Can you substantiate that? Specifically, perhaps show several places where the phrase "random mutations" is used, and how it's clear they are using the term, random, in the manner you present.
Gunther J. Eble tackles this issue head on in his paper
On the dual nature of chance in evolutionary biology and paleobiology.
Eble's abstact begins:
quote:
The identification of randomness and nonrandomness is a perennial problem in evolutionary research. Stochastic thinking in evolutionary biology and paleobiology has solidified the use of a statistical notion of chance, but the idea of chance in evolutionary studies goes beyond statistics. A duality arises from the use of a statistical meaning on the one hand, and a more strictly evolutionary meaning on the other. The former implies a combination of indiscriminate sampling and unpredictability due to multiple causes; the latter codifies independence from adaptation and the directionality imposed by natural selection. Often these meanings are kept separate in evolutionary research, used in isolation according to the empirical situation or the goal of the investigator (recognition of pattern versus process). I argue that evolutionary studies in general and paleobiological studies in particular can benefit from the simultaneous application of statistical and evolutionary notions of chance.
He goes on to discuss specific definitions of random:
quote:
An event occurs at random because it is unpredictable, due to our ignorance of
causes. This ”ignorance’ interpretation (dating back to Laplace) is probably the most
frequently used. It is usually associated with the assumption of probabilistic behavior
and indiscriminate sampling (viewed as a property of independent events in nature, not
of experimental design . ).
And goes on to say that evolutionary meaning of chance is when
quote:
“events are independent of an organism’s need and of the directionality provided by
natural selection in the process of adaptation”
Which I believe is suitably close to what I said in
Message 46:
Mod writes:
The great majority of mutations...are random with respect to the improvement (eg reproductive success) of the mutated organism/offspring.
Also Gould discusses the subject (also citing Eble) in his massive book, Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I'll hunt it down and provide quotes in the form of edits later.
I'm not putting this reply to you to garner a response, incidentally. I am putting this to you because I just discovered the paper today and it seemed sufficiently interesting to post to EvC and this was the natural place to put it. It follows conversationally on from an existing discussion quite well, don't you think?
Further sections of Eble's work can be found in,
CHANCE AND MACROEVOLUTION, ROBERTA L. MILLSTEIN
Gould quote:
Gould writes:
...the claim that mutational variation in populations, the fuel of natural selection is 'random'. Of course, we know perfectly well that such usage does not invoke the usual mathematical concept of randomness, and that we only mean 'unrelated to the direction of natural selection'...
By 'random' in this context, evolutionists mean only that variation is not inherently directed towards adaptation, not that all mutational changes are equally likely
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : Gould quote
™ Version 4.2
