What's with the label "creationist"?

[mijopaalmc]

I see it being misapplied all over the place here.

Granted, I did not introduce myself on the best of terms here by asking questions that made me sound like creationist. However, it seems that more and more the label "creationist" (like the label "religious apologist" in threads discussing the "religion is child abuse" meme) is being used to cover up the accusers ignorance of the subject at hand and unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints.

For instance there are at least three reviews that detail research going back to the 1920's on the modeling of evolution as a stochastic process:


Diffusion Models in Population Genetics*
Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology
Stochastic Models of Evolution in Genetics, Ecology and Linguistics

I think that it is unfortunate that thus far, after having read these articles (which most people who have addressed me on the forum don't seem to do), people can't see that there is some valid scientific evidence for viewing evolution in terms of probability. While such a view can be summed up in the word "random", it seems to cause ore problem that the succinctness is worth.

In other words, why does there seem to be such an antipathy to the description of evolution as a "stochastic process" that the topic can't be discussed without seeking to discredit its supporters as "creationists"?

I am willing to entertain other ideas besides the ever-popular "they're just doing it because they disagree with or want to remain ignorant of what I'm saying" trope to which I have already referred.

*I'm sorry but this article is not available on line for free. It is nonetheless worth the effort accessing because it shows that, even in the 1960's, scientists had no problem examining evolution as a stochastic process.

 

[strathmeyer]

Which of those articles describe evolution as a stochastic process?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Which of those articles describe evolution as a stochastic process?

Why don you actually read them before you ask that question?

I find it hard to believe hard to believe that you able to read approximately 100 pages in the ten minute between the OP and your post.

 

[Dumbledore]

While evolution is merely a theory, it is a scientific theory for which there is overwhelming evidence for. Further more just because a theory has random elements and works on probability does not mean that the theory is not vaild In other words the use of probability and random variables does not make a theory based on randomness. Quantum physics use probability to a great extent and yet I have never heard quantum theory described as a random theory that is some how invalid. I think that the majority of people in the forum react to evolution being described as a stochastic process because creationist seek to discredit evolution as a theory of randomness and some how invalid because of this randomness with out really having any real understanding of evolution, probability, random variables, and their mutual meanings and uses.

 

[madurobob]

Wow - there is a lot to digest there. I skimmed over the data in the two links, stopping to read details occasionally.

I'm no biologist - not even close. plus, I should probably scour the forums for your other posts before I post here, but I'm too lazy . You say "people can't see that there is some valid scientific evidence for viewing evolution in terms of probability"

huh? I've never been in a conversation about evolution that didn't hit on probability at some point. I don't think anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution would disagree that probability plays a big role, as does the general random nature of mutation.

But, just because mutation occur randomly it does not follow that evolution is a random process. To quote the second article you link: "Randomness of mutations does not mean, however, that the evolution of a population is totally arbitrary"

Of course not. The key to evolution is natural selection of the most viable of the mutations. This is certainly not random/stochastic. Can you explain what you mean by "evolution as a stochastic process"?

 

[balrog666]

In other words, why does there seem to be such an antipathy to the description of evolution as a "stochastic process" that the topic can't be discussed without seeking to discredit its supporters as "creationists"?

What insight does it bring to bear on describing the theory of evolution? Particularly with those who don't understand the terms "stochastic", "random", or even "evolution"?

 

[andyandy]

isn't this just a "depends how you define random" kind of debates?

mutations can be random, and yet their spread amongst the population won't be random - governed as it is by selection pressures...

population modelling is pretty fascinating....

STOCHASTIC EVOLUTION OF A SINGLE LOCUS IN HAPLOID POPULATION: AN ANALYTIC REVIEW AND APPLICATIONS TO VIROLOGY.

Rouzine IM, Coffin JM.

Program Abstr HIV DRP Symp Underst Antivir Drug Resist 1st 2000 Chantilly Va. 2000 Dec 3-6; 1: Abstract no. 71.
Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Tufts University, Boston, MA

A broad range of problems of population genetics is analyzed with a view to virological applications, such as the growth competition assay and fixation of advantageous alleles in vitro, and evolution of HIV within and between infected patients. We start from a simplest population model including random drift as represented by a finite population size, N; purifying selection (selection coefficient, s) and mutations (mutation rate, mu). Evolutionary behavior of the mutant frequency is analyzed using the stochastic equation of diffusion (Wright-Fisher) type and the Monte-Carlo simulation. We predict quantitatively the time-dependent probability density of the mutant frequency, as well as the relevant expectation value and variance. We show that evolution becomes almost deterministic at very large population sizes, N >> 1/mu, while smallest populations, N << 1/s, exhibit "neutral" behavior. In the intermediate, broad interval, 1/mu << N << 1/s, termed the selection-drift regime, weakly polymorphic populations behave essentially randomly, while highly polymorphic populations exhibit almost deterministic behavior. Based on these findings, we suggest that most of biological species may evolve while in the selection-drift regime, in which case the average fixation speed of new advantageous mutations depends on both selection and random drift. For HIV in vivo, using several two-locus population models, we applied a specially designed linkage disequilibrium test to show that an effective HIV population, in a typical untreated patient, is larger than 1/mu ~ 10(5) infected cells, i.e., either at the border or within the deterministic regime (Rouzine and Coffin, 1999, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:10758-10763). We also studied different models of random sampling during transmission between patients to show that the observed high level of genetic diversity in the pro gene is, most likely, due to strong differences in the best-fit sequence between individuals, 16%. Such a strong difference is consistent with cytotoxic immune response combined with co-selection (epistasis) (Rouzine and Coffin, 1999, J. Virol. 73:8167-8178).

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102249563.html

 

[Par]

Why don you actually read them before you ask that question?

Imagine walking into a library, asking “Which of these books discuss the Jacobean ruff?” and having the librarian reply “Why don’t you actually read them before you ask that question?” You’d probably think them somewhat unreasonable, wouldn’t you?

 

[strathmeyer]

Why don you actually read them before you ask that question?

I find it hard to believe hard to believe that you able to read approximately 100 pages in the ten minute between the OP and your post.

It's called skimming. I don't need to read a whole book about auto mechanics to learn it contains nothing about astrophysics. I noticed it contained the word you were using, but not to the same conclusion you were bringing it. I was trying to get an understanding for how you came to your conclusion, so I asked you a question. You refused to answer it and instead made fun of me. I can only conclude that you have no interests in exchanging ideas and are just trolling.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Imagine walking into a library, asking “Which of these books discuss the Jacobean ruff?” and having the librarian reply “Why don’t you actually read them before you ask that question?” You’d probably think them somewhat unreasonable, wouldn’t you?

I just provided him with two easily accessible reviews on the subject. Granted, it would take some reading to discover how exactly evolution is a stochastic process, but it is in each of the articles every bit of which are about how evolution is a stochastic process. In other words, if one were to read the reviews I posted and possibly look up the word "stochastic", it would be rather self-explanatory which parts of which articles said that evolution was a stochastic process.

Honestly, I find this a very aggravating comment because when someone comes and asks a question, any question, about evolution they are invariably referred to talkorigins.org, which while it is a good source of all things evolutionary, it contains a great deal of information that may be irrelevant to the topic at hand. Furthermore, I have also seen people post links to specific sites and expect the support of their point to be self-evident. The most frustrating thing about the particular post in question was that it was posted 10 minutes after the OP, making it painfully obvious that the poster had read none of the reviews that had been posted and seemingly couldn't even figure out from the title which ones might possibly being calling evolution a stochastic process.

In essence, what I said was in no way analogous to a librarian telling you to "read the books yourself" after your walking into the library. I had done the preliminary research myself (yes, I have read all of the reviews I posted) and was presenting my findings. It is in fact more like a librarian telling you to read a book that he/she found on the shelf for you.

Please try to get your analogies right before your criticize me for being stand-offish.

 

[Dumbledore]

Correct me if I am wrong but the original point of your thread seem to be challenge the creationist label that is incurred when one points out that the evolutionary theory can be viewed as an stochastic process. So to openly criticize someone who is asking a question about your posts at the beginning of the thread seems to undermine the whole idea of openly and frankly discussing the evolutionary theory with no labeling or name calling. In short begin so quick to criticize leaves yourself quite open to quick criticism.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Correct me if I am wrong but the original point of your thread seem to be challenge the creationist label that is incurred when one points out that the evolutionary theory can be viewed as an stochastic process. So to openly criticize someone who is asking a question about your posts at the beginning of the thread seems to undermine the whole idea of openly and frankly discussing the evolutionary theory with no labeling or name calling. In short begin so quick to criticize leaves yourself quite open to quick criticism.

Again, it is really difficult for me to believe that anyone who seriously considered the reviews that I listed would truly ask that question because they simply didn't understand the information provided. For instance, while Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology does list a series of limitations that model they examine has, it uses the word "stochastic" 7 times in the table on contents and 45 times in the 33 pages of actual text. It uses the phrase "stochastic process" only once but describe one of the modeling runs.

I guess my major problem is that pointing out that some big names in evolutionary biology (here, I'm thinking of Sewall Wright and Motoo Kimura) have had no trouble assuming that evolution is a stochastic process in order to model it gets me labeled a creationist. Furthermore, people don't even consider that I might not be misinterpreting what has been said about the stochastic modeling of evolution by natural selection but instead refuse to point out where I might be misinterpreting it.

strathmeyer, if you are still paying attention to this thread, I would appreciate and explanation of how you feel the sources I posted do not support the idea that evolution y natural selection is a stochastic process.

 

[Foster Zygote]

huh? I've never been in a conversation about evolution that didn't hit on probability at some point. I don't think anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution would disagree that probability plays a big role, as does the general random nature of mutation.

But, just because mutation occur randomly it does not follow that evolution is a random process. To quote the second article you link: "Randomness of mutations does not mean, however, that the evolution of a population is totally arbitrary"

Welcome madurobob. Well said.

Can you explain what you mean by "evolution as a stochastic process"?

You'll have fun with T'ai Chi, until he puts you on 'ignore'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Imagine walking into a library, asking “Which of these books discuss the Jacobean ruff?” and having the librarian reply “Why don’t you actually read them before you ask that question?” You’d probably think them somewhat unreasonable, wouldn’t you?

In defense of mijo, he posted "at least three reviews that detail research going back to the 1920's on the modeling of evolution as a stochastic process" and linked to the articles. Then he was asked which one of the three, "describe evolution as a stochastic process?"

Speaking as someone who goes to a lot of effort to present supporting links to things I discuss, it gets tiring to put all that out there only to have someone reply with, "spoon feed me, I can't be bothered to open a link."

Usually all you have to do is open a link an read an abstract or as was mentioned, skim it. But in this case it's even worse. It would seem neither you nor strathmeyer even read mijo's post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
In other words, why does there seem to be such an antipathy to the description of evolution as a "stochastic process" that the topic can't be discussed without seeking to discredit its supporters as "creationists"?...

OK, I am really confused here. It was my understanding that the Creationists were the ones claiming random processes couldn't give rise to new species, therefore the theory of evolution fails. Not enough time, mutations are bad, all that sort of shortsighted reasoning.

Personally, I don't see the significance of random vs nonrandom in terms of evolution theory's validity - the processes are what they are. It doesn't mean the theory can't explain how we came to be regardless of how, in the end, the mechanisms of natural selection pressures are determined to work.

OTOH, we recently discussed this after some new revelations about built in genetic variability and robustness (meaning the genetic combinations work with a lot of tolerance for multiple nucleic acid substitutions.) The variability comes first via random processes. And when selection pressures affect the organism, the mutation needed to compensate already exists. So selection pressures can eliminate or amplify various genetic sequences, but via random mutations those sequences are accumulating in the species genome at a fairly steady rate.

Rapidly reproducing organisms have the luxury of hoping for a new genetic mutation which will survive a destructive selection pressure. And even those organisms have broad genomic variability. But slowly reproducing organisms would be hard pressed to birth children with genetic mutations in sufficient numbers to survive a threat such as a new infectious disease. So logic alone is enough to suggest the mutations have to already exist which survive a selection pressure.

I think anything written before this paradigm shift isn't likely to be valid.

And as that mutation survives, we see that mutation then amplified in the species genome. This has happened in recorded history with the introduction of novel organisms into inexperienced populations. TB and measles still have a more virulent pattern among Native Americans and Pacific Islanders because they were introduced into that population much later than in Asian, European and African populations. (The organisms may have reached the Americas but only in small numbers prior to the European invasions in the middle ages.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's called skimming. I don't need to read a whole book about auto mechanics to learn it contains nothing about astrophysics. I noticed it contained the word you were using, but not to the same conclusion you were bringing it. I was trying to get an understanding for how you came to your conclusion, so I asked you a question. You refused to answer it and instead made fun of me. I can only conclude that you have no interests in exchanging ideas and are just trolling.

Strath, taking you at your word here that you looked at the articles and didn't find they supported mijo's statement, the way you asked your question really lent itself to mis-interpretation. So instead of blaming mijo, and now that you have explained, maybe mijo can reassess your post as well, it seems to me you started it by an obtuse comment. You asked which of the articles included something that was actually in the article titles. Maybe you mean to say something like the articles discussed but concluded against ...or it wasn't clearly in support of ..... It really wasn't clear that's what you were saying if you were.

But neither of you needs to continue in a twit. Just accept a mis-communication on everyone's part and start over.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the second article,

We show that the leading factors and observable behavior of evolution differ significantly in three broad intervals of population size, N. The "neutral limit" is reached when N is smaller than the inverse selection coefficient. When N is larger than the inverse mutation rate per base, selection dominates and evolution is "almost" deterministic. If the selection coefficient is much larger than the mutation rate, there exists a broad interval of population sizes, in which weakly diverse populations are almost neutral while highly diverse populations are controlled by selection pressure. We discuss in detail the application of our results to human immunodeficiency virus population in vivo, sampling effects, and limitations of the model.

This is where the discussion level leaves the lay population until it is translated into lay language. They are proposing a mathematical model of the same thing I said 2 posts up in a verbal rather than mathematical language.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong because despite having quite decent math skills, I think in English.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think we should stick to the more traditional labels of US and THEM.

 

[Hokulele]

I think we should stick to the more traditional labels of US and THEM.

Based on threads like this, I have no idea which THEM I belong to.

 

[strathmeyer]

Again, it is really difficult for me to believe that anyone who seriously considered the reviews that I listed would truly ask that question because they simply didn't understand the information provided. For instance, while Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology does list a series of limitations that model they examine has, it uses the word "stochastic" 7 times in the table on contents and 45 times in the 33 pages of actual text. It uses the phrase "stochastic process" only once but describe one of the modeling runs.

I guess my major problem is that pointing out that some big names in evolutionary biology (here, I'm thinking of Sewall Wright and Motoo Kimura) have had no trouble assuming that evolution is a stochastic process in order to model it gets me labeled a creationist. Furthermore, people don't even consider that I might not be misinterpreting what has been said about the stochastic modeling of evolution by natural selection but instead refuse to point out where I might be misinterpreting it.

strathmeyer, if you are still paying attention to this thread, I would appreciate and explanation of how you feel the sources I posted do not support the idea that evolution y natural selection is a stochastic process.

Ah, I see, the articles contain one of the same words as your conclusion, so your conclusion must be correct.

We cannot refuse to point out where you are misinterpreting something when you refuse to answer simple questions about your ideas.