Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[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?). 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:
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:
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).