Split Thread: Is evolution stochastic?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

How so?

Already done. You can always take it up in management if you disagree since it's already moved.

[mijopaalmc]

Here's what the quotes in Recursive Prophet's post above should look like:

Originally Posted by susu.exp

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

A strict Popper view denies that anything can ever be confirmed as proven. This is a limited and naive view. In any given system, I can prove many things.

No, you only can disprove things, though you prove that one of the alternatives must be true in the way of doing that. You can also prove that things are possible, simply by noting a case where they have happened. Itīs not a proof of a hypothesis, itīs just data.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

I can prove a gene is essential by knocking it out.

Actually, you disprove that a gene is non-essential, by knocking it out.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

I can prove an enzyme can cut a substrate.

In this case you note that it can happen. You can not prove it will happen, though if it repeatedly does the hypothesis that it will do so becomes rather certain. I can "prove" the sun came up this morning, but thatīs not a hypothesis, itīs data. A hypothesis has to make predictions about the future, like "the sun will keep coming up every morning".

Hereīs a simple question:
Iīve got 4 cards in front of me. all of them have a number on one side and a letter on the other. You can only see one side and the cards are showing E, 4, F and 3. I claim that on the cards with a vocal there is an even number on the other side. Which two cards will you turn to figure out if Iīm right?

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

I can prove that a mutation "can cause" a change in phenotype. What Popper is stating, and Eversbane is adhering to, is the notion that I cannot prove a mutation "does cause" an observed phenotype outside my experimental system. Many observed effects can have multiple causes, just as many phenotypes can be affected by many genes. This type of Popperian conclusion is completely fair.

It does not rule out "proving" a cause leads to an effect in an experimental system. Eversbane implied a philosophical view that nothing is ever provable or certain. That is not the case.

No theory is ever provable or certain. A theory is a set of axioms, from which predictions can be derived. It is proven wrong, when a prediction turns out to be false. It has to be consistent with all observations prior to its formulation. And of course to be a theory it has to have been tested lots of times. Now, once it stops being predictive it can be proven, but since it makes no further predictions itīs not a hypothesis, lest a theory. Your answer to eversbane implied that you are willing to stretch the meaning of hypothesis and theory to include things that make no predictions.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

Nope. There is no claim that anything "vanishes." QM simply is irrelevant.

Thereīs your claim that macroscopic systems are not just approximately deterministic, but actually deterministic. That is a claim that the stochasticity does not merely have effects too small to be relevant (as noted, thatīs the position David has taken), but that it has NO effects. And since you havenīt so far conceeded that point and withdrawn to the position that stochasticity doesnīt have big enough effects to matter (and Iīve offered you the opportunity to clarify your position in this way several times) concluding that you think it vanishes is fair.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

Its a personal interpretation of yours, that it is relevant.

No. The effects of QM are a mathematical necessity. And they can be observed. 13.1% of humans deaths occured through direct effects of QM processes in 2005. If you think something that kills one in 8 members of a population is irrelevant, you need to substantiate it.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

It does not matter how many people might share your interpretation. Other interpretations are not ruled out. Your claim that they are, is bogus; it does not follow.

My claim that you can not build deterministic systems out of a finite number of stochastic components is simple mathematics. You can debunk this if you want to: Let Xn be the nth number rolled on a fair, 6-sided die.
Now produce Y=f(X1,X2...XN), so that
a) f explicitly depends on at least one of the Xn
b) N is finite
c) f is a deterministic variable.

Do that, and Iīll concede my point (youīll probably get a field medal in the bargain as well).
But I didnīt state you were claiming something akin to 1+1=3 for naught - your mission, if you choose to accept it - is showing a proven theorem in probability theory to be wrong.

Originally Posted by susu.exp

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

A great deal in this thread, can be viewed philosophically as Reductionist versus antireductionist, specifically as it applies to the theory of natural selection, but NOT the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

Mjpam, Susu, and others, keep trying to imply that we MUST only talk about evolutionary theory as a whole. This is a forced straw man.

I wouldnīt say that. But we can not neglect interactions and the point Iīm stressing is that drift has an effect on selection and therefore selection is stochastic.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

They have in large part, throughout this thread, denied that any valid reductionist view exists.

Not at all. The difference is not really reductionism vs. non-reductionism, but rather superposability vs. non-superposability. You can break evolution up into different processes happening at once. However you argue that the effects of these processes can be added - superposition. Weīve argued that you can not do so - the processes feed into each other and their combined effect - quite literaly - is more than the sum of the parts.

I also note that Davids accusation of Marios and me has been that we are too reductionist.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

Mjpam foolishly argues that the "modern synthesis" is all that exists or matters. This is a very naive faith position.

Nope. Itīs a scientific position, because as has been pointed out, the modern synthesis in its central points has not been falsified. We have included neutral and near neutral theory, though, as well as system theoretic considerations - itīs not the status quo of the 50s (weīre merely pointing out, that some of the arguments brought up against us have been known to be wrong since then).

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

I'm a molecular biologist. That essentially makes me a reductionist. However, I also fully understand the antireductionist view. Mjpam and others have indicated throughout this thread, an inability to understand the reductionist view, and even go so far as to deny its existence. That lack of vision and understanding has led to apologetic argumentation full of fallacies and derision.

The funny thing is that thereīs nothing more reductionist than population genetics. And thatīs where weīve been arguing from. You are the one who has argued against looking at gene frequencies and advocated something as "holistic" as phenotypes.

Originally Posted by MZbiologist

What Mjpam and others are doing, is insisting that the Modern Synthesis only covers Group Selection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has come to this thread and naively believed Mjpam is some type of authority, has been duped.

None of us is advocating group selection. What Mayr states here is that selection acts on genes through the phenotypes of individual organisms. Itīs not a refutation that selections happens in populations. Quite the opposite: Organismal selection defines the unit of sampling:
The frequency of an allele in a population is n/2N for diploid organisms. N is the number of organisms (and 2N is the number of loci under consideration: 2 per individual organism), n is the number of times the allele is present (0,1 or 2 times for each individual organism).

There is no and there can be no selection on a single organic individual (because that single individual has a fixed allele frequency). There can be selection within an organism - cells with different genomes and different rates of mitosis and apoptosis as in cancer for example: Cellular or somatic evolution also includes selection (in this case the frequency of an allele would be m/2M defined analogously, with M being the number of cells in the organism and m the number of times a cell includes the allele in question).

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

The debate here was over an almost totally meaningless semantic distinction, with a creationist subtext. If you want to resurrect it , I suggest you begin by defining "stochastic". Then we can have a poll and see who agrees with the claim that "evolution is stochastic" under your definition.

Will you accept the wiki definition below?

"A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. [emphasis mine] Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes. Classical examples of this are medicine: a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way. This makes medicine a stochastic process."

From my understanding following the thread on Dawkins. it's proposed that 2 of the random elements in selection-and one is all that is needed to comply with the definition above-are genetic drift and reproductive frequency variance. But if you go to RD.net and read just the 6 pages of replies on part 3, it is all covered pretty extensively by scientists working in related fields, such as Susu.exp, Marios, and Dlx2. And there are many other quite knowledgeable posters contributing to the debate, and I can tell you 'mijo'-mjpam-has many there with far more background than I who are in definitely in agreement with his position. Saying he is 'stupid' or that his points are 'silly' doesn't make it so, nor does it constitute a rebuttal. Or does it in this forum?

[articulett]

I told you MZbiologist was good.

"Susu" is the so called expert that Mijo name drops in every post... Susu has said that per his definition of random elections are "pure random chance"--after all--they can be modeled using stochastics. Yes, he's one of those guys who describes everything as random--He reminds me a little of Schneibster mixed with Jim-Bob.

Luckily we can put them on ignore here. A couple of bozos have fallen for it on Dawkins net--but Susu is the best they've got--and what mijo quoted might be his clearest.

I am glad that their overconfidence coupled with incompetence allowed them to display their bozofacedness on two forums for us to enjoy. Please forgive me for playing a role in the return of Mr. "evolution-is-random". I noticed T'ai Chi has been posting again so, with Recursive Prophet, I think we have the "evolution-is-random" trifecta. If only we hadn't all played this silly game before.

I shall put them all on ignore so I can keep my claws retracted.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by articulett

I shall put them all on ignore so I can keep my claws retracted.

Thank god for that.

Ultimately, Arti will create the perfect forum - one where only her own words are visible, because everyone else is on ignore.

"Claws"? More like tentacles, I would have said.

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Thank god for that.

Ultimately, Arti will create the perfect forum - one where only her own words are visible, because everyone else is on ignore.

Ultimately? I suspect that point was passed long ago.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Will you accept the wiki definition below?

"A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. [emphasis mine] Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, acknowledge that outcomes result from both known and unknown causes. Classical examples of this are medicine: a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way. This makes medicine a stochastic process."

From my understanding following the thread on Dawkins. it's proposed that 2 of the random elements in selection-and one is all that is needed to comply with the definition above-are genetic drift and reproductive frequency variance. But if you go to RD.net and read just the 6 pages of replies on part 3, it is all covered pretty extensively by scientists working in related fields, such as Susu.exp, Marios, and Dlx2. And there are many other quite knowledgeable posters contributing to the debate, and I can tell you 'mijo'-mjpam-has many there with far more background than I who are in definitely in agreement with his position. Saying he is 'stupid' or that his points are 'silly' doesn't make it so, nor does it constitute a rebuttal. Or does it in this forum?

No, round here the endless posts in which mijo's points have been shown to be silly constitutes a rebuttal.

What is silly, stupid, and, indeed, deceitful, is pretending that any true statement about evolution justifies the statement that: "evolution is random". It does not, any more than the statement about medicine given in the wiki article would justify the statement that "medicine is random"; or true statements about the law of mass action would justify the claim that "chemistry is random"; or true statements about quantum electrodynamics would justify the statement that "optics is random"; or true statements about chaos theory would justify the statement that "gravity is random".

[my_wan]

Adding air to the tire on your automobile is a stochastic process. When you connect an air tank with higher pressure than your tire to the tire air will pass both directions randomly across that connection. The pressure only increases in your tire because the air molecules are more likely to pass into the tire than out of it due to less air there to begin with.

When a creationist talks about something being random it essentially means God didn't do it. In reality randomness can be viewed as a way to quantify missing knowledge of the system, not missing information or causes. In this sense there is no such thing as randomness in an absolute sense. With this definition a stochastic process is any process where you can predict an average result without knowledge or ability to predict the individual events causing that result. You could make Quantum arguments against this, but then again the very definition of a Quantum system entails incomplete knowledge yet the results remain predictable. Whether or not that knowledge is incomplete due to incomplete knowledge or the information itself simply doesn't exist is an open question.

The fact remains that creationist insisting on attaching a certain ontology to the notion of randomness to maintain the statement, "It couldn't have all happened by accident", doesn't help them. Even accidents are not accidents in physical law, rather accidents only in in our incomplete knowledge to effect the outcome.

[mijopaalmc]

Dr. Adequate-

"Random" and "stochastic" share a technical definition and therefor can be used as synonyms for that particular definition. Creationists are most often not using the definition I am, so I don't see the problem with using them intercahngeably as long as I am explicitly clear as to how I am using them, as I have been on this board.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Dr. Adequate-

"Random" and "stochastic" share a technical definition and therefor can be used as synonyms for that particular definition.

Bollocks.

Quote:

Creationists are most often not using the definition I am, so I don't see the problem with using them intercahngeably as long as I am explicitly clear as to how I am using them, as I have been on this board.

It is perfectly true that if, every time you say "evolution is random" you also explain that when you say "evolution is random" you don't mean that evolution is random, then people will not take your statement that evolution is random as meaning that evolution is random --- assuming that they understand and believe your explanation of how you don't mean what you're actually saying.

They may think that you've gone off your head, but that's your problem.

[Eos of the Eons]

Evolution is as random as the climate in any given area and the changes it causes, which is to say that it is only mostly random if you take snapshots over time and and leave out everything that happened in between.

Overall though...Yeah, a few things are random, but the existing genes that are selected for over time due to many variables is not a random process.

Hm. I could go on and on... redundantly and repetitively.

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, evolution is a random process: http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

Basically, Evolution = NS(RM, OS)

where NS (ie. Natural Selection) is a non-trivial function and is not random, RM is random mutations and is random, and OS is other stuff, some random, and some that is not random.

That is, following Dawkins and many others, evolution is the non-random selection of random variation.

In probability theory, it is known that if X is a random variable, then for a non-trivial function f, f(X) is a random variable.

This topic has been put to rest literally decades ago.

[articulett]

Yes, put to rest by you, T'ai -- an admitted creationist.

Creationists need to believe that evolution is a theory of random chance, because that sounds like a god must have been involved. So long as they don't understand or cannot explain natural selection and how it culls and ratchets the "fittest" from the randomness, they can pretend that it all sounds too impossible. Those who understand natural selection don't have an obsessive need to tell others how it's really "random".

The real question is, does anyone other than you take you seriously?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Yes, evolution is a random process

Don't tell silly lies.

Quote:

This topic has been put to rest literally decades ago.

And yet you still feel obliged to babble out creationist nonsense.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Will you accept the wiki definition below?

"A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state's next state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element."

With that definition, yes - evolution is a stochastic process (note that that is not quite the same thing as saying "evolution is stochastic"). I'd be surprised if anyone here disagrees with that, given that definition.

Quote:

Saying he is 'stupid' or that his points are 'silly' doesn't make it so, nor does it constitute a rebuttal. Or does it in this forum?

I didn't see anyone say that mijo was stupid (other than you). Anyway, mijo wasn't saying "evolution is a stochastic process" - he was saying "evolution is random", and justifying that with a very stupid definition of random, one which coincides with no one else's. I can't think of any reasons for him to keep insisting on that other than a) he has an agenda and wants to make evolution sound like something it's not, or b) he's incredibly stubborn and can't admit when he's wrong.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I didn't see anyone say that mijo was stupid (other than you).

Well, I wouldn't say that mijo is stupid, because that would break the forum rules. I will, however, say that his argument is stupid, and I'll follow that up by saying that it is vacuous, dishonest, boring, pathetic, and futile.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by articulett

And everyone who explained "how evolution is not pure random chance" (the thread's title, btw) like Dawkins in that clip is shouted down by a couple of people with the intelligence of Mijo (I leave it to the reader to make their own determination).

This is what you get when you have an issue that needs a surgeons touch to explain the issue and you get Jason Vohres. The best example of how dam complicated evolution is given here: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...5O56/index.xml It is evidence that evolution resulted in feedback mechanisms to regulate random mutations.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In case it's of any use, here are the definitions from various Penguin dictionaries:

Mathematics:
random: A random sample of r items from n is a selection in which each item has an equal chance of selection.

stochastic: Implying random variation, generally used to describe systems which are not deterministic rather than systems which are deterministic apart from a random error.

Physics:
random: not defined

stochastic process: A process resulting from the random behavior of its generators.

Biology:
random: not defined

stochastic: not defined

I would say that calling something simply "random" implies that it is more-or-less uniformly random. Evolution clearly is not.

Much ado about not much.

~~ Paul

[articulett]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

This is what you get when you have an issue that needs a surgeons touch to explain the issue and you get Jason Vohres. The best example of how dam complicated evolution is given here: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...5O56/index.xml It is evidence that evolution resulted in feedback mechanisms to regulate random mutations.

That's a good description... and it makes sense that genomes would "evolve" similarly to phenotypes... with some parts being more plastic and some parts highly conserved.

But creationists have jumped on this one in a funny way too... like god designed genomes to evolve or something like that. There was an interesting commentary on Pharyngula when the article first came out--though, this isn't really "new" information.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by articulett

But creationists have jumped on this one in a funny way too... like god designed genomes to evolve or something like that.

Well it isn't that hard to explain that fallacy. Scientists are using control theory which primairly was developed by engineers/mathematicians to explain their observations. Therfore one can jump to a faulty conclusion that since your thermostat works on the same principle it means that someone had to design those proteins. Of course they are ignoring the fact that control theory dictates how stable dynamic systems behave and it would be very odd if it would deviate from that theory because that would mean that something is horribly wrong with that theory. Its not new because the same concepts have been applied to chemotaxis and homeostatis with similar observations. Ironically, engineers are stealing the those observations to use back into control theory.

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by my_wan

When a creationist talks about something being random it essentially means God didn't do it. In reality randomness can be viewed as a way to quantify missing knowledge of the system, not missing information or causes. In this sense there is no such thing as randomness in an absolute sense. With this definition a stochastic process is any process where you can predict an average result without knowledge or ability to predict the individual events causing that result. You could make Quantum arguments against this, but then again the very definition of a Quantum system entails incomplete knowledge yet the results remain predictable. Whether or not that knowledge is incomplete due to incomplete knowledge or the information itself simply doesn't exist is an open question.

The fact remains that creationist insisting on attaching a certain ontology to the notion of randomness to maintain the statement, "It couldn't have all happened by accident", doesn't help them. Even accidents are not accidents in physical law, rather accidents only in in our incomplete knowledge to effect the outcome.

[Emphasis mine]


My Wan: You can’t imagine how grateful I was to read your insightful reply. I would beseech you to join in the discussion on Dawkins, as those proposing that NS isn’t stochastic are outnumbered big time and on the ropes. I am but a science/math dilettante with no formal training and an overtaxed memory. I have no dog in this fight, but I can tell you that the RD random thread has overall been a fascinating read. Also, given much of the sentiment I’ve witnessed so far, I suspect this topic will have a short shelf life here, and possibly be locked.

You make a valid point re: the parameters of randomness. I image it as being like the islands of increasing order in the entropy stream. Ultimately disorder will prevail, but splotches here and there can buck the trend for while. So the key question would seem to be what is the practicality of assuming a stochastic, versus deterministic, versus hybrid process in various areas of research. There are some excellent posts on RD that cover this area, as well as many other questions I’d never considered before. As soon as I reach the prerequisite 15 replies I’ll be posting a number of links rather than clutter the thread with long comments. I find it somewhat amusing the way so many on both sides of the debate dismiss their opponents as fools, though I can document on RD that it is VERY lopsided. Most ad homs come from those arguing against NS being a stochastic process. They could really use your rational help.

For me there is an inescapable dichotomy here; if a process is not deterministic, it is by definition stochastic. Einstein believed the universe was deterministic, but advances in quantum mechanics have indicated otherwise. A few on RD argued the quantum world is irrelevant, but boy did they get hit with some very detailed refutations on that one, which I may also link here.

I find it ironic so many jump on the ways creationists use randomness. For me, the idea of a deterministic universe implies there is a ‘determiner,’ and would be far more compatible with ID than a random one? How could randomness co-exist with an omnipotent ruler of the heavens and earth? I would appreciate enlightenment on this, as I don’t ever engage in debates with believers on any aspect of faith. I envy those with so much time to spare doing so.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

No, round here the endless posts in which mijo's points have been shown to be silly constitutes a rebuttal.

What is silly, stupid, and, indeed, deceitful, is pretending that any true statement about evolution justifies the statement that: "evolution is random". It does not, any more than the statement about medicine given in the wiki article would justify the statement that "medicine is random"; or true statements about the law of mass action would justify the claim that "chemistry is random"; or true statements about quantum electrodynamics would justify the statement that "optics is random"; or true statements about chaos theory would justify the statement that "gravity is random".

Well pilgrim, I’m not from ‘round here. So I’m either a drifter from the planes of cyberspace just looking for answers, or a closet fundamentalist in partnership with ‘mijo’ (translation from Spanish ‘my son’)seeking only to muddy the waters of evolution. We might be members of a secret cabal, struggling to undermine any faith in science. When the economy truly collapses and people are desperate, we will collectively set the clock back and have the population under our control via the myths built around the icons already in place.

We will live high, as the masses will rely; on our message from on high.
Eat hey and pray, is what we we’ll say. There’ll be pie, in the sky, when you die.

Even talking about evolution will become a crime, and we have triangulated the locations of all our antagonists online so they can be graduates in the first reeducation class. For soon, we the Cognoscenti, will rule the metaverse!![Begin maniacal laughter soundtrack.]

I need to do a word search and see how many times I’ve seen one side in this debate or the other compare their opponents with creationists. However, only those arguing evolution is not stochastic, from what I’ve witnessed, have accused their opponents of actually being creationist. Seems quite a histrionic charge, IMHO, but I’ve seen it made often.

Take a second look at the reply by susu, where he addresses MZ’s points one by one. There are countless follow ups just like that on the thread, and rarely do they get a reply anywhere near as conclusive. MZ has gotten much better in the last month or so, but still leaves many key statements unacknowledged and questions unanswered. Usually the replies are those such as appeared here; they respond to a couple points and ignore everything else. I was hoping someone might respond to susu’s post in a detailed way, but can’t say I’m surprised no one did.

Evolution is not random, eh? So answer this, DA. Is mutation random? If you say no, I won’t bother you with further questions. If yes, then how can a process be partly random? Isn’t that akin to being partly pregnant? Isn’t each throw of a loaded dye still stochastic?

Technoextreme: Yes, evolution is incredibly complicated and those wishing to dismiss the question of how the process functions as trivial or just semantics remind me of an Einstein quote which I shall paraphrase: “Always make things as simple as possible, but not more so.”

Tai' Chi: Just for the record, are you a confessed creationist, or can't you say as you're part of the Cognoscenti Cabal I mention above? If so, I hope you remember the secret digital handshake and you got the latest email. You'll need to lay a freshly slaughtered lamb on your keyboard at midnight on the next full moon.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Well it isn't that hard to explain that fallacy. Scientists are using control theory which primairly was developed by engineers/mathematicians to explain their observations. Therfore one can jump to a faulty conclusion that since your thermostat works on the same principle it means that someone had to design those proteins. Of course they are ignoring the fact that control theory dictates how stable dynamic systems behave and it would be very odd if it would deviate from that theory because that would mean that something is horribly wrong with that theory. Its not new because the same concepts have been applied to chemotaxis and homeostatis with similar observations. Ironically, engineers are stealing the those observations to use back into control theory.

Information begets better information assimilators, replicators, and mutators... data used to build computers begets better computers that assimilate, replicate and mutate (tweak) more and better data which begets better....

DNA is information in a code and operates the same. Information either gets passed on with the chance to evolve into the future-- or it dies out.

All the atoms that build complex things were around long before the complex things were... it takes time for the information to evolve-- and that does not happen "randomly". This is true whether we are talking living things, technology, science, languages, etc.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Evolution is not random, eh?

No one said that either. The mistake is thinking it must be one or the other. Is a red and white shirt red? Is it white?

Quote:

So answer this, DA. Is mutation random? If you say no, I won’t bother you with further questions.

Of course it's not random! There are all kinds of non-random mechanisms that control it, determine when and where it can happen, and whether it gets repaired or passed on.

Of course it's random! Mutations can be caused by a cosmic ray, and what could be more random than that?

Get the point?

Quote:

If yes, then how can a process be partly random? Isn’t that akin to being partly pregnant? Isn’t each throw of a loaded dye still stochastic?

Why, after carefully defining "stochastic" the way you did, are you asking that? And why are you conflating it with "random"?

Were you aware that most smoke detectors rely on the decay of a radioactive substance to function? What could be more random than when a radioactive atom decays... so are smoke detectors random?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

[Emphasis mine]


My Wan: You can’t imagine how grateful I was to read your insightful reply. I would beseech you to join in the discussion on Dawkins, as those proposing that NS isn’t stochastic are outnumbered big time and on the ropes. I am but a science/math dilettante with no formal training and an overtaxed memory. I have no dog in this fight, but I can tell you that the RD random thread has overall been a fascinating read. Also, given much of the sentiment I’ve witnessed so far, I suspect this topic will have a short shelf life here, and possibly be locked.

You make a valid point re: the parameters of randomness. I image it as being like the islands of increasing order in the entropy stream. Ultimately disorder will prevail, but splotches here and there can buck the trend for while. So the key question would seem to be what is the practicality of assuming a stochastic, versus deterministic, versus hybrid process in various areas of research. There are some excellent posts on RD that cover this area, as well as many other questions I’d never considered before. As soon as I reach the prerequisite 15 replies I’ll be posting a number of links rather than clutter the thread with long comments. I find it somewhat amusing the way so many on both sides of the debate dismiss their opponents as fools, though I can document on RD that it is VERY lopsided. Most ad homs come from those arguing against NS being a stochastic process. They could really use your rational help.

For me there is an inescapable dichotomy here; if a process is not deterministic, it is by definition stochastic. Einstein believed the universe was deterministic, but advances in quantum mechanics have indicated otherwise. A few on RD argued the quantum world is irrelevant, but boy did they get hit with some very detailed refutations on that one, which I may also link here.

I find it ironic so many jump on the ways creationists use randomness. For me, the idea of a deterministic universe implies there is a ‘determiner,’ and would be far more compatible with ID than a random one? How could randomness co-exist with an omnipotent ruler of the heavens and earth? I would appreciate enlightenment on this, as I don’t ever engage in debates with believers on any aspect of faith. I envy those with so much time to spare doing so.

Well pilgrim, I’m not from ‘round here. So I’m either a drifter from the planes of cyberspace just looking for answers, or a closet fundamentalist in partnership with ‘mijo’ (translation from Spanish ‘my son’)seeking only to muddy the waters of evolution. We might be members of a secret cabal, struggling to undermine any faith in science. When the economy truly collapses and people are desperate, we will collectively set the clock back and have the population under our control via the myths built around the icons already in place.

We will live high, as the masses will rely; on our message from on high.
Eat hey and pray, is what we we’ll say. There’ll be pie, in the sky, when you die.

Even talking about evolution will become a crime, and we have triangulated the locations of all our antagonists online so they can be graduates in the first reeducation class. For soon, we the Cognoscenti, will rule the metaverse!![Begin maniacal laughter soundtrack.]

I need to do a word search and see how many times I’ve seen one side in this debate or the other compare their opponents with creationists. However, only those arguing evolution is not stochastic, from what I’ve witnessed, have accused their opponents of actually being creationist. Seems quite a histrionic charge, IMHO, but I’ve seen it made often.

Take a second look at the reply by susu, where he addresses MZ’s points one by one. There are countless follow ups just like that on the thread, and rarely do they get a reply anywhere near as conclusive. MZ has gotten much better in the last month or so, but still leaves many key statements unacknowledged and questions unanswered. Usually the replies are those such as appeared here; they respond to a couple points and ignore everything else. I was hoping someone might respond to susu’s post in a detailed way, but can’t say I’m surprised no one did.

Evolution is not random, eh? So answer this, DA. Is mutation random? If you say no, I won’t bother you with further questions. If yes, then how can a process be partly random? Isn’t that akin to being partly pregnant? Isn’t each throw of a loaded dye still stochastic?

Technoextreme: Yes, evolution is incredibly complicated and those wishing to dismiss the question of how the process functions as trivial or just semantics remind me of an Einstein quote which I shall paraphrase: “Always make things as simple as possible, but not more so.”

Tai' Chi: Just for the record, are you a confessed creationist, or can't you say as you're part of the Cognoscenti Cabal I mention above? If so, I hope you remember the secret digital handshake and you got the latest email. You'll need to lay a freshly slaughtered lamb on your keyboard at midnight on the next full moon.

Two questions occur to me. One is whether you have a point, and the other is whether you are familiar with the phrase "word salad".

[articulett]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

No one said that either. The mistake is thinking it must be one or the other. Is a red and white shirt red? Is it white?



Of course it's not random! There are all kinds of non-random mechanisms that control it, determine when and where it can happen, and whether it gets repaired or passed on.

Of course it's random! Mutations can be caused by a cosmic ray, and what could be more random than that?

Get the point?



Why, after carefully defining "stochastic" the way you did, are you asking that? And why are you conflating it with "random"?

Were you aware that most smoke detectors rely on the decay of a radioactive substance to function? What could be more random than when a radioactive atom decays... so are smoke detectors random?

Sure... by their lame-o reasoning all roads lead to random and random becomes a useless word--no more descriptive than "noun". They will say that you are claiming things are "determined" whenever you point out that calling evolution random is misleading at best.

Here--watch me prove that Chemistry is random by Mijo reasoning:

Chemistry is about atoms and everyone knows electrons have random spin-- and nothing can be partly random... if there's any randomness anywhere it it then it is random-- so Chemistry is random! Cool eh. Oh, and Cemistry is a noun. Isn't pedantic insanity fun? If you attempt to clarify you are claiming (per mijo reasoning) that chemistry is "deterministic" --for shame!

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Two questions occur to me. One is whether you have a point, and the other is whether you are familiar with the phrase "word salad".

See, that's why I use the ignore button. As my sig illustrates, the incompetents are too incompetent to realize they are the incompetent ones. He's probably over at the Dawkins site telling everyone he and mijo are "winning the debate" here. Ha!

RP thought my_wan was agreeing with him? I though s/he was echoing the common understanding that nothing is really random... except on the quantum level. The bozos define EVERYTHING as random... and then invoke QM to pretend that physicists agree. (The ambiguity in the word "random" sure seems to be used to prop up a lot of woo.)

We live in a very deterministic universe on a macro level where all events are caused by the outcomes in a preceding chain of events. People who want to be clear, don't call this "random". They may use a stochastic model to illustrate some such events, but they do not do the convoluted thing that Mijo does to then claim this means those processes are random!

Why would anyone be so insistent on describing evolution so vaguely, unless they didn't have a clue about how natural selection works and/or they wanted to ensure no-one else did? I find the obsession intriguing, --and the obsessed are fun to talk about even if it's impossible to engage in dialogue with them.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by articulett

Information begets better information assimilators, replicators, and mutators... data used to build computers begets better computers that assimilate, replicate and mutate (tweak) more and better data which begets better....

DNA is information in a code and operates the same. Information either gets passed on with the chance to evolve into the future-- or it dies out.

All the atoms that build complex things were around long before the complex things were... it takes time for the information to evolve-- and that does not happen "randomly". This is true whether we are talking living things, technology, science, languages, etc.

That probably isn't the right comparison. The control systems that Im talking about are mathematical constructs that can take on many different form. This includes chemical, electrical, and mechanical. It doesn't necessairly have to be directly related to programing. It is very weird because I learned that integrators give zero steady state error in a stable system but how that intergrator is created is irelevant. And you were right. This isn't new. The concept that evolution tends to keep favorable mutations is in this paper which is a year old.
http://www.hamilton.ie/systemsbiolog...emsBiology.pdf

Quote:

Technoextreme: Yes, evolution is incredibly complicated and those wishing to dismiss the question of how the process functions as trivial or just semantics remind me of an Einstein quote which I shall paraphrase: “Always make things as simple as possible, but not more so.”

Oooo for christ's sake I just read that quote on a system's biology presentation. Though the definition of complicated is a bit odd here. Bang-bang controllers are the simplest types of controller available. Effectively the proteins are either fixing or not fixing themselves.
http://webber.physik.uni-freiburg.de..._vorlesung.pdf

[articulett]

Well...it's off topic, but all the atoms that existed in your computer existed for eons, right? but they couldn't come together and make your computer in the past. Why not? Various information systems had to evolve. They did not have to evolve to make your computer... but information has to evolve to make better "information processors"... just as DNA has to evolve to make better "DNA processors" (copiers/assimilators/tweakers/recombiners etc.)

Or Languages... they evolve from the bottom up (not Tower of Babel style) and when assorted languages come together via a blending of cultures or the alterations of youth culture, then they start to evolve together... the stuff that people write and say and utilize gets copied and morphs into the language of the future, and the other stuff becomes obsolete.

Information HAS to code for better information processors... technology has to get "better" (more memory, gigabytes, RAM, etc.)... it can't go "backwards"... it's not "random", it's the only way information CAN get passed on. The only way a branch on a tree can grow is up or out.

If any stretch of DNA does not have what it takes to build an organism that can get it copied... it dies out... the only surviving DNA is the DNA that is best at getting itself copied. If a stretch of DNA is better at getting itself copied by being prone to mutation (by coding for beneficial variety for example) it will be copied preferentially including whatever it is that makes it mutable; whereas a piece of code that makes a key protein or needs to be a certain shape or distance for optimal functioning of replicators will find itself preferentially multiplied in organisms that evolve mechanisms to "conserve" it.

It's just the logical extrapolation of the "selfish gene" or "selfish meme". In this way, information systems are very different than normal physical systems-- because it's the information that evolves-- the products or creatures they code for "die out"--but the successful information is copied exponentially in direct relation to how well the team it's on (genome) builds replicators (organsms)--and evolves.

If someone is bent on calling natural selection "random", how can they even begin to grasp this information that is so essential for understanding how wondrous complex "things" come to be?

How cool is it to live in a time when we can understand this? In the past we had to relegate such mysteries to god, but now we can untangle them by working backwards. Future generations could have no knowledge of how the internet came to be-- past generations would surely think it was magical and miraculous... but all complexity... all emergent properties... they all work by the same basic "evolutionary" algorithm. Information that is best at getting copied, evolves--whether viruses, computer viruses, the Internet --or life. If it doesn't, it stops existing.

I am disgusted with those who think it does justice to call this "random". To me they sound like they haven't got the first clue about the process. They could learn and teach this information to others, but their need to "win" their semantic game makes them obfuscatory clowns.

[articulett]

Sickle Cell trait is a mutation that makes cells prone to an irregular shape which has a survival advantage in regions where Malaria is popular... Heterozygotes have about half of their cells which have this trait, and it doesn't have any disadvantage, but when an offspring inherits two copies of the gene... the shape of the blood cells makes them prone to clotting disorders, infarctions, and infections. They inherit the disease from ancestors who preferentially survived in Malaria prone regions due to having Sickle Cell trait. The protection of heterozygotes and the disease in homozygotes is directly related to the shape of blood cells... but all genes code for proteins and all proteins have "shapes" -- so physics can't help but be intimately involved with genetics... and evolution...

A genome has been compared to musical notes... the 4 base pairs are responsible for all the forms of life just as 8 basic notes are responsible for all of music-- and it's all based on physics at the most basic of levels. Even first life (abiogenesis) has a strong physics and is thought to do with minerals that stick together when water washes over rocks... and the physical properties of water molecules and carbon. The thing that makes life different from other physical properties is that it's information that "gets itself" copied by building information copiers. It's information that evolves--not the specific animal or product they code for--those are just "snapshots". You will die the same species you are born as... but parts of your DNA can be part of what evolves with time.

So even though physics is involved... it's important to distinguish the difference-- because classical physics does not involve copying information so that more "refined" physical specimens can inhabit the future. Information can be considered the directions for building "things"--physics deals with the things themselves. Yes, the code is also "physical"-- that is true for my writing here and it's true for DNA. But don't confuse the code for what it coding for. (The notes are not the music). I can physically change a recipe (the code) which will change the product it codes for. But it's the product that determines whether the code is passed on... and to what extent. Information, in a sense, is always competing to make itself more likely to be copied.

I agree with what you are saying technoextreme... I'm just trying to bypass the nuttery of those who'd call this "random". And I wanted to acknowledge your pdf.

From a physics perspective, "life" is more or less defined as "that which locally pumps away entropy" (at least if we treat machines as extensions of the life forms that built them). Information allows us to assemble matter in increasingly "complex" ways before entropy destroys the individual forms the information passes through.

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

With that definition, yes - evolution is a stochastic process (note that that is not quite the same thing as saying "evolution is stochastic"). I'd be surprised if anyone here disagrees with that, given that definition.

I didn't see anyone say that mijo was stupid (other than you). Anyway, mijo wasn't saying "evolution is a stochastic process" - he was saying "evolution is random", and justifying that with a very stupid definition of random, one which coincides with no one else's. I can't think of any reasons for him to keep insisting on that other than a) he has an agenda and wants to make evolution sound like something it's not, or b) he's incredibly stubborn and can't admit when he's wrong.

So what is your definition of stochastic where it wouldn’t apply to evolution? And I certainly never said mijo was stupid. As to his hidden agenda, what are you proposing? The Cognoscenti Cabal I mentioned in my last post? Is there no possibility you and a few others here might be wrong?

Originally Posted by sol invictus

No one said that either. The mistake is thinking it must be one or the other. Is a red and white shirt red? Is it white?

Afraid this is an over-simplification.

Quote:

Why, after carefully defining "stochastic" the way you did, are you asking that? And why are you conflating it with "random"?

I'm not conflating them; others have here, repeatedly, so I was replying in kind.

Quote:

Were you aware that most smoke detectors rely on the decay of a radioactive substance to function? What could be more random than when a radioactive atom decays... so are smoke detectors random?

No, I wasn’t aware of that, but radioactive decay as a process is of course random though the detectors that employ it are not.

Quote:

“Selection is a process that produces differences in the probability of changes of allele frequencies. Selection is not that change in allele frequencies itself. Thatīs crucial, because a change in allele frequencies is not in itself evidence of selection."-Susu.exp

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Two questions occur to me. One is whether you have a point, and the other is whether you are familiar with the phrase "word salad".

Yep to both; my point is that if mutation is random, how can it result in a deterministic evolution? As to word salad, it's a term generally employed by the effably inadequate.

Originally Posted by Marios

Originally Posted by genoray

If a neutral mutation occurs in the genome that in effect has no positive or negative effect then I would say that it is "invisible" to a NS filter. The idea of the filter can only work on something that gives benefit or is detriment to survival and reproduction.

That's where Nearly Neutral evolution comes in (scoot back and have a look at susu's graph/equationsre: sickle-cell anaemia). That's a nice exposition of how you won't have a clear grasp of selection without modeling it fully as a stochastic process.

Beyond that, you've got a problem in any situation where selection pressures aren't static (i.e. almost nontrivial models) - selection pressures will depend on other species genepools (coevolution), the abiotic environment (which can only be approximated as a deterministic variable if it's very, very nearly static) and the species own genepool (frequency-dependent selection). Pretty much everything beyond GCSE evolution requires a grasp of how stochasticity will change/destroy the equilibria found in a simplified deterministic model. Science relies on being able to treat real-world problems with simplified models, but beyond a trivial level you're expected to grasp that these are simplifications and be able to explain when they are justifiable simplifications and when they might be ignoring significant phenomena.

Marios

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Yep to both; my point is that if mutation is random, how can it result in a deterministic evolution? As to word salad, it's a term generally employed by the effably inadequate.

It sounds like you are at the point that mijo was many, many, many posts ago.
You are assuming that biologists think that evolution is deterministic, i.e. a specific mutation will always result in a specific change in a species. This is wrong.
You are assuming that mutation is random. This is almost correct but there are exceptions. Dr Adequate should be able to give you a more comprehensive answer.
You are asuming that evolution is mutation alone. This is wrong since there is also natural selection.

So the answer to your question is:
If mutation is random then natural selection results in a predictive (but not deterministic) evolution.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by articulett

Well...it's off topic, but all the atoms that existed in your computer existed for eons, right? but they couldn't come together and make your computer in the past. Why not? Various information systems had to evolve. They did not have to evolve to make your computer... but information has to evolve to make better "information processors"... just as DNA has to evolve to make better "DNA processors" (copiers/assimilators/tweakers/recombiners etc.)

It might be off-topic, but its damned interesting!

[articulett]

Thanks six7s, I'm glad someone thinks so.

(Surely I'm not the only geek around.)

[six7s]

Originally Posted by articulett

... technology has to get "better" (more memory, gigabytes, RAM, etc.)... it can't go "backwards"...

Tell that to the poor suckers who 'upgraded' from Windoze XP to Vista

[my_wan]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Yes, evolution is a random process: http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

Basically, Evolution = NS(RM, OS)

where NS (ie. Natural Selection) is a non-trivial function and is not random, RM is random mutations and is random, and OS is other stuff, some random, and some that is not random.

That is, following Dawkins and many others, evolution is the non-random selection of random variation.

In probability theory, it is known that if X is a random variable, then for a non-trivial function f, f(X) is a random variable.

This topic has been put to rest literally decades ago.

When a pool cue hits another ball is the angle and speed the other ball recoils random? No. Air molecules work essentially the same way. Yet we say that the individual speed and angles of the molecules are completely random. Why? Not because they are but because randomness describes what happens just as well as if we measure the mass, direction, and speed of every molecule of air. Randomness only defines the information about cause that we don't have, or need to know, to get the right answers. Randomness is not a thing in itself.

Saying evolution couldn't have happened all by accident is like saying that temperature couldn't have been an accident of all those different speeds of air molecules, very few of which are actually the right mass and speed to get that temperature. If you have the odds against a molecular interaction of 1 in 1x10^100...1000 what does that really mean? When we say your odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 175,711,536 does that mean it's impossible for anybody to win the lottery in your lifetime? The same applies to abiogenesis odds. With countless many individual interactions you have to multiply that by all the molecules on Earth, times the number of times per hour, day, year, billion years, etc. The longer the time the better those odds get. Then you have to consider that there are probably as many planets in this Universe as your given odds. That makes it essentially certain to happen no matter how big you make the odds against it.

So irrespective of your post being technically correct the very meaning (as in thing) generally attached to the term random is bogus.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

So what is your definition of stochastic where it wouldn’t apply to evolution?

I'm happy with the one you gave. But the point that mijo (and you, it appears) was unable or unwilling to grasp is that short statements like "evolution is random" are almost useless, because evolution is a term that describes a huge set of extremely complex and varied phenomena and processes that takes place over enormous span of time. If you want one word to apply to all of that, it needs to be so general as to be almost meaningless.

Quote:

And I certainly never said mijo was stupid.

You attributed that statement to posters here, when none had made it. You need to read more carefully.

Quote:

Is there no possibility you and a few others here might be wrong?

About this? No, not really - at worst we'd be not even right. These kind of semantic questions are too empty and useless to be truly wrong or right about.

Quote:

Afraid this is an over-simplification.

You consider that to be an over-simplification, but not statements like "evolution is stochastic"? How completely absurd.

Quote:

No, I wasn’t aware of that, but radioactive decay as a process is of course random though the detectors that employ it are not.

So you believe that a process which relies in a fundamentally important way on random events but which produces outcomes which are highly predictable in some aspects is "not random"?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by articulett

Or Languages... they evolve from the bottom up (not Tower of Babel style) and when assorted languages come together via a blending of cultures or the alterations of youth culture, then they start to evolve together... the stuff that people write and say and utilize gets copied and morphs into the language of the future, and the other stuff becomes obsolete.

I'm pretty sure most linguists are convinced that all languages have evolved from a single ancestor language and have diversified. You are right that many languages are disappearing and languages are blending and there is a trend for towards a common second language for all people (which doubtlessly will be English), but the opposite trend is also occurring: increasing technological specialisation requires people to speak increasingly in specialised jargon, and there is also an increasing number of communities speaking in artificial languages (such as Klingon or Quenya).

Quote:

Information HAS to code for better information processors... technology has to get "better" (more memory, gigabytes, RAM, etc.)... it can't go "backwards"... it's not "random",

It is however "Intelligent Design". Perhaps you are right if you mean to say that some form of "Intelligent Design" is likely to evolve as it would be a better "information copier".

Quote:

If someone is bent on calling natural selection "random",

Perhaps you have noticed that there are people who have called evolution "random", but far fewer have called natural selection "random".

Quote:

how can they even begin to grasp this information that is so essential for understanding how wondrous complex "things" come to be?

IMHO the wondrous thing about evolution isn't its complexity. A scrapheap is complex, but just a dump. The wondrous thing about evolution is that it produces things that seem highly ordered. "Randomness" is I think essential in understanding how this came to be, because random things become highly ordered and predictable on a larger scale or over a longer time.

Quote:

I am disgusted with those who think it does justice to call this "random".

Perhaps you get disgusted too easily.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by articulett

From a physics perspective, "life" is more or less defined as "that which locally pumps away entropy" (at least if we treat machines as extensions of the life forms that built them).

May I suggest you present this definition in this thread? It is probably the best I have heard.

[GreyICE]

I would agree with the statement that natural selection is stochastic (stochastic - a system that is governed by both predictable processes (survival of the fittest, et al) and unpredictable, chaotic processes (mutation).

I would disagree with the statement that evolution is random.

Dunno about the Dawkins debate, sounds to me that someone smashed his face in an indefensible position, flailed about for a while, retreated to a defensible position, decided to claim that he was at said defensible position for the entire time, annoyed everyone who wanted to talk to him, and then claimed internet victory. Reading it, it seems to be full of the worst sort of nonsense.

Also, articulett has the same avatar on both forums. Since that saves me paragraphs of pain, I nominate it as a public service.

[TraneWreck]

Why would you argue about evolution in these terms? It seems like you would want to know whether ANYTHING was determined or stochastic before you started applying those terms to specific systems.

It isn't clear to me that there is any instance of "randomness" in the universe. I know people point to quantum theory, but the link between quantum indeterminacy and the sort of macro-scale abitrary events suggested by the opening question are dubious at best. And further, much of quantum theory involves a sort of "black-box" mathematical understanding where we can very accurately predict results without understanding the causal mechanism. This seems less like a proof of randomness than a mystery beyond our current abilities. To apply it to evolution is a massive leap of judgment.

This discussion seems like nothing more than an intellectual sounding smear against evolution. If the universe as a whole is deterministic, then so is evolution. If you can prove it isn't, then maybe we have something to discuss.