaalmc]

What "common" definition of random, mijo? As usual you're not making any sense.

Last time we discussed this, I looked around and didn't find the definition you gave in ANY source, technical or not. (I found lots that agreed with me, though, including in a standard probability and statistics text.)

You are the one giving an idiosyncratic definition - because you are a troll.

That's funny that you say you couldn't find any source for the definition I provided as The American Heritage Dictionary, The American Heritage Science Dictionary (both at dictionary.com), and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary) all cite the definition I use. You also don't seem to have read very far in some of the hits you got on the define:random search, because you would have seen that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random) (which is not an especially good source on its own), the UNESCO/IUBS/EUBIOS Bioethics Dictionary (http://www.eubios.info/biodict.htm#r), the American Mathematical Society "Glossary of Meterology" (http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse?s=r&p=21), and the Stereology Glossary (http://www.stereology.info/glossary/) all cite the definition I used.

You need to actually read the sources you provide.

[mijopaalmc]

Yet another example:

The expression "at random" will be used only with respect to an equiprobable space; formally, the expression "choose a point at random from a set S" shall mean that S is an equiprobable space where each point in S has the same probability.

By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

Now you are equivocatong between the idomatic phrase "at random" and the word "random". Yes, "equiprobable" is an important definition of "random", but it is not the only one nor does it explain why the vast majority of probability distributions describe random variable.

You also seem to be ignoring that, even if each phenotype had the same probability of being selected (i.e., there was no natural selection at all), evolution would still occur simply by regression to the mean.

[articulett]

Yet another example:



By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

Moreover, I've provided peer reviewed data for him which said as much... but he still thinks he has some special right "technical" definition that only seems to be technical and right to him, Behe, and others of similar ilk.

I searched all sorts of sources to see if there was anyone actually using his definition in any peer reviewed paper.... but to no avail. There is no credible scientist who uses the word random to describe natural selection--the key component of evolution. The only "semi-scientist" who does so is Behe. Mijo wants "stochastic" to be a synonym for random and then he extrapolates so that anyone using stochastic in describing evolution is calling evolution random (per his loose definitiion of the term). But that's just a semantically twisted way of confirming to himself that it makes sense to say evolution is random. He claims not to be a creationist, and yet he seems inordinately stuck on getting himself and others to believe that it somehow makes sense to say, "evolution is random". The most you can get him to cede is that "evolution is not nonrandom"... really. I find it amusing.

I know you thought that if you were careful enough and kind enough and explained it in detail enough he would understand... but that is as unlikely as getting Behe to change is mischaracterization of the same from my experience. Mijo thinks he's smarter than you... and Dawkins... and everyone else who tells him that calling evolution random is "non-descriptive" at best-- misleading and identical to creationist obfuscation at worst. He does not care. His goal is to prove himself right in his head... like all self-appointed experts and true believers who preach here.

[Ivor the Engineer]

From a statistics book I have:

Random. Nondeterministic, occurring purely by chance, or independent of the occurrence of other events.

[mijopaalmc]

From a statistics book I have:

Random. Nondeterministic, occurring purely by chance, or independent of the occurrence of other events.

So is P(pair of jacks|jack of spades) not random?

[Walter Wayne]

Here's a typical definition of random: "Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern."

Something like that is what most people mean when they use the word. And that clearly does not apply to evolution - evolution is very predictable in many ways, and it follows patterns that we are quite capable of understanding. Of course its details are not predictable (which is the case for ALL OTHER physical processes too), but many broad patterns are - increase in complexity over time, survival of the fittest rather than the least fit, general characteristics of responses to changes in the environment, etc.
Well two of the patterns you mentioned aren't real patterns. Increase in complexity over time just isn't the case. In Gould's Full House, he points out that the idea that evolution is "progressive" is largely a myth. Lineages both increase and decrease in complexity and there doesn't appear to be a bias either way. (In Dawkins's review of Full House, he disagrees with Gould's idea that "progressiveness" is a myth, not because of the complexity argument, but linking complexity to progressiveness is an anthropocentric view. If one was a bacteria you might laugh at all the crap we go through to pass on our genes.)

Survival of the fittest is not really a pattern at all. The only way to define the terms "survival" or "fittest" consistently with natural selection is to define fitness in terms of survivability. The expression is circular.

Not that there aren't patterns. Species which become parasitic tend to simplify over time, since their host performs several functions for them (one reason increased complexity isn't the norm).

As for predictability, it exists in the short term but not so much in the long term. Humans are considered a bit player compare to bacteria, and even among animals insects and other creatures are far more dominant. But we have had a large affect on numerous species, but would an outside observer 70000 years ago predict that we would be where we are today. At the time it is believed the human population was a few thousand, and 70000 years isn't much in evolutionary time.

Walt

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger and Sol Invictus... mark my words... you are having a discussion with people who have a vested interest in not understanding. No progress will be made. It's not you... it's not your explanations; it's them. These guys were saying the exact same nothingness over a year ago on Mijo's "evolution is not nonrandom" thread"... truly... nothing has changed. Nothing. I say a few things have changed. Both of us are being enlightened on using the term "random" more carefully. Progress is slow, to say the least, but it is being made. (I think.)

To get Mijo to enter a thread all you need to do is to say evolution is not random... (or to criticize creationists)-- There you go, accusing people of being creationists, again!
I honestly don't think mijo is a creationist, nor a troll. I think he is over-trained in the realm of mathematics, and thus fails to recognize the importance evidential support plays in establishing working definitions in scientific models. Maybe.



Deterministic evolution by natural selection divides the phenotypes in a population into two mutually exclusive groups individuals in which either

all produce reproductively viable offspring or
all produce fail to reproductively viable offspring.
Whole life forms might be divided into those two groups: those who reproduce viable offspring, and those that do not. I think it confuses the issue when you talk about phenotypes, in that way. I very much doubt phenotypes would fit into "mutually exclusive" categories, anyway.


Stochastic evolution by natural selection allows each phenotype to confer a probability of producing reproductively viable offspring on each individual that possesses it.
That sounds fine, for the most part. So, what is the problem? I already said stated "stochastic" is perfectly fine for us humans to model evolution. All you need to understand is that it is only a model.

(I would place a Monty Python joke, in here, but frankly I was never enough of a fan to do that sort of thing.)

Seriously some of the people who are arguing that evolution is not random are more skilled at equivocating than creationists. Scientists build general models, based on what the evidence shows us. Creationists do not. That is the difference.

The problem here is that scientists and others who argue for evolution get all up in arms when creationists use the common definition of "theory" to imply that evolution is just a guess or when they use their owm ifiosuncratic definition of "transitional form" to declare that evolution has not produced any evidence of such, but have not problem using the common definition "random" to declare that evolution in non-random. Actually, they do not normally use the common definition at all. Scientists normally use one of the first two bullet points to describe mutations (which are random in that way), and then say non-random to describe selection (which is not random in any way).

When a scientist uses the common definition, he or she normally say "pure random" or "random chance", etc. And then, of course, would go on to say that NO PART of evolution is random in that sense.


6. Arthur Dent falling, missing the ground and flying!If that was random, it would be covered by bullet point 4: A rather unlikely series of quantum fluctuations. Though, it might have all been a plot, by the Guide Mk II, in which case it would not be. Do try to pay attention!!

QM might be
-random
-chaotic-stochastic-deterministc

I don't recall seeing anything that said that he process underlying QM was random, just that it follows some sort of proability that at this time we say 'is considered to be random'. I would say that QM is just about the closest thing we actually have to something being purely random. Maybe it is, or maybe it is not. But, for the sake of argument, I will allow it to be called "random", because it does not even make much of a difference at large scales, anyway.

No. The point is: because scientists use a particular definition of the word "random" in the context of evolution, evolution can be said to be random... even if the word "random" has a slightly different meaning to the general public.A good summary.


Just a heads up: I will probably be phenomenally busy, for the next couple of days, so I might not be able to respond to anyone else until the end of the week or so. Thanks!

[Earthborn]

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. When he says "evolution is not random", he too is not using the word the way mijo wants.And maybe once in a while Richard Dawkins is wrong.

because every single physical process in the world is random according to it.Yes, so? I fail to see why that should be a problem.

The statement "evolution is random" is therefore misleading to the point of being simply false.I fail to see why it be "misleading to the point of being simply false" if it means that it is a physical process like any other physical process.

[sol invictus]

So popular dictionaries are your "technical" sources? How interesting. Very well, let's give you every benefit of the doubt and have a look:

That's funny that you say you couldn't find any source for the definition I provided as The American Heritage Dictionary,

False. Here's their definition:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

Only definition 2 is similar to yours, but definition 3 disagrees, and is technical and (given their example) more relevant to biology. So you lose that one.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary (both at dictionary.com),

ran·dom /ˈrændəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ran-duhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades.
a. (of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b. (of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c. constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
–noun
4. Chiefly British. bank3 (def. 7b).
–adverb
5. Building Trades. without uniformity: random-sized slates.
—Idiom
6. at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way: Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.
(my bold)

Not a single one of those coincides with yours, and the technical one explicitly disagrees and supports mine. That's two lies.

and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary) all cite the definition I use.

Here's what M-W online has:

random:
a haphazard course
— at random
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method <subjects chosen at random>

Nothing like your definition.

Three lies and you're out.

Goodbye, little troll.

[sol invictus]

Well two of the patterns you mentioned aren't real patterns. Increase in complexity over time just isn't the case.

I see. So you regard it as a coincidence that mammals with a hundred trillion cells exist now, whereas 3 billion years ago when life started there were only single-celled organisms?

Survival of the fittest is not really a pattern at all. The only way to define the terms "survival" or "fittest" consistently with natural selection is to define fitness in terms of survivability. The expression is circular.

So you regard it as a coincidence that, if I have a population of bacteria some of which are resistant to penicillin and some of which aren't, when I introduce penicillin into the environment the resistant group will dominate the population after a few generations?

Don't be ridiculous.

These are obvious patterns, and they are very predictable. They are not random at all.

[sol invictus]

And maybe once in a while Richard Dawkins is wrong.

Great argument: "Yeah, but he might be wrong."

Yes, so? I fail to see why that should be a problem.

Because it makes the statement as informative as picking up an apple and saying "this is something".

I fail to see why it be "misleading to the point of being simply false" if it means that it is a physical process like any other physical process.

If that's hard for you to see, I don't think I can help. Good luck.

[articulett]

And maybe once in a while Richard Dawkins is wrong.

Yes, so? I fail to see why that should be a problem.

I fail to see why it be "misleading to the point of being simply false" if it means that it is a physical process like any other physical process.

Yes, and then it becomes as useful or true as saying poker is random or frying eggs is random or algebra is random or childbirth is random. Processes, by definition, are generally not random. When they have random elements, they might be called "random processes" or stochastic processes, but that doesn't make the processes themselves random. Algebra has random variables... algebra is not a random process. If someone kept insisting it was... you might wonder why. You might wonder why if the only other people who did it were people who were purposefully trying to obfuscate understanding... self-appointed experts such as Behe. If your goal is to be unclear, why would you such lame language? Why would anyone call poker a random game? it's surely not random like roulette. It sure doesn't tell you anything about the game... that is what mijo is doing with evolution.

Dawkins is not wrong--he's clear. Mijo is unclear to the point of being misleading and dishonest. If your goal is to share information so that others understand it, he fails. If your goal is to be taken seriously by those who actually understand and teach the process to others, then you should use language the way they do.

If your goal is to prove to yourself that "evolution is really random" whatever vague thing that might mean-- then continue on as Mijo does. Sure, there's no problem in communicating that way... if your goal is not to convey anything useful or substantive about evolution--or if your goal is to sound like "scientists think this all happened by chance".

[Earthborn]

Nothing like your definition.So does evolution occur with definite aim, direction, rule or method?

Only The American Heritage Science Dictionary as quoted by you provided definitions that were not applicable to evolution: 2 en 6. Number 2 is simply wrong. Throwing two dice will get you a process of selection in which numbers of the set {2 to 12} does not have an equal probability of being chosen. Which number comes up is still called "random" AFAIK.

Number 6 mentions something better: "adherence to a prior arrangement", which obviously does not apply to evolution. In evolution "prior arrangement" is rather significant. Not that this means evolution is entirely immune to events that are random even according to this definition, such as asteriod impacts.

[mijopaalmc]

So popular dictionaries are your "technical" sources? How interesting. Very well, let's give you every benefit of the doubt and have a look:

<snipped extraneous definitions and insults>

Now you're deliberately equivocating and trolling. I never said that some of the definitions that others had used weren't valid; I just said that the definitions that others were using weren't consistent with all of the ways in which randomness is used in biology.

Moreover, you are deliberately ignoring that the definition to which I referred you do actually exist.

Here is the definition of "random" from The American Heritage Science Dictionary as it appears on dictionary.com:

The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
random (rān'dəm) Pronunciation Key

1. Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
2. Relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

And here is the definition for the adjective entry for the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:



Main Entry:
2random
Function:
adjective
Date:
1632

1 a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b: made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>2 a: relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
— ran·dom·ly adverb
— ran·dom·ness noun
synonyms random, haphazard, casual mean determined by accident rather than design. random stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure <a random selection of books>. haphazard applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence <a haphazard collection of rocks>. casual suggests working or acting without deliberation, intention, or purpose <a casual collector>.

Again, it is not the only definition, but the definition is the only one that is consistent with all implicit assumptions made by biologists in their day-to-day work.

In other words, your entire argument is a straw man. Try harder next time.

[mijopaalmc]

Algebra has random variables... algebra is not a random process.

Algebra does not contain random variables as they are defined in probability theory, but articulett had bothered to learn anything about probability theory she would know that.

What is it with those who argue that evolution is non-random that predisposes them to equivocation and straw men?

[T'ai Chi]

Evolution is a stochastic process, because at least some of the mechanisms involved are stochastic (that is, random). However, it is misleading to call evolution a "random process, full stop" because selection is not random with respect to the local environment.


Wrong. It is more like "evolution is a stochastic process, full stop" is the correct statement.

Notice how you start talking about evolution, then by the end you are talking about selection. You know evolution is more than just selection, right? (hint: the "more than" is the random stuff).

[mijopaalmc]

Here is the a summary of what a stochastic process is that you will get if you read any textbook on probability theory and stochastic processes:

Basically, the axiomatization of probability theory begins with the creation of a mathematical space called a probability space designated by the ordered triple $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$. $\Omega$ is a set, which, for our purposes, is almost any collection of objects. If $\Omega is finite or countably infinite, the probability space is called discrete. If $\Omega is uncountably infinite, the probability space is called continuous. $\mathcal{F}$ is a family of subsets of $\Omega$ called a $\sigma$-algebra whose members share certain attributes and are known as "events". In particular, a $\sigma$-algebra is closed under complementation (i.e., the "opposite" of every event is also an event) and countably infinite unions (i.e., a collection of events is also an event). $\mathbb{P}$ is a function called a probability measure that maps each event in $\mathcal{F}$ to the interval [0,1] in such a way that $\mathbb{P}(\Omega)=1$ and the probability of the union of mutually exclusive events is the sum of their respective probabilities.

A random variable is, by definition, a function, $X$ from the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ to another measurable space, most often $(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ , the real numbers and the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$ (i.e., the smallest $\sigma$-algebra form by the open intervals of $\mathbb{R}$). The random variable defines a probability measure, known as a pushforward probability measure, on the measurable space $(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $(X_*(\mathbb{P}))(B)=\mathbb{P}(X^{-1}(B)). In other words, that is the pushforward probability measure of $B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ equals the probability measure of X^{-1}(B)\in\mathcal{F}, the preimage of $B$ in $\mathcal{F} (i.e., $\{A\subset\Omega}\}\in\mathcal{F}$ that maps to $\{B\subset\mathbb{R}\}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ ). This pushforward measure is called a probability distirbution.

A stochastic process is a family of random variables $\{X_{t}\}_{T\in{t}}$ for an index set $T$ If $\Omega is finite or countably infinite, the stochastic process is called discrete. If $\Omega is uncountably infinite, the stochastic process is called continuous.

In terms of evolution, the population is $\Omega$, the reproduction events are the elements of $\mathcal{F}$, and natural selection is the measure $\mathbb{P}$.

By the way, the algebra to which articulett refers is not random because its function are not necessarily defined are a probability measure.

[articulett]

Earth born-- there's an aim... pass on your genes... those who don't, don't get to be a part of evolution... bummer. The genes that are best at getting themselves passed on drive evolution and make the process far from "random"...
repeat after me: random components do not a random process make.

ETA-- great Tai Chi' is here... you know you have a winner of a definition and explanation when the omnipresent Tai Chi' weighs in.

If your goal is to sound like Tai Chi and Behe-- just keep insisting that evolution is random and that somehow to someone you make more sense than Dawkins and all those who teach the subject to actual other people.

Natural selection is the "derandomizer"-- the mechanism that gives the appearance of design and the look that things somehow "knew" what features to evolve.

[Dancing David]

I swear i just read 'survival of the fittest", there is no such thing, it is survival of the reproductive.

[Earthborn]

Earth born-- there's an aim... pass on your genes...Is that an aim, or is it just a result? And if it is an aim, whose aim is it? Is it God's aim? Is the aim of the organism carrying the genes who does not even know what genes are? Is it the aim of the genes, that don't have the mechanism to have 'aims' at all?

By introducing an 'aim' you are making a teleological argument instead of a cause and effect argument, which is generally frowned upon in the natural sciences. But who knows, maybe stones do fall back to Earth because they tend to move towards their natural place...

those who don't, don't get to be a part of evolution... bummer.Untrue. They are part of evolution, they just don't pass on their genes. But they do shape the environment in which others do pass on genes.

The genes that are best at getting themselves passed on drive evolution and make the process far from "random"...Which genes are best at getting themselves pass on depends on the environment, which is constantly changing.

repeat after me: random components do not a random process make.What if all components are subject to random changes?

[UnrepentantSinner]

An example:

Was it random when a V2 rocket hit London? No

Was it random whether it hit a particular house and not another? Essentially yes.

First, excellent analogy for the difference between mutation and natural selection. Second, don't bother trying to trying to get Arti to accept any shades of gray. In her world, there's only crazed Creationist/Apologist fundies and logical, Vulcanesque strong atheists. And irony is apparently as foreign to her as the concept of a spectrum.

And mijo, you never responded to my question...

Let me be perfectly clear. Unless everyone reject reality and substitute your own, you are unwilling to accept the simple, straight foreward statement that "mutations are random but evolution is not"?

As jimbob's analogy noted, if, when and where in the DNA a mutation occurs is unequivocably random, but whether that mutation confers a suvival advantage is not because it is filtered through natural selection. This is an undeniable fact in the observation and a conceptual half of evolutionary theory. Unless you are equivocating, how can you deny that "mutations are random but evolution is not"?

[mijopaalmc]

As jimbob's analogy noted, if, when and where in the DNA a mutation occurs is unequivocably random, but whether that mutation confers a suvival advantage is not because it is filtered through natural selection. This is an undeniable fact in the observation and a conceptual half of evolutionary theory. Unless you are equivocating, how can you deny that "mutations are random but evolution is not"?

You are the one who is equivocating. Long-term orderly behaviors, such as the adaptive patterns we see in evolution by natural selection, does not imply a non-random process. Even if evolution was random in the sense of being equiprobable for all phenotypes, population would still evolve by regression to the mean.

[articulett]

That doesn't make the process random. If you aim to sound clear then use the words of those who convey the concept to others. If you aim to sound like T'ai-- refer to evolution as random. Processes are "steps in a procedure" one built upon the other... randomness is not related to past or future... Theoretically all things made of matter have random electron spins in their atoms... but who declares every thing random? And why would they?

Aim or direction applies to things without consciousness-- like wind or shooting starts or galaxies...it doesn't need to be conscious... it's just that physical laws make it so. Water and cold weather make lattices that form ice. It's a process. No one would call it random.

The same with evolution. Genes don't choose to get passed on... but those that do manage to do so drive evolution... the organism copying the DNA dies... but the information lives on to be copied again and possibly pick up a beneficial mutation in the process. It isn't random. No one who wants to convey what evolution actually is or help anyone else understand it, wouldn't describe it that way. It's a useless definition.

As Sol said, it's like picking up an apple and saying "this is something"... it's true... but uninformative. It's less useful than saying "evolution is a 4 syllable word"-- because while also being true... that doesn't have nearly the power to mislead or to be interpreted as "scientists think this all came about by random chance." Mijo's blather does. If your goal is to discuss evolution with Mijo, T'ai and Behe-- then by all means... you are doing a fabulous job. And an apple truly is something. And poker IS random per Mijo's definition.

Just don't expect anyone intelligent to think you actually understand the process or could correctly teach it to anyone else. You can't. You couldn't anymore than the person calling an apple a "something" could teach about apples. For the same reasons. It's equally uninformative and misleading. You end up wondering the motives of the person doing the describing -- if not their mental capacity. Really.

You can argue all you want and ask all the questions that you have... but that's the bottom line.

[jimbob]

URS, Sol Invictius, and Mijo, (and any one else too):

Forgetting the dictionary definitions for a while.

Firstly

Is there a random component to natural selection? If no, doesn't that mean that at birth the traits and the environment have already dictated which individual organisms will reproduce? I would say that the traits modulate the probability of reproduction, ("loading the dice"), but don't determine it as random events like weather would affect survival and reproduction.

Secondly

Don't the other organisms in the ecosystem also affect the fitness landscape for the remaining organisms? And doesn't this mean that (in any generation slight) mutations affect the fitness landscape? Over time, doesn't this mean that the fitness landscape is itself subject to change random change?

The effect would be when the environment is already changing and evolution is fastest, when the "shape" of the ecosystem is most fluid.

Thirdly

Was there any inevitibity about the emergence of humanity, or a similar organism

a) At the time of the KT impact?

b) At the time of our last common ancestor with chimps?

Fourthly

If not, then isn't it reasonable to talk about evolution being random? Especailly if talking to people who do think humanity is somehow special?

[CFLarsen]

Wrong. It is more like "evolution is a stochastic process, full stop" is the correct statement.

Notice how you start talking about evolution, then by the end you are talking about selection. You know evolution is more than just selection, right? (hint: the "more than" is the random stuff).

Once again, you try to turn the argument upside down. You want it to look as if randomness is the guiding factor in evolution and not selection, when it's the other way around.

Your argument is basically this:

Pick out the aces in a deck of cards.
Select one of them.
Say: "Yes, it was a club this time, but look, it was an ace! And aces win, always!"

It should go like this:

Shuffle the deck.
Pick hands.
The hand than works the best, according to the rules at the present, wins.

You know what you are doing, and that you are doing it wrong. You stack the deck, and decide what the outcome must be.

[Reality Check]

URS, Sol Invictius, and Mijo, (and any one else too):

Forgetting the dictionary definitions for a while.

Firstly

Is there a random component to natural selection? If no, doesn't that mean that at birth the traits and the environment have already dictated which individual organisms will reproduce? I would say that the traits modulate the probability of reproduction, ("loading the dice"), but don't determine it as random events like weather would affect survival and reproduction.



There is a "random" component to natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) on the individual level since mutations, genetic diversity and the environment determine which individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce.
The population as a whole reacts deterministically to natural selection, i.e. to fit the environment. Look at the example of antibiotic resistance in the Wikipedia article. Another good example is the evolution of the peppered moth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). This is essentially cause and effect - the trees get darker and so the moths get darker, the trees get lighter so the moths get lighter.


Secondly

Don't the other organisms in the ecosystem also affect the fitness landscape for the remaining organisms? And doesn't this mean that (in any generation slight) mutations affect the fitness landscape? Over time, doesn't this mean that the fitness landscape is itself subject to change random change?

The effect would be when the environment is already changing and evolution is fastest, when the "shape" of the ecosystem is most fluid.



The environment does include other organisms, e.g. predators. The predator/prey feedback loop (evolutionary arms race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race)) is a well known process. The most dramatic change in the fitness landscape caused by evolution was cyanobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-green_algae) evolving oxygenic photosynthesis and so largely transforming the Earth's atmosphere.
Thus the answer is that evolution does change the fitness landscape and vice versa in a deterministic manner.


Thirdly

Was there any inevitability about the emergence of humanity, or a similar organism

a) At the time of the KT impact?

b) At the time of our last common ancestor with chimps?



The emergence of humanity, or a similar organism has never been inevitable. There is no reason why another KT impact could not have happened a couple of million years ago and so made this whole topic moot.


Fourthly

If not, then isn't it reasonable to talk about evolution being random? Especially if talking to people who do think humanity is somehow special?


When we look at the ancestral tree of humanity we see many side-branches that came to sudden ends. It would be just as likely for a Neanderthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) to be sitting here wondering about what happened to Cro-Magnons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) as the reverse situation. This does not make humanity special - we just happened to be the branch of the tree that survived.
We should not change the language of science to fit the preconceptions of anyone.

One article I suggest everyone read is TalkOrigin's "Evolution and Chance (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html)" (10 years old but still relevant). A pertinent sentence is:

There is no basic randomness here, except as far as it arises from the general indeterminacy of the physical world (known as stochastic processes).

[sol invictus]

If not, then isn't it reasonable to talk about evolution being random? Especailly if talking to people who do think humanity is somehow special?

The fact that evolution has random and unpredictable aspects (such as the existence of humans) does not make the whole process random.

If you light a fire, do you consider it random that heat will come from it?

Do you agree with the statement "fire is random"?

[MG1962]

Thirdly

Was there any inevitibity about the emergence of humanity, or a similar organism

a) At the time of the KT impact?

b) At the time of our last common ancestor with chimps?

Fourthly

If not, then isn't it reasonable to talk about evolution being random? Especailly if talking to people who do think humanity is somehow special?

Well with hindsight we can say the KT impact influenced the emergence of intelligence. Wether we could have predicted it at the time, I dont know. Dinosauria was not up to the challenge. 300 million years or so, and they really never seemed to have taken that step

In general mammals seem pre-disposed to intelligence, if not man, then something would have come along. Humanity is only special because we are an egotistical creature by nature - maybe that's part of self awarness. Remember there is real evidence that Neanderthal Man was also self aware, maybe he thought he was special in some way before we kinda wiped him out :(

[Belz...]

It's not a minor point when people get seemingly incensed at me for engaging in a "semantic argument" when I argue that evolution is mathematically random but then they insist they didn't say "random means acausal" based on a sematic argument.

Evolution is not "random" by any meaning of the word unless you can show that quantum fluctuations have any effect on it. Some part of it are "probabilistic" because we don't know the outcome from the start, but that doesn't make evolution random.

[MG1962]

Evolution is not "random" by any meaning of the word unless you can show that quantum fluctuations have any effect on it. Some part of it are "probabilistic" because we don't know the outcome from the start, but that doesn't make evolution random.

I think we need an Albert Einstein of evolution to come along and put some order into what we are seeing. From out current perspective there is great randomness in the events of evolution. From other scientific endevours we see randomness is our lack of understanding, rather than there being a genuine lack of pattern

[Dancing David]

Taffer!

BTW, thank you very much, you have enlightened me in correct thinking again.

[Belz...]

No it doesn't. If you bothered to actually examine what the mathematical definitions of "random" and "deterministic", you would see that "random" means that identical initial condition don't always yield identical final conditions, whereas "deterministic" means that identical initial condition always yield identical final conditions.

Which makes evolution deterministic.

[Dancing David]

You are the one who is equivocating. Long-term orderly behaviors, such as the adaptive patterns we see in evolution by natural selection, does not imply a non-random process. Even if evolution was random in the sense of being equiprobable for all phenotypes, population would still evolve by regression to the mean.


Hi Mijo, I am sorry that one just shot past me, what are you trying to say.

Evolution occurs because of reproductive success in different enviroments. What are you sying about reggression to the mean? The distribution of phenotypes in contingent upon history.

[Dancing David]

Well with hindsight we can say the KT impact influenced the emergence of intelligence. Wether we could have predicted it at the time, I dont know. Dinosauria was not up to the challenge. 300 million years or so, and they really never seemed to have taken that step

Um, there seems to be some thinkuing that is innappropriate to apply to the biological process of 'evolution'. You have not demonstrated that dinosaurs did not possess intelligence. The KT impact is part of contingent history but to say that li led to intelligence in humans is rather a far stretch.


In general mammals seem pre-disposed to intelligence, if not man, then something would have come along. Humanity is only special because we are an egotistical creature by nature - maybe that's part of self awarness. Remember there is real evidence that Neanderthal Man was also self aware, maybe he thought he was special in some way before we kinda wiped him out :(

Um, more assertion without evidence, homo sap sapiens 'wiped' out homo sap neanderthal? Any evidence of that?

Do coyotes wipe out red wolves?

[sol invictus]

I think we need an Albert Einstein of evolution to come along and put some order into what we are seeing. From out current perspective there is great randomness in the events of evolution. From other scientific endevours we see randomness is our lack of understanding, rather than there being a genuine lack of pattern

I don't think so. Not at all, actually.

Every physical process in the world consists of an enormous number of microscopic events. Each event could be considered random (either because it truly is or because we are ignorant of it), and yet the whole process is often extremely close to deterministic, or at least has many aspects which are. There is nothing unusual or surprising about that - it is the most common thing in the world.

I think my example of fire is a good one. The microscopic events which make up a flame are random. The motions of the flame itself are quite random too. And yet the average color of the flame, the fact that it's hot, the fact that it turns wood into ash and produces smoke, the fact that it will start if you apply enough heat to something, and stop if you starve it of oxygen - all of those aspects are predictable with almost absolute confidence.

The statement "fire is random" is essentially meaningless - it's not even wrong.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Firstly

Is there a random component to natural selection?

This is where the senmatics card gets played. The environment into which a novel mutation is born is as random as the mutation itself, but the environment is much more static and neutral than the mutations are. An analogy might be that a particular shoe might fit any particular foot, but six inch heels will be selected against in a swampy environment while clogs will be seleced for.

Secondly

Don't the other organisms in the ecosystem also affect the fitness landscape for the remaining organisms?

Yes. But that is the existing, non-random environment into which novel beings evolve. If a scallop evolves a shell impervious to starfish in an environment where there are no starfish, that would be an utterly random evolutionary development, but as I have often cited with blind cave fish, evolution doesn't over engineer - cave fish are selectd for blindness rather than developing an organ which paints their environment in infrared and eyes that see in infrared.

Thirdly

Was there any inevitibity about the emergence of humanity, or a similar organism

1:1 since it happened. Otherwise there are too many factors to consider. I'd place this question of probability in with abiogenesis calculations.

Fourthly

If not, then isn't it reasonable to talk about evolution being random? Especailly if talking to people who do think humanity is somehow special?

Now we're getting back to the semantics issue. As I've said a number of times in this thread, mutations are random and as we've noted a number of times in this thread, evolution - specifically natural selection isn't... except in the "win* the lottery" cases you noted.

* in those cases "win" means lose by virtue of extinction

[MG1962]

Um, more assertion without evidence, homo sap sapiens 'wiped' out homo sap neanderthal? Any evidence of that?



Supply me the evidence that Neanderthal is a branch of human evolution rather than a parallel evolution of homo and I will

[Dancing David]

Supply me the evidence that Neanderthal is a branch of human evolution rather than a parallel evolution of homo and I will

So in other words you don't have any to pony up, it was just assertion without evidence.


I don't suppose that fossils which show a mixed morphology at the time homo sap sapiens evolved would intrest you? There is a period wher 'gracile' homo sap sap arose from 'archaic' homo sap sap, and there are of the limited specimens we have some that show mixed morphology, like eyebrow ridges and a cranial vault. Then there are others who theorise that homo sap neandethalis was not needing to be a precursor to homo sap sap , just a different out shoot of homo sap sap (archaic), one that was adapted to the glacial enviroment.

What evidence is there that there is some sort of paralell track from homo erectus to homo sap neaderatalis? (Or whichever track you which to suggest).

And what evidence is there of any sort of wiping between homo sap sapiens and homo sap neanderthalis?

Did the coyote wipe out the red wolf or did humans wipe out the red wolf and the coyote moved in?

[MG1962]

[quote=Dancing David;3577779]So in other words you don't have any to pony up, it was just assertion without evidence.

Enjoy

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

A little low brow, but I am sure you can see the overview

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066363/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons

So where is that pony again - I assume your next post will prove the linage of Neandertal

[Meadmaker]

I haven't participated in this thread yet, and I confess I haven't read every post, but in skimming through them, they seem a lot like the other threads that went on and on and on.

On the subject of whether or not evolution is random, people have discussed this at length, and a reasonable answer is the one given by Sol in describing fire. Saying "evolution is random" is not even wrong. Likewise, saying "evolution is non-random" is not even wrong.

So, the real question, as I see it, is why people are so insistent that one use is correct and the other is not. It seems to me that both are greatly oversimplified and can only be forgiven if the context is such that it's clear what aspect of the process you are talking about.

With that in mind, I think the real sin in this debate occurs when someone leaps to a conclusion about a speaker based on his bias in the use of a term. For example, I tend to prefer the random description because it emphasizes the nondeterministic outcome, and in particular the fact that we were not planned or designed, but just happened.


The most common justification for getting upset about one use or the other is to note that THEY (the bad guys, the wrong guys, usually, on JREF, the creationists) like one word or another. It would be ok to describe evolution one way, you see, except that THEY describe it that way, and so when you describe it THEIR way, you might help THEIR cause. Indeed, it is sometimes alleged that this is so obvious that the mere use of THEIR term is reason to suspect that you might secretly be one of THEM.

It's quite silly, if you ask me.

There is also an irony present. I've usually heard it said that saying "evolution is random", or any variant thereof, somehow enhances creationist arguments. Despite these claims, in reading creationist arguments, I don't often see the sorts of misuse that are alleged to happen by creationists. I see, much more commonly, a misunderstanding of evolution towards a deterministic outcome. They seem biased to see design, and ask how design could emerge from a random process. Sadly, a common response is to say that it wasn't a random process. In this way, the evolutionist debater has fallen for the trap. He has implicitly accepted, unwittingly, that the end product has a purpose. It doesn't. It just happens to be stable.

To illustrate this, I would like to see example of real, live, arguments posted by real live people in which randomness is misused or misunderstood when discussing evolution. I'm not interested in, "Creationists are always saying that evolution ....." Rather, I would like to see, "Here's a quote from a creationist web site, '......' See how they goofed things up?"

In that way we could see examples of what the OP called valid and invalid usage of the word "random", or of related concepts. e.g. "chance", "coincidence" etc.

[EagleEye]

Ya know, I got through just over 1 page of this thread before I had to just stop reading for fear of losing my sanity for at least the next 30 minutes.

All of this "high talk" about randomness, "acausal" stuff, etc, etc... seriously... let's get to the root of the problem here, eh?

The single greatest logical disconnect for the anti-evolution crowd is that they think evolution is purported to be 100% random when it's not. They think that the randomness involves both the CREATION of an organism, as well as it's survivability!

1) They think that for some reason, natural selection is defined as random by the theory, which is of course completely absurd.
2) They think the creation of an object is completely random (ala the "Airplane parts in a tornado" BS).

The best way I can describe the way it actually works is like this...

New organism is created, based on specific plans... throw a tiny wrench in to the works (aka: random mutation somewhere... where just one thing is changed, maybe two...)

There... no random starting point, right? You started with an established SURVIVABLE organism that was able to reproduce, and you end up with... WHAT? We don't know yet... Some small change may cause it to be MORE capable of survival, or it may cause the damn thing to die before lunch today... WHO KNOWS, eh?

So that illustrates how misconception number 2 is wrong... that there is a desired final result (i.e.: we're not trying to see if an airplane is created in that tornado.) other than survivability to reproduce and pass on that one random change.

Now, of course, chaos theory can come in to play... I mean, the random change could allow for survival, but the ONE organism that has it could be struck by lightning or destroyed by a can of Lysol or something... but that in itself is not "random survivability" as much as it's just dumb luck!

So yeah, I only see "radomness" at one point in the whole chain, and that's neither the "starting stuff" nor the "end result"... it's maybe a single molecular alteration caused by a mistake being made down a chain of a MILLION pieces of data... which one is changed is random... and that change can either cause the new organism to survive better, or worse, and that's about it. So... why all this discussion about randomness?

[MG1962]

To illustrate this, I would like to see example of real, live, arguments posted by real live people in which randomness is misused or misunderstood when discussing evolution. I'm not interested in, "Creationists are always saying that evolution ....." Rather, I would like to see, "Here's a quote from a creationist web site, '......' See how they goofed things up?"

In that way we could see examples of what the OP called valid and invalid usage of the word "random", or of related concepts. e.g. "chance", "coincidence" etc.

Does this count?

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=305)" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

From
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

[sol invictus]

Here's a quote from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html:
7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

From a talk.origins page discussing common creationist misconceptions http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html:
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

A NYT article describing an experiment in which 12 flasks of bacteria all evolved in the same way given the same simulus, thus demonstrating that evolution is deterministic at least sometimes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905e0d71039f932a25752c1a9659c8b 63

[Dancing David]

So in other words you don't have any to pony up, it was just assertion without evidence.


Enjoy

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html


Okay so we have a possible ( and somehwhat likely, until we have many more samples) divergence of homo sap neanderthalis from homosap sapiens at ~600,000-500,000 BCE. That is not truelly a huge amount of time (especialy since Lucy is what 3,000,000 MYA), so I am not sure what the point would be, especially if homo sapiens sapiens is from a very limited gene pool to begin with.

Your quote

Supply me the evidence that Neanderthal is a branch of human evolution rather than a parallel evolution of homo and I will

Still makes no sense, a branch is a branch, we are great apes, homo sap N and homo sap S are great apes, we are branches of the same shrub, we diverged from a proto critter that also was the proto critter for chimps.

I would be more interested if the homo sap N showed the 'missing chromosone'.

and this still has nothing to do with you statement


maybe he thought he was special in some way before we kinda wiped him out


Did humans wipe out the red wolf and then coyotes moved in? Or did the coyotes wipe out the red wolf?

You are avoiding the issue, what evidence is there that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had anything 'kinda wiped out' homo sapiens neanderthalis?

[Meadmaker]

Does this count?

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=305)" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

From
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

Yes. That counts. It is an example of how a creationist web site discusses evolution.

And what's wrong with it? Not much, actually. It's almost perfectly accurate. It does assert that evolution is "unpredictable". That is slightly wrong. There are certain predictions that can be made, although they are pretty vague. You can predict, "those organisms that are more fit for their environment are likely to survive." However, you can't predict whether a given species will develop, or whether a given species will survive.

With respect to randomness, that assertion of unpredictability might be suggesting that any outcome is possible. That would be wrong. On the other hand, that might be a projection. All that they really are saying is that it is "unpredictable", which might mean a specific outcome cannot be predicted.

If I roll a die, I can predict that the outcome will be in a set of integers from 1 to 6. If I roll two dice, I can predict that the sum will be in the set of integers from 2 to 12, with some outcomes more likely than others. So, are dice rolls predictable, or unpredictable? We could go on for pages arguing the answer.

In other words, their description might not be the best, but it's basically accurate.

[Meadmaker]

A NYT article describing an experiment in which 12 flasks of bacteria all evolved in the same way given the same simulus, thus demonstrating that evolution is deterministic at least sometimes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905e0d71039f932a25752c1a9659c8b 63

Cool. I actually found the sunflower reference more interesting. Not what I would have expected.

[Taffer]

Taffer!

BTW, thank you very much, you have enlightened me in correct thinking again.

You're welcome. :) It is a facinating subject.

[Belz...]

You are choosing to redefine the words "random" and "deterministic" to preclude evolution from being random, cyborg.

Actually, there's no way around it, because your definition of "random" includes everything. It's a pity you can't see that about your own words.

[Belz...]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

Very good evidence that you don't understand what we're talking about.

[MG1962]

I would be more interested if the homo sap N showed the 'missing chromosone'.

and this still has nothing to do with you statement



Did humans wipe out the red wolf and then coyotes moved in? Or did the coyotes wipe out the red wolf?

You are avoiding the issue, what evidence is there that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had anything 'kinda wiped out' homo sapiens neanderthalis?

You defeat your own argument. If, as I claim, we aree both branches of the great ape, then Netherthal should not be insulted with the name sapien. And you will get your wish later this year when the genome project for Neanderthal is completed.

I am not particularly worried about the cyotes and red wolfs. There are a number of theories around the end of Neanderthal involving their unsuccessful encounters with humans. There are other theories to explain why they hung on in some place far longer than most of Europe.

[Dancing David]

Hi MG 1962,

And what evidence is there that the neanderthals were involved in 'unsuccessful encounters with humans' ? Theories are great, data is better. That way hypothesis goes to theory.
It could be the the neaderthals were wiped out after an unsucessful encounter with the Underwear Gnomes, without data it is hypothesis.

I am not sure what point you think you scored and what I am defeating myself with, yet my main thrust was that you have not stated why we should conclude that neaderthals were in fights with the homo sap sap.

You aren't going to tell me about altars to cave bears are you?

[mijopaalmc]

Actually, there's no way around it, because your definition of "random" includes everything. It's a pity you can't see that about your own words.

Actually, it is a pity that you can't that you are just parroting a straw man devised by people who are working very hard to misunderstand what I am saying.

The idea here is that, even though our measurements are inherently imprecise (which yields a probability distribution for the initial), the process is still deterministic if each value in the probability distribution yields one, and only one, outcome.

Very good evidence that you don't understand what we're talking about.

Again, I understand and even agree that, by the definitions provided, evolution by natural selection is non-random; I just don't see the definitions being consistent with how biologists seem to implicitly understand the concept of randomness, especially when they use statistical hypothesis testing.

[jimbob]

I think that as wowbagger stated, it depends on the level of significance.

If identical starting conditions can produce significantly different outrcomes, then I would say that the random nature is important.

I woud say that (certainly to us, and indeed the entire ecosystem c.f. the passenger pigeon) whether anything evolved to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans *is* significant.

The entire "shape" of the ecosystem would be different without something occupying the niche of a fire-using social animal.

In other words, as far as I am concerned, if it was inevitable that there would be something occupying the ecological niche of "a fire-using social animal", then that could be considered nonrandom. I would contend that there was nothing inevitible about that until pretty recently.

I am basing this on the fact that the vast majority of organisms fail to reproduce, yet most are also pretty similar to thier parent(s). To me this means that the odds are against any particular (even beneficial) mutation surviving. If there is a random element to natural selection (I would contend that the weather is) then I would argue that humanity wasn't inevitable. As the world seemed to have got along with large placental mammals, but not humans for tens of millions of years, I would argue that the timing (at least) of human-like animals evolving was not inevitable. I would also argue that there was nothing inevitable about the eventual evolution of human-like animals.


Here is a similar NY times article, with a slightly different set of outcomes to the earlier (interesting) one:

a similar NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=evolution+bacteria&st=nyt&oref=slogin)

Dr. Bennett was particularly curious about how organisms adapt to different temperatures. He wondered if adapting to low temperatures meant organisms would fare worse at higher ones, a long-standing question. Working with Dr. Lenski, Dr. Bennett allowed 24 lines of E. coli to adapt to a relatively chilly 68 degrees for 2,000 generations. They then measured how quickly these cold-adapted microbes reproduced at a simmering 104 degrees.

Two-thirds of the lines did worse at high temperatures than their ancestors, experiencing the expected trade-off. “If you’re a betting person, that’s the way you’d better bet,” Dr. Bennett said. But the pattern was not universal. The bacteria that reproduced fastest in the cold did not do the worst job of breeding in the heat. A third of the cold-adapted lines did as well or better in the heat than the ancestor. Dr. Bennett and Dr. Lenski published their latest findings last month in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/proceedings_of_the_national_academy_of_sciences/index.html?inline=nyt-org)

All were cold-adapted, but some were also warm-adapted, and some weren't.

There is a lot about evolution that is predictible, but there is also a lot that isn't, but which can still be explained as one of several "options".

[MG1962]

Hi MG 1962,

And what evidence is there that the neanderthals were involved in 'unsuccessful encounters with humans' ? Theories are great, data is better. That way hypothesis goes to theory.
It could be the the neaderthals were wiped out after an unsucessful encounter with the Underwear Gnomes, without data it is hypothesis.

I am not sure what point you think you scored and what I am defeating myself with, yet my main thrust was that you have not stated why we should conclude that neaderthals were in fights with the homo sap sap.

You aren't going to tell me about altars to cave bears are you?

Do you agree there is anthropological evidence that Neanderthal and human inhabition overlapped in Europe?

[Belz...]

So is P(pair of jacks|jack of spades) not random?

Well, it's deterministic. You just don't know all the factors involved.

[Dancing David]

Do you agree there is anthropological evidence that Neanderthal and human inhabition overlapped in Europe?

Evasion noted, while chimps kill small animals, I don't recall that they and the other apes wipe each other out. Whatever, modern society can engage in efficient warfare.

Pony up your evidence for hs sapiens 'wiping out' hs neandethalis. Large piles of neanderthal skeletons with stone tool wounds? Stone arches with 'Arbeit macht frei' written on them? (Sorry that is undue sarcasm)

And then tell me about how homo sapiens sapiens wiped out the large mega fauna in north america while you are at it.

[Belz...]

Actually, it is a pity that you can't that you are just parroting a straw man devised by people who are working very hard to misunderstand what I am saying.

I'm not parroting anything. I remember your post about what you consider random and just like everybody else, except you, I understand its implications.

The idea here is that, even though our measurements are inherently imprecise (which yields a probability distribution for the initial), the process is still deterministic if each value in the probability distribution yields one, and only one, outcome.

And how does that make evolution random ?

[Taffer]

Again, I understand and even agree that, by the definitions provided, evolution by natural selection is non-random; I just don't see the definitions being consistent with how biologists seem to implicitly understand the concept of randomness, especially when they use statistical hypothesis testing.

Then you do not understand those tests. All the statistical tests I dealt with were tests against a null hypothesis of a completely random distribution. That is to say, one with all variables being equiprobably. This is to show that a particular population is under selective pressures.

[mijopaalmc]

Then you do not understand those tests. All the statistical tests I dealt with were tests against a null hypothesis of a completely random distribution. That is to say, one with all variables being equiprobably. This is to show that a particular population is under selective pressures.

Actually, it is you who clearly doesn't understand the very tests you performed. Yes, your data was derived from a random (i.e., equiprobable) sample, but that actual data points were most probably not uniformly distributed. To test a hypothesis, you then probably assumed (at least if you were performing a parametric test such as the z-test, t-test, or chi-squared-test) that the data took on a certain distribution and then compared that distribution to determine the probability that the means of the distributions were different purely due to the variations with within the sample.

As mentioned before, such a schema requires a much wider understanding of what "random" means than just "equiprobable", as each data point is considered to be a random variable that is described by a non-uniform probability distribution.

[mijopaalmc]

Well, it's deterministic. You just don't know all the factors involved.

You clearly don't understand probability if you think that.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not parroting anything. I remember your post about what you consider random and just like everybody else, except you, I understand its implications.

Yes, you are parroting others. You simply repeated the old canard that my definition "makes everything random". This show that you, like articulett, cyborg, and sol invictus, clearly don't understand probability theory.

And how does that make evolution random ?

I'm not claiming that evolution is necessarily random by the definition I provided; I'm claiming that people haven't presented any compelling evidence that it is deterministic random by the definition I provided.

[sol invictus]

This show that you, like articulett, cyborg, and sol invictus, clearly don't understand probability theory.

I'm not claiming that evolution is necessarily random by the definition I provided; I'm claiming that people haven't presented any compelling evidence that it is deterministic random by the definition I provided.

Yes, mijo, it is obvious that everyone else is wrong and only you understand probability.

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, mijo, it is obvious that everyone else is wrong and only you understand probability.

Would you say that someone who says that 1+1=3 understands arithmetic?

You and the bulk of those who argue that evolution is non-random make similar fundamental mistakes about probability theory (viz., articulett's argument that algebra is random by the definition I gave).

By the way, I never that I was the only one who understood probability. It is possible for, articulett, Belz..., cyborg, and you, to not understand probability and for other to disagree with me to understand it. I have judged you lack of understanding on the things that you have said, not the fact that you disagree with me.

[Walter Wayne]

I see. So you regard it as a coincidence that mammals with a hundred trillion cells exist now, whereas 3 billion years ago when life started there were only single-celled organisms?
If there is no bias up or down in complexity but variation in both directions, what happens when starting from as simple as possible?
So you regard it as a coincidence that, if I have a population of bacteria some of which are resistant to penicillin and some of which aren't, when I introduce penicillin into the environment the resistant group will dominate the population after a few generations?
So you are going to characterize evolution by just one of its two characteristic subprocesses? Natural selection without mutation.

Don't be ridiculous.

These are obvious patterns, and they are very predictable. They are not random at all.
The phrase "Not that there aren't patterns," exists right in the post you replied to, followed by an example. Ridiculous?

Walt

[sol invictus]

You and the bulk of those who argue that evolution is non-random make similar fundamental mistakes about probability theory (viz., articulett's argument that algebra is random by the definition I gave).

Why don't you give an example of a mistake I made, mijo?

[Taffer]

Actually, it is you who clearly doesn't understand the very tests you performed. Yes, your data was derived from a random (i.e., equiprobable) sample, but that actual data points were most probably not uniformly distributed. To test a hypothesis, you then probably assumed (at least if you were performing a parametric test such as the z-test, t-test, or chi-squared-test) that the data took on a certain distribution and then compared that distribution to determine the probability that the means of the distributions were different purely due to the variations with within the sample.

As mentioned before, such a schema requires a much wider understanding of what "random" means than just "equiprobable", as each data point is considered to be a random variable that is described by a non-uniform probability distribution.

Uh, no mijo. The bulk of my tests were such things as maximum parsimony tree building, which uses equiprobably random distributions based on a dataset to construct a large number of hypothetical trees, then selects the most likely tree based on another criterion. Tests are then performed using a random distribution of genotypes compared to the actual dataset to determine the likelyhood of a random sample constructing the chosen tree.

[Taffer]

So you are going to characterize evolution by just one of its two characteristic subprocesses? Natural selection without mutation.

But they are completely seperate processes. Evolution does not require random variation to occur, only that variation exists in a given population.

[sol invictus]

If there is no bias up or down in complexity but variation in both directions, what happens when starting from as simple as possible?

You said "Increase in complexity over time just isn't the case." which is obviously false given the history of life on earth. Furthermore, even in some counterfactual and abstract thought experiment where you start with complex life already in existence, I see no reason to believe that increasingly complex life wouldn't evolve from there. In fact I suspect I could prove it in a mathematical model for evolution. So your original statement was wrong, and I think the position you are trying to shift to now is as well (although it might actually be interesting to discuss).

So you are going to characterize evolution by just one of its two characteristic subprocesses? Natural selection without mutation.

No, that is not the implication. Expose a population of bacteria to such a pressure and resistance to it will evolve through mutations even if it is not already present in the genome, at least if the pressure doesn't wipe out the entire population. That's predictable with essentially 100% confidence - just the opposite of random.

[Walter Wayne]

But they are completely seperate processes. Evolution does not require random variation to occur, only that variation exists in a given population.We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.

Walt

[Walter Wayne]

You said "Increase in complexity over time just isn't the case." which is obviously false given the history of life on earth. Furthermore, even in some counterfactual and abstract thought experiment where you start with complex life already in existence, I see no reason to believe that increasingly complex life wouldn't evolve from there. In fact I suspect I could prove it in a mathematical model for evolution. So your original statement was wrong, and I think the position you are trying to shift to now is as well (although it might actually be interesting to discuss).
In that case, there is a pattern of increased rotary phone use in North America. There were none around here prior to 1870, and now I know of several. Of course all of us are aware that rotary phones have been much more prevalent in between. In evolution was focus so much on the way back and the now that we see a trend were there isn't one.

We see a pattern because the initial condition was at one extreme, but when looking at more recent history, that trend may or may not be there. (And it is an interesting point, and it surprised me when I first read about it).

No, that is not the implication. Expose a population of bacteria to such a pressure and resistance to it will evolve through mutations even if it is not already present in the genome, at least if the pressure doesn't wipe out the entire population. That's predictable with essentially 100% confidence - just the opposite of random.
And what determines the bolding if-statement, if not whether the mutation happens in the next few generations before it is wiped out. The qualified if-statement seems to contradict your "essentially 100% confidence" comment.

Walt

[sol invictus]

We see a pattern because the initial condition was at one extreme, but when looking at more recent history, that trend may or may not be there. (And it is an interesting point, and it surprised me when I first read about it).

It is an interesting point. However I suspect it's wrong (that is, I suspect there is a real increase in complexity over long time periods, more or less regardless of the initial condition).

One of the really difficult questions in evolutionary biology is how to define information, or complexity as we're calling it here. I don't know how to do it - Shannon entropy of the genome is an idea, but not good enough - but I suspect there's a way, and I further suspect that if you choose a good definition you will find that evolution leads to it increasing.

The reason I say that is that I think intelligence will eventually evolve given long enough, and once that happens things change fundamentally. Natural selection of a sort will continue, but the creatures in question will be aware of the process and can manipulate it in ways that make "fitness" an increasingly irrelevant concept. As that proceeds, these creatures will improve their intelligence, build computers, write books, and generally vastly increase the information/complexity.

[cyborg]

We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.

And your reasoning for this is...?

[mijopaalmc]

And your reasoning for this is...?

You should know since you claim to understand evolution.

[zosima]

I just thought I'd note.

Wolfram talks a lot about randomness in A New Kind of Science, and it is available online for free. I don't think I believe his broader conclusions, but his result that very simple systems can generate enough complexity that it appears random is indisputable and says quite a bit about the nature of the random.

I think it could do a lot to illuminate this discussion.

[Belz...]

You clearly don't understand probability if you think that.

Really ? Then by all means, explain to me what probability becomes if we know all the factors and variables involved (that is, no heisenberg principle applied.)

Yes, you are parroting others.

No, I'm saying the same thing they are. That's not parroting, that's agreeing. I do remember telling you it "made everything random" before I read anybody else's response to your nonsense.

You simply repeated the old canard that my definition "makes everything random". This show that you, like articulett, cyborg, and sol invictus, clearly don't understand probability theory.

So which is it ? Parroting or misunderstanding ?

I'm not claiming that evolution is necessarily random by the definition I provided; I'm claiming that people haven't presented any compelling evidence that it is deterministic random by the definition I provided.

"Deterministic random" ?

[Belz...]

We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.
And your reasoning for this is...?

You should know since you claim to understand evolution.

Enlighten us. Don't play the "if you don't know, I won't tell you" routine.

[Dancing David]

But they are completely seperate processes. Evolution does not require random variation to occur, only that variation exists in a given population.


Thank you, so many people miss that.

[Dancing David]

We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.

Walt

Whoosh.

You missed the point, natural selection can occur without random mutation.

[Dancing David]

It is an interesting point. However I suspect it's wrong (that is, I suspect there is a real increase in complexity over long time periods, more or less regardless of the initial condition).

One of the really difficult questions in evolutionary biology is how to define information, or complexity as we're calling it here. I don't know how to do it - Shannon entropy of the genome is an idea, but not good enough - but I suspect there's a way, and I further suspect that if you choose a good definition you will find that evolution leads to it increasing.

The reason I say that is that I think intelligence will eventually evolve given long enough, and once that happens things change fundamentally. Natural selection of a sort will continue, but the creatures in question will be aware of the process and can manipulate it in ways that make "fitness" an increasingly irrelevant concept. As that proceeds, these creatures will improve their intelligence, build computers, write books, and generally vastly increase the information/complexity.

The issue of increasing complexity is a very difficult one as you point out quite wel.. There is the 'complexity' of the structure of the organism which is what most people think about. Conversely as time pass there seems to be a limiting of genetic diversity, which makes sense.

I think that plants ability to make food from sunlight is however the coolest, and then the rest sort of follows from that. Or we would all be in the oceans. So the defintion of trends in complexity is a tough one to define. certainly there is a difference between the pre Cambrian and the post Cambrian.

[Dancing David]

You should know since you claim to understand evolution.


That is not debate, cease fire.

Take your nanny nanny boo boo outside.

[Dancing David]

I just thought I'd note.

Wolfram talks a lot about randomness in A New Kind of Science, and it is available online for free. I don't think I believe his broader conclusions, but his result that very simple systems can generate enough complexity that it appears random is indisputable and says quite a bit about the nature of the random.

I think it could do a lot to illuminate this discussion.


Cool, it is also part of chaos theory that simple rules and sensitive interactions produce determinitic but pseudo random patterns.

This point has been ignored before.

[cyborg]

This point has been ignored before.

It is likely to be ignored in the future.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/sciamer.html

[sol invictus]

Well, we did discuss chaos in the other thread. I used it to make the point that even if one were to ignore the fundamental quantum randomness we think is present in all physical interactions, macroscopic systems would still not be deterministic in any meaningful, operational sense, because of chaos.

Let me put it this way - randomness can arise essentially in two ways:

1) a "truly" random process, one whose result could never be predicted no matter how much information is available (like quantum measurements)

2) a process in which the experimenter is ignorant of some of the determining factors, making the result unpredictable (like flipping a coin, or the weather on this day next year)

My argument was that the difference between these is essentially nil in real systems, because in a chaotic system one needs to know the initial conditions with exponential precision in order to predict the behavior in the future, and that is actually impossible even in principle.

I think it might be interesting to have a thread on randomness in general. Evolution, in my opinion, is not a very interesting case, because it's quite clear how randomness enters in it (and I think nearly everyone in the thread agrees on that).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ya know, I got through just over 1 page of this thread before I had to just stop reading for fear of losing my sanity for at least the next 30 minutes.

All of this "high talk" about randomness, "acausal" stuff, etc, etc... seriously... let's get to the root of the problem here, eh?

The single greatest logical disconnect for the anti-evolution crowd is that they think evolution is purported to be 100% random when it's not.

Sorry to snip so much of your post, but I'm generally with you. Biology has, over the last 100 years become as hard a science as basic chemistry. Mixing chemical A with chemical B results in the production of chemical X is as fundamental as Being A having genetic markers 1 and Being B having genetic markers 1 demonstrating common ancestry. All this navel gazing BS, equivocation and semantics is an utter waste of time to me. The philosophical garbage about the randomnesss of mutations doesn't effect HOX genes, ERVs and the existance of transitional fossils.

If mijo wants to keep with the ID argument within an evolutionary context, I'd be fine with that, since it's more philosophy and interpretation than an unbiased evaluation of the evidence, but for me in light of all the other evidences we have like HOX, ERVs, fossils, etc. I'd be satisfied if he'd simply admit that "mutations are random, but evolution isn't".

[Taffer]

We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.

Walt

The fact that variation is random has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. Once again, it doesn't matter that variation is random, only that this variation exists in a population.

[mijopaalmc]

That is not debate, cease fire.

Take your nanny nanny boo boo outside.

This is rich coming from some one who says things like:

Whoosh.

You missed the point, natural selection can occur without random mutation.

By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.

[Belz...]

How can you have evolution without selection ?

[mijopaalmc]

How can you have evolution without selection ?

I just explained that in the post above.

[sphenisc]

Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.


I think I've worked it out.



In the box.



Right?

[Reality Check]

By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.


The statement "population will evolve by regression to the mean" is wrong. I suggest that you read the "regression to the mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean)" Wikipedia article and note that this statistical concept depends on picking subsets of the population.

[cyborg]

The statement "population will evolve by regression to the mean" is wrong. I suggest that you read the "regression to the mean" Wikipedia article and note that this statistical concept depends on picking subsets of the population.

I.e. it is incompatible with the notion of their being no natural selection.

[mijopaalmc]

I.e. it is incompatible with the notion of their being no natural selection.

No, it is not. It happens regardless of whether there is any bias toward a given phenotype.

[cyborg]

No, it is not. It happens regardless of whether there is any bias toward a given phenotype.

Natural selection does not entail any particular bias toward any given phenotype.

[mijopaalmc]

Natural selection does not entail any particular bias toward any given phenotype.

Huh?

That is in direct contradiction to what other have been saying about why evolution is non-random.

[cyborg]

No it isn't. This demonstrates your lack of understanding.

[mijopaalmc]

No it isn't. This demonstrates your lack of understanding.

Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.

[cyborg]

Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.

This statement also demonstrates your lack of careful reading.

[mijopaalmc]

This statement also demonstrates your lack of careful reading.

Assertions, assertions, assertions. All I see is assertions from cyborg.

Why don't you google natural selection and seen how it's explained, cyborg?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Good day, Mijo. I just wanted to tell you that I recently acquired Michael Shermer's book "Why Darwin matters" and I think you should take a look at it. Even though I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with either "side", I was wondering exactly what do they mean by "Evolution is not random". Well, Dr Shermer's book explains it step by step using very basic reasonable arguments. I suggest you read the book and I'm sure it will be helpful as well.

[Dancing David]

This is rich coming from some one who says things like:

Cease fire; debate points, no need for character assaults, even when they are thrown at you.




By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.


I have to think about the regression to the mean.

Is this a population where all individuals have the same chance of reproduction? You say equal chance, but i wanted to clarify, equal chance of reproduction? And no other selective pressure? So like a cage of mice where each one is randomly matched to a mate at breeding time, they are fed equally and social pressure is kept to a minimum?

[Dancing David]

I just explained that in the post above.


Maybe you could try to expand a little upon it?

[Taffer]

By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.

Um, no mijo.

[Dancing David]

Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.


Perhaps the key word there is 'adapted', but really fitness of a phenotype to an enviroment is secondary, all that matters is ability to reproduce, so fit enough to reproduce is all that is required.

It is the interaction of the expressed traits and the enviroment, not just a 'phenotype', and how they impact reproduction.

[mijopaalmc]

Um, no mijo.

Um, yes.

Even if every phenotype has a equal probability of reproduction, the generalization of the central limit theorem still apply.

[Meadmaker]

I'd be satisfied if he'd simply admit that "mutations are random, but evolution isn't".

I prefer Sol's comparison to fire, in which he notes that saying "fire is random" is "not even wrong". The same is true for evolution. It is random, and it is not random, and any attempt to say that it must be called one or the other, absent any other context, is not even wrong.

The interesting thing to me is why you say you would be "satisified" if he were to "admit" that one side is right. That's what it's all about, really. It's about picking a side.

Of course, there is great concern that mijo, or others, are using the same words that THEY use, and that is an offense up with which we shall not put!

Except that, really, THEY don't use that word all that much. In the only example cited here, when they used it, they got it right.

[mijopaalmc]

I prefer Sol's comparison to fire, in which he notes that saying "fire is random" is "not even wrong". The same is true for evolution. It is random, and it is not random, and any attempt to say that it must be called one or the other, absent any other context, is not even wrong.

Actually, the problem seems to be that the majority of the phenomena that people who argue that evolution is non-random are not in and of themselves random, so the fact that we observe them in evolution by natural selection does not make it inherently non-random. By the way, my original argument, which seems to have been lost in the recesses of time, was that there is no evidence that evolution is non-random. Such a lack of evidence does not mean that evolution is therefore random, but my main point of confusion was why people were so adamant that evolution was non-random when the evidence they cited said nothing of the sort.

[sol invictus]

You and the bulk of those who argue that evolution is non-random make similar fundamental mistakes about probability theory (viz., articulett's argument that algebra is random by the definition I gave).Why don't you give an example of a mistake I made, mijo?

I'm still waiting for a response.....

What's the matter - is there a problem?

Was that another lie, by any chance?

[Reality Check]

Actually, the problem seems to be that the majority of the phenomena that people who argue that evolution is non-random are not in and of themselves random, so the fact that we observe them in evolution by natural selection does not make it inherently non-random. By the way, my original argument, which seems to have been lost in the recesses of time, was that there is no evidence that evolution is non-random. Such a lack of evidence does not mean that evolution is therefore random, but my main point of confusion was why people were so adamant that evolution was non-random when the evidence they cited said nothing of the sort.

IMHO Convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) is evidence that evolution is non-random.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm still waiting for a response.....

What's the matter - is there a problem?

Was that another lie, by any chance?

You are still focusing on the lack of certainty in the measurement of the initial conditions of system. Deterministic and stochastic process are mathematically distinct so they should at least in theory yield physically distinct results.

[mijopaalmc]

IMHO Convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) is evidence that evolution is non-random.

What makes so sure that it can't happen if certain traits are favored over others?

[Reality Check]

What makes so sure that it can't happen if certain traits are favored over others?
What do you mean? What is doing the "favouring"?

[mijopaalmc]

What do you mean?

For instance, thick winter coat or layer of blubber is favorable to warm blooded animals who live in cold climates with long winters, because they don't have to consume as much energy keeping themselves warm. Therefore, we can reasonably expect to see animals evolve these and other energy conserving strategies (e.g., hibernation), if their environment get colder and has progressively longer winters.

What is doing the "favouring"?

Nothing per se is favoring these traits; it just that individual who possess them are more likely to survive and reproduce in the spring.

[Walter Wayne]

Um, yes.

Even if every phenotype has a equal probability of reproduction, the generalization of the central limit theorem still apply.
Central limit theorum applies to independent variables, each with the same distribution. The probability of a specific mutation happening is dependent on the current genomes. For example, mutation at a site from A->C might be very unlikely, but from B->C might be more likely.

If that is the case, then the likelihood of C arising is dependent on the gene frequencies in the previous generation. The central limit theorem will not apply to long term evolution in your hypothecal, unbias selection.

Walt

P.S. It's late so I can't really get to other posts. Another time.