Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is random! Stop saying it isn't!
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 2 (414948)
08-07-2007 4:51 AM


((OOC: we're running out of creationists, so I'm going to role-play. Plus, this way I can get you to do my work for me, by providing me with source material for the EvoWiki. What follows does not necessarily reflect my true opinion.))
It is often said in this forum that evolution isn't random, usually in reply to someone who mentions that "something complex can't have appeared by chance". But, evolution certainly is random, by any sensible definition of chance or randomness.
Chance and randomness can have many meanings. It can mean something that isn't preceding with an aim, purpose or reason. Clearly, evolution doesn't aim for anything like mice or men, and many an evolutionist has pointed this out. But this definition is too broad, as even a comet's orbit doesn't occur for any aim or purpose, but its a perfect ellipse, certainly not random.
Randomness can, in statistics, refer to a probability where things have an equal chance of occurring. Clearly, this definition is not what is meant by random chance by any creationist, although I will concede that evolution isn't random in this case, but this definition rules out also the process of rolling two dice (because 7 is the most likely result) and even tossing a slightly bent coin (it won't have a strict 50-50 chance arrangement).
Chance and randomness both refer to something that isn't predictable. Design is predictable, once you know what the design is to be (and if the designer has the capacity to make it), you can easily predict the outcome. Chance and randomness refer to an event that you can't predict - you can't know what will happen at that event, although you can show that there is some bias or something overall when you look at the probability distribution.
Gambling with cards, poker for example, is a game of chance (not pure chance, but random nonetheless). That is, there is no way (at least not without cheating) for one to say what card you will draw. If there were, casinos would have gone broke. However, we can give a certain probability to each card. Say you have already pulled out two aces, you know it will be more likely the next card won't be an ace.
It is clear that mutations are random. They occur due to certain phenomena, such as x-rays or mutagens, but one can't say whether a mutation will occur in any specific locus. You may be able to say that a locus is more likely to occur, but you can't actually predict it, just as with the cards.
Selection merely introduces a bias into the system. Take the example of poker as before. We already had two aces, and say we draw a queen of hearts, a six of clubs and a jack of spades. Now, we introduce the selection. But before I select, do you know what I will select? Nope. You can have a good guess, assuming I know how to play the game, but you can't know. Likewise, evolutionists can guess what will occur when a population is exposed to selection pressures, but they can't predict it - something different will happen each time.
Then, the product will be biased randomness. It will be biased towards something - something that increases fitness in that environment. But it's still random. You can't predict the course of evolution. Steven Jay Gould likened it to a drunken walk, albeit somewhat constrained by some walls. A drunken walk, unless constrained to one outcome, will still be random.
So, one must either conclude that random chance can create the ordered complexity of life today, or conclude that direct design is the only process that can create life.
((out of character again: Or, you could have a go at the definitions of randomness that I used, in comparison to what creationists usually mean when they say evolution was random. Also, I expect I contradicted myself somewhere in that rant - I'm an evolutionist trying to argue for creationism, so I may have let some logic in where it shouldn't be)).

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 2 (414966)
08-07-2007 10:41 AM


Thread copied to the Evolution is random! Stop saying it isn't! thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024