Evolution: Non-Random Process?

[P-Dunn]

I haven’t done very much research about science. I don’t know whether I believe the earth is 6000 years old or 4.2 billion years old. I don’t know whether I believe evolution or not. I would definitely appreciate it if someone who’s more acquainted with evolution would clarify this issue for me.

I recently watched the Richard Dawkins interview on The Colbert Report concerning his new book, The God Delusion. This segment was very entertaining, as always. But Dawkins said something interesting that I took issue with. Perhaps it was due to my own misunderstanding.


“But you mustn't say that it's all due to random chance. That's the one thing it isn't, because Darwinian natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance. It's a highly non-random process. The big thing that everybody misunderstands about Darwinism is that they think it's chance, they think it's an accident. It's not an accident.”

Really?

The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs. When I heard him say that, it was like he was admitting someone deciding evolution. This is obviously not a sort of thing that Dawkins would admit, because he’s an atheist. It seems like he’s treating Darwinism as some sort of conscious entity that knows what it is doing.

How can it not be an accident? The whole theory is about mutations that happen over long periods of time. If it’s not by accident, then he would be saying that something is purposefully causing those mutations to happen.

Thanks for clarifying this issue for me!

[jason]

It really depends what you mean. Dawkins is being a little bit misleading here (what else is new ?).

The normal mechanism of the sort of evolution that Dawkins is refereing too operates on the coupling of random mutations with the filter of natural selection.

Where natural selection sifts out the members of a population that are "the fittest" where fittest means success in reproduction. Small variations in a population allow the sifting mechanism of natural selection to allow the more successfully reproducing aniamls to become more numerous and replace their less fit predecessors.

The raw material for the filter of natural selection is random changes in the gene pool that selection can then act upon.

So in terms of it being "random" or "not random", in a sense it is a bit of both.

Natural Selection acts on the variations in the "landscape" of the population to push the genetic makeup of a species towards locally optimal peaks. If that makes sense. Imagine all of the genetic diversity in a species and think of better reproducing as a higher peak. Natural Selection is a function that seeks these peaks in effect.

BUt the distribution of the peaks and variations in the heights of the peaks is itself random, although the sifting does work non-randomly to work towards local peaks in its genetic geography.

Jason

[Iasion]

Greetings,


I haven’t done very much research about science. I don’t know whether I believe the earth is 6000 years old or 4.2 billion years old. I don’t know whether I believe evolution or not. I would definitely appreciate it if someone who’s more acquainted with evolution would clarify this issue for me.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming -
* the earth is about 4.3 billion years old.
* evolution is happening still, we observe it



Really?
The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs.

No.

Creationists try to pretend evolution is TOTALLY random - they often use the tornado in a junkyard producing a 747 as an example of a random process (which they think shows evolution wrong - it does not.)

Yes, a PART of evolution is random, and other parts are NON-RANDOM most importantly - selection, which is the opposite of random.

Selection is a non-random process - it favours creatures which are better at reproducing.

But,
non-random does NOT mean a "purpose".

It does NOT mean something or something behind the scenes guiding things.

Consider shaking a box of cereal - the smallest grains end up at the bottom, medium sized in the middle and the biggest pieces end up at the top, all nicely sorted by size.

This is a NON-RANDOM process - the pieces are SORTED, small to large, just by shaking the box.

Was there a purpose?
No.

Was there something or someone behind the scenes secretly sorting the pieces?
No.

It is simply the NON-RANDOM laws of nature giving this result.


When I heard him say that, it was like he was admitting someone deciding evolution. This is obviously not a sort of thing that Dawkins would admit, because he’s an atheist. It seems like he’s treating Darwinism as some sort of conscious entity that knows what it is doing.

No.
It simply means SELECTION is NON-random. There are many NON-random processes in nature, I gave one above.

But that has nothing to do with requiring an entity - no entity is required to magically sort that cereal - it's just the laws of nature acting in non-random (regular) ways.



How can it not be an accident?

What "accident"?
There is no "accident" in evolution.



The whole theory is about mutations that happen over long periods of time.

Wrong.
That is where creationists always go wrong - they think evolution is WHOLLY about random mutations.

No,
it is not "wholly" about mutations. Mutations are simply ONE small part - then we have SELECTION which is NON-RANDOM - it selects for creatures which reproduce more.

No entity is required to make sure that more of the creatures which are better at reproducing survive - it's just the laws of nature producing this non-random result.

That's what drives evolution - some creatures are better able to survive and have babies. Which ever type of creature has more babies will tend to dominate the population - a pretty simple concept.



If it’s not by accident, then he would be saying that something is purposefully causing those mutations to happen. Thanks for clarifying this issue for me!

There is no "accident".
Mutations are random - they happen all the time. No-one CAUSES them at all. Evryone one of us has a few (I think a few dozen mutations per generation, mostly all doing nothing.)

But,
sometimes, a mutation helps a creature to survive better and have MORE BABIES - over time there will be more of these sorts of creature, obviously. That is SELECTION, the non-random part of evolution.

A thought experiment :
Let's suppose black-haired people started having 3 times as many babies as people with other colour hair (for some reason, it's not important)

I am sure you can see that about a generation after that started happening, that the proportion of black haired childen would be 3 times as much as it used to be, right?

And after a century or 3, almost everyone would have black hair, right?


That's how evolution is driven - most mutations do nothing, nothing happens to the creature. Many mutations are bad - the creature dies, the mutation stops there.

But SOME mutations help the creature to be able to have more babies - so obviously THAT mutation will INCREASE in the population.

That's all there really is to it - I hope that helped.


Iasion

[technomage]

The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs.

This is a fundamental error--non-random, non-directed events happen all the time. Water flows down, not in random directions. Weather events on earth occur in recognizable patterns. As Iason notes, selection is explicitly non-random: however, that does not indicate "direction." It indicates that selection is a specific criteria. For my part, I believe that evolution is directed by God, but that is solely a faith-based conclusion on my part: there is no evidence for it, only faith.

However, I will state that implying that Dawkins is somehow acknowledging some higher power in action is most mendacious of you. :shrug: That's your choice, bu it certainly seems like deception to me ... and to the best of my understanding, deception is supposed to be something that Christians eschew.

[HRG_new]

I haven’t done very much research about science. I don’t know whether I believe the earth is 6000 years old or 4.2 billion years old. I don’t know whether I believe evolution or not. I would definitely appreciate it if someone who’s more acquainted with evolution would clarify this issue for me.

I recently watched the Richard Dawkins interview on The Colbert Report concerning his new book, The God Delusion. This segment was very entertaining, as always. But Dawkins said something interesting that I took issue with. Perhaps it was due to my own misunderstanding.



Really?

The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs.

That would be animism, the view that there are minds behind the regular processes of nature. Trees need dryads to grow, and springs need naiads to flow. I'd have thought we left this thinking mode behind.

The prototype of non-random motion are the planetary orbits. But we don't think that there is a purpose or a desired outcome behind them, do we ?

The opposite of "purely random" is not "purpose", but "not purely random".


When I heard him say that, it was like he was admitting someone deciding evolution. This is obviously not a sort of thing that Dawkins would admit, because he’s an atheist. It seems like he’s treating Darwinism as some sort of conscious entity that knows what it is doing.

Not at all - no more than someone decides that a river should take a particular course downwards. It is definitely non-random that water doesn't flow upwards :)


How can it not be an accident? The whole theory is about mutations that happen over long periods of time.

No it isn't. The "whole theory" is about mutation and selection.



If it’s not by accident, then he would be saying that something is purposefully causing those mutations to happen.

The mutations happen by "accident" (more correctly: events not correlated with the life-form itself). However, the selection between different variants is definitely non-random. It is not an accident that bears with a whitish fur survive and reproduce better in the Arctic.

[FreezBee]

The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs. When I heard him say that, it was like he was admitting someone deciding evolution. This is obviously not a sort of thing that Dawkins would admit, because he’s an atheist. It seems like he’s treating Darwinism as some sort of conscious entity that knows what it is doing.

How can it not be an accident? The whole theory is about mutations that happen over long periods of time. If it’s not by accident, then he would be saying that something is purposefully causing those mutations to happen.


Hi P-Dunn;

As jason points out, Dawkins is using the word "random" in a way that may be misleading.

But let's look at an example. I trust that you are familiar with Biston betularia, the peppered moth. There are two (actually three, but who's counting?) variations of this moth: a light and a dark one. In 1848, 98% of the B. betularia in the Manchester area were light, and only 2% were dark. In 1896, 5% were light, and 95% were dark. Explanation: the moths were resting on birch trees (there are some uncertainty regaring how many exactly where on the trees, but that's a minor point) that usually were white-colored due to lichens; but with increasing industrial soothing during the 19th century, the tree became darker.

Birds feed on the moths and of course first pick on those that are easiest to spot. That is non-random selection, because there is an uneven probability.

So, you can have non-randomness without having any design. It's just that in the ID literature there is the distinction between necessity, randomness, and design, where randomness (by design) necessarily means equiprobability (same probability).

The reasoning behind this is that intelligence is supposed to be the only factor that can alter probabilities, and therefore the only 'natural' distribution is equiprobability. More precisely, William Dembski claims somewhere that default assumption (the one used, if you have no better argument) is equiprobability - that is, any other distribution must be explicitly proved.

In the book No Free Lunch, uses the so-called No Free Lunch theorems to 'prove' that equiprobability is the only distribution you need consider. It'll be too long a story to give you details about that; but the point is that 'randomness' have come to mean 'equiprobability' rather than anything else and that's the source of the confusion.


cheers
- FreezBee

[Barry Desborough]

Everyone's saying the same thing. Mutation is random. Selection isn't.

Read what Dawkins said again. There is no deceptiveness.


“But you mustn't say that it's all due to random chance. That's the one thing it isn't, because Darwinian natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance. It's a highly non-random process. The big thing that everybody misunderstands about Darwinism is that they think it's chance, they think it's an accident. It's not an accident.”

(My emphasis)

I'm sure Dawkins had in mind 'critics' of evolution who characterise it as being merely a succession of accidents, leaving out the fact that some accidents confer an increased chance of reproduction and are heritable, thereby eventually spreading throughout a population, whereas other accidents are one-offs.

[jason]

I'm sure Dawkins had in mind 'critics' of evolution who characterise it as being merely a succession of accidents
But it is reasonable to say this, because all of the variation that can be selected is accidental. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one, it is the RM part of RM+NS that is supposed to be the creative part that actually does all the work, contray to what Dawkins seem to claim.

Jason

[oxmixmudd]

But it is reasonable to say this, because all of the variation that can be selected is accidental. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one, it is the RM part of RM+NS that is supposed to be the creative part that actually does all the work, contray to what Dawkins seem to claim.

Jason

But Dawkins is not saying there is not a random component. He is saying the process as a whole is not random, and that critics of evolution are incorrect to characterize it thus.

RM provides the raw material on which NS operates - and that component (RM) is random. But this is how any feedback loop functions. There is a signal generator which may not be well behaved, and then the feedback mechanism which constrains the signal. Without the signal, the feedback machanism has nothing to constrain (this wildness in the signal you are calling the 'creative' part) - but the final signal output from the system is not random. It is fully constrained by the nature of the feedback machanism.


Jim

[P-Dunn]

Thanks for your input, guys. It helped a lot!

[jason]

Without the signal, the feedback machanism has nothing to constrain (this wildness in the signal you are calling the 'creative' part) - but the final signal output from the system is not random. It is fully constrained by the nature of the feedback machanism.
Sure. I don't disagree with this, but as you concede, the creative component is actually random.

The fitness function that selects from the variation isn't random but overall the process if unguided and only creative because of the random elements.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the process is random and unguided at all, because that is exactly what it is.

Dawkins wants to invoke teleology via a backdoor mechanism.

Jason

[oxmixmudd]

Sure. I don't disagree with this, but as you concede, the creative component is actually random.

The fitness function that selects from the variation isn't random but overall the process if unguided and only creative because of the random elements.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the process is random and unguided at all, because that is exactly what it is.

Dawkins wants to invoke teleology via a backdoor mechanism.

Jason

It is unreasonable to say the entire process is random because the entire process is not random. Think Hurricane, Great Red Spot, Long term orbits of astreroids. There is a random component, but a very constrained and regular process. To primarily characterize what can be expected to happen from RM+NS by the RM componenent is to mislead. It is the NS component that dominates the process. Just as the selection in the myriad examples of why RM+NS is not random dominates those processes as well.

Jim

[Minnesota]

Sure. I don't disagree with this, but as you concede, the creative component is actually random.

Like the artist who finally finds the right set of brushes to work with and can finally paint the masterpiece he has in mind, it's the brushes that are the creating component. :no:

Like the baker who finally hones his recipe by assembling the right ingredients and bakes a great cake, its the ingredients that are the creating component. :no:

[jason]

It is unreasonable to say the entire process is random because the entire process is not random.
But I didn't say that. The heavy lifting in the process and the creation in the process is entirely random. It is only the filtering that is done on the raw material that is not random.

And even that is not able to do more than optimise to local peaks in the fitness landscape.


To primarily characterize what can be expected to happen from RM+NS by the RM componenent is to mislead. It is the NS component that dominates the process.
But it is the RM that provides the creative force. NS is not a creative process at all but a harshly destructive one. It mercilessly eliminates from the gene pool anything it doesn't think is up to snuff. It can't improve the genetic diversity and the like, but only reduce it, as it seeks to move to a local fitness peak.

It doesn't become some magical creative process just because you say so.

RM+NS when you consider it from a creative standpoint is a largely random process that relies on fortune and luck to have the fitness landscape modified in a way that allows for higher local peaks. To suggest that these peaks can be reached by anything other than chance is to mislead people. That is to imply telology in a process in which none is allowed.

Jason

[jason]

Like the artist who finally finds the right set of brushes to work with and can finally paint the masterpiece he has in mind, it's the brushes that are the creating component. :no:

Like the baker who finally hones his recipe by assembling the right ingredients and bakes a great cake, its the ingredients that are the creating component. :no:
Bakers and Artisits are agents acting Minn. Of course the materials are not the creative component.

The same is not true of RM+NS. The RM is the creative component, all NS can do is winnow down the gene pool.

But if you understood basic biology this would be obvious to you.

Jason

[Barry Desborough]

And even that is not able to do more than optimise to local peaks in the fitness landscape.

Yup. A highly complex, multi-dimensional, dynamic fitness landscape which interacts with and includes life.


But it is the RM that provides the creative force. NS is not a creative process at all but a harshly destructive one. It mercilessly eliminates from the gene pool anything it doesn't think is up to snuff. It can't improve the genetic diversity and the like, but only reduce it, as it seeks to move to a local fitness peak.


This is all unnecessarily anthropomophic. Words like 'creative' and 'merciless' are misleading here. '... [what] it doesn't think is up to snuff' is a giveaway. (My bold).

Traversing the fitness landscape does involve the emergence and selection of novel features. It's not exactly 'creative' in the human sense, but the result is remarkably similar, leading some to the inference of deliberate design. Selection is not the elimination of the 'not up to snuff' individuals. Every individual gets eliminated anyway. What counts is differential reproduction, not necessarily caused by elimination. Mercilessness is an inappropriate attribute for an unthinking process.



It doesn't become some magical creative process just because you say so.

RM+NS when you consider it from a creative standpoint is a largely random process that relies on fortune and luck to have the fitness landscape modified in a way that allows for higher local peaks. To suggest that these peaks can be reached by anything other than chance is to mislead people. That is to imply telology in a process in which none is allowed.

Jason

Nobody is suggesting that fitness peaks are reached by chance alone. I think you said so yourself in your first post here. We're going round in circles now, and this is becoming a silly semantic discussion.

[jason]

This is all unnecessarily anthropomophic. Words like 'creative' and 'merciless' are misleading here. '... [what] it doesn't think is up to snuff' is a giveaway. (My bold).
Dawkins uses words like creative and the like.


Traversing the fitness landscape does involve the emergence and selection of novel features. It's not exactly 'creative' in the human sense, but the result is remarkably similar, leading some to the inference of deliberate design.
But that is exactly my point. It is not creative at all, the sifting function can only work with the raw material it gets, it does none of the novel creative stuff at all, the only novelty in the system comes from the entirely random component.


Selection is not the elimination of the 'not up to snuff' individuals. Every individual gets eliminated anyway. What counts is differential reproduction, not necessarily caused by elimination.
Of course. Sorry for the confusion on that point, that is what I meant.


Nobody is suggesting that fitness peaks are reached by chance alone. I think you said so yourself in your first post here. We're going round in circles now, and this is becoming a silly semantic discussion.
I agree that they are not reached by chance alone, i'm just contending that the grand picture view of the explictly a-telic version of evolution, is at base a random process that does all the novelty creation, coupled with a sifting function that can only move towards local fitness peaks.

So I don't think describing it as a random process is really inaccurate at all. The randomness provides all the novelty and "creative power", all NS can do is conserve what is already present.

So to say it is the exact opposite of a random process is very misleading.

Jason

[Minnesota]

Bakers and Artisits are agents acting Minn. Of course the materials are not the creative component.
*sigh* I was afraid you might read the artist and baker as sentient agents rather than creating forces that parallel that of NS. Oh well, I gave it a shot.




The same is not true of RM+NS. The RM is the creative component, all NS can do is winnow down the gene pool.
The RMs are simply the nuts and bolts among which NS picks and choose to fashion successful progeny. Some nuts and bolts are never chosen, some are chosen but don't fit well, some are chosen and fit quite well. But the doer here is not the nuts and bolts but the agent that selects them, NS, like a choreographer selecting the best dancers for a stage production. Putting together a successful dance troop is not dependent on what (RM) made each dancer a competent dancer, but by matching up (NS) the right dancers with what is needed. Sometimes ballet dancers are a better fit for a production, and sometimes jazz dancers are better. RMs are an ongoing process within organisms just like processing nutrients is an ongoing process. If there is no pressure to change the character of an organism these RMs are of absolutely no use. For thousands of years they come and go with no impact on the organism. But when an organism is pressured to survive by changing itself, these RMs are then selected. So the operating agent (<--verb) in creating the change is NS. That is the crucial process. It's true that NS winnows down the choices, and it's this winnowing and its outcome--matching up the right variants to meet the pressure to change-- that is most pertinent to the process of evolving. When talking about evolution we're talking about the "process of evolving." And what does THIS process consist of? It consists of matching up variants with the pressure to change. That these variants arise out of RMs is secondary to the process. If the mutations were not random, the process of NS would still be the same. So the deciding factor here is not RMs but NS. NS would still produce evolution whether there were only RMS, NonRMs, or RMs + NonRMs.


But if you understood basic evolution this would be obvious to you.

[Barry Desborough]

Dawkins uses words like creative and the like.
Jason

"Evolution is cleverer than you are"
"The selfish gene"
"Evolutionary strategies"
"Creativity"
"Design"
etc.
etc.

These are all common parlance in discussing evolution. They are all metphors. Like an analogies taken beyond their explanatory purpose, they become useless and misleading.

[jason]

"Evolution is cleverer than you are"
"The selfish gene"
"Evolutionary strategies"
"Creativity"
"Design"
etc.
etc.

These are all common parlance in discussing evolution. They are all metphors. Like an analogies taken beyond their explanatory purpose, they become useless and misleading.
I understand they are metaphors. Don't you think it is strange that these are such appropriate and useful metaphors ?

Jason

[Barry Desborough]

I understand they are metaphors. Don't you think it is strange that these are such appropriate and useful metaphors ?

Jason

Not particularly. These are relatively novel concepts, and are bound to reflect our tendency to use the intentional stance.

[geochron]

I understand they are metaphors. Don't you think it is strange that these are such appropriate and useful metaphors ?

Jason

I don't think you can reliably infer anything from metaphors of intention. Our ancestors actually attributed the behaviour of all sorts of things to direction by intentional beings. I'm not going to sign up to Poseidon worship because the sea can be pretty well described in terms of a metaphorical temperamental God.

[Tladatsi]

Non-randomness has nothing to do with "purpose". On Earth, water does not flow randomly, rather it flows to the lowest point it can through the path of least resistance because of gravity. This is non-random process.

On the other hand, a roulette wheel was purposely designed to be random, i.e. the little ball will randomly fall into on of the little slots.

This is a classic case of projection. Human being believe that the world works the way human society works, some in charge makes the rules and enforces those rules. Without rules there is chaos. That IS how human societies work but it is not how nature works.



I haven’t done very much research about science. I don’t know whether I believe the earth is 6000 years old or 4.2 billion years old. I don’t know whether I believe evolution or not. I would definitely appreciate it if someone who’s more acquainted with evolution would clarify this issue for me.

I recently watched the Richard Dawkins interview on The Colbert Report concerning his new book, The God Delusion. This segment was very entertaining, as always. But Dawkins said something interesting that I took issue with. Perhaps it was due to my own misunderstanding.



Really?

The first thing that occurred to me is that if something is “non-random” that means there is a purpose behind it, someone or something directing it so that a desired outcome occurs. When I heard him say that, it was like he was admitting someone deciding evolution. This is obviously not a sort of thing that Dawkins would admit, because he’s an atheist. It seems like he’s treating Darwinism as some sort of conscious entity that knows what it is doing.

How can it not be an accident? The whole theory is about mutations that happen over long periods of time. If it’s not by accident, then he would be saying that something is purposefully causing those mutations to happen.

Thanks for clarifying this issue for me!

[FreezBee]

But it is reasonable to say this, because all of the variation that can be selected is accidental. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one, it is the RM part of RM+NS that is supposed to be the creative part that actually does all the work, contray to what Dawkins seem to claim.

You are right that NS may be considered to be a conservative process; but in chapter 6 of Origin, Darwin writes:

Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct, as myriads have become extinct.

Notice the phrase I have bolded: "under changing conditions of life". If the environment changes, the fitness function will change as well. Therefore, if natural selection is purely conservative, it will simply follow along with environmental changes.


- FreezBee