How We Are Evolving

[Quantum Windbag]

It appears you have trouble reading. Allow me to help. You are correct in saying natural selection does not eliminate randomness of mutations. Lucky for me, nothing I said contradicts that. No, what I said was that environmental pressures themselves are non-random selection on random mutation. They don't affect the frequency of the mutations from happening, they just pick and choose which mutations are more likely to be passed on. An "intelligent" intervention is not required to produce non-random outcomes from a random population. The only thing that is needed is a filter of some sort. In this case, natural selection is that filter.

This concept can be demonstrated with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a game where different sized objects are randomly selected from a bag. Now let's impose a filter: let's say a small round hole. The first object you draw is a large square, and it doesn't fit in the round hole. After drawing all objects, you're only left with small circular ones. A non-random filter produced a non-random outcome when imposed on a random sample. The filter need not be intelligent, it just needs to be a filter. Now you can claim natural selection itself is a randomly selected filter, and we can get into the meta-philosophy of what really is "random", but that's just a silly argument and doesn't practically pertain to this discussion.

Trust me, I have no trouble reading. You are the one with the comprehension problem here. Environmental pressures are just as random as mutations. The only way something natural can not be random is if it is unnatural. Earthquakes, meteor strikes, and even weather, are all random, and they all affect the environment a species lives in. An increase in radiation from a landslide that exposes pitchblende would be random, and affect the mutation rate of a species.

Let me repeat this for you so you understand.

The only way to filter a random even to get a non random result is through the deliberate intervention of intelligence to remove that randomness. This is a foundation of statistics and math, it cannot be circumvented in any other way.

Your thought experiment falls short in so many ways it is laughable. The fact that you had to specifically design your filter to exclude all but the results you want proves that intelligent intervention is necessary.

Let us make your experiment fit reality more closely.

We take the same bag and fill it with coins of different denominations. Then we randomly pull the coins from the bag and drop them through a hole that is only big enough to pass coins of the size of a nickle or smaller, and we look at whether those coins are heads or tails. Do you really think the results will be less random simply because they go through that hole first?

Natural selection does not select for a specific result, it only selects what fits through that hole. Some of what fits through that hole is good, and some is bad, but it all fits. That makes evolution as perfectly random as the underlying mutations, and explains why there are things about us that make no sense from a survival oriented result.

Once again it appears you have trouble reading. Can you point out where I stated some species are "less evolved" than others? I recommend however that you google "phylogenetics" for more information on tracking evolution over time.

What I DID state was that mutation frequency is not constant across species. Eukaryotes and prokaryotes have completely different DNA polymerase altogether. Heck even wikipedia has an article on mutation rate. If that and its sources are not sufficient, there are 700 articles with "mutation rate" in their titles on pubmed. Let me know if you want any more documentation.

In the meantime, I recommend you phrase your questions in a tone that connotes desire to learn instead of distrustful challenge, as you're not yet tall enough to ride the high horse.

Funny, when I read that article at Wiki it clearly did not support your assertion that mutations occur at different rates among species. I am no where near an expert in this field, but it seems to be saying that more complex organisms mutate slower because the genome is more complicated, and even there individual mutations are more likely to occur in males than females. It also states that mutation rates are affected by environment, and not steady, even if the assumption that they are makes it easier to track species divergence.

That would help explain why those Tibetan natives evolved more quickly than there relatives who stayed at lower altitudes, wouldn't it?

If you don't like the way a phrase something, feel free to ignore me. I am more than capable of learning anything I want to through other avenues than internet forums, so see no need to moderate any questions I ask here with the intent to learn. Even If I did want to learn here, I would choose to learn from someone who has a better grasp of fundamental math than you have demonstrated.

 

[antagon]

the natural in natural selection and the random in random mutation make for a semantic argument.

selection goes beyond environmental pressures alone. it is facilitated by animal behavior as we can appreciate from mating rituals.

mutation frequency varies between critters. many factors contribute, from exposure of gametes to radiation (like external fertilization for, example, and UVs from the sun) to characteristics of the genome itself, like expansive genomes which lend toward greater nucleotide elasticity.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Trust me, I have no trouble reading. You are the one with the comprehension problem here. Environmental pressures are just as random as mutations. The only way something natural can not be random is if it is unnatural. Earthquakes, meteor strikes, and even weather, are all random, and they all affect the environment a species lives in. An increase in radiation from a landslide that exposes pitchblende would be random, and affect the mutation rate of a species.

Oh? And what makes something "unnatural"? Please share.

While evolution can occur from sudden unpredictable events as you mentioned, it also happens from other chronic affecting pressures such as predation, isolation, migration, and starvation. By your understanding, these processes would be required to be "unnatural", and again I am left wondering what in the world that MEANS to you.

The only way to filter a random even to get a non random result is through the deliberate intervention of intelligence to remove that randomness. This is a foundation of statistics and math, it cannot be circumvented in any other way.

And I'm sure you're real bright at math where those terms apply, but this is biology. That doesn't mean math concepts are no longer applicable, but it DOES mean that math terminology is not designed for biological systems and as such should not be coerced onto them. Now if we're talking about trying to code an ecosystem into a computer program, then one would absolutely need intelligent filters to approximate the setup. That's where conceptual math terminology is practically applied.

Here's an easy way to settle this: what documentation do you have that that specific math term applies to biology, or that mutation outcomes are random? Here's a few articles that support non-random evolution outcomes:
Biological evolution based on nonrandom variabilit... [Biochemistry (Mosc). 2009] - PubMed result
Non random DNA evolution. [Biol Res. 1997] - PubMed result
Non-random clonal evolution in 45 cases of chronic... [Leuk Res. 1979] - PubMed result
Non-random variability in evolution of base compos... [Nature. 1969] - PubMed result

Your thought experiment falls short in so many ways it is laughable. The fact that you had to specifically design your filter to exclude all but the results you want proves that intelligent intervention is necessary.

WANT? Who said I WANTED that outcome? You're still trying to apply math terminology to a non-contrived system. The filter can be ANYTHING the environment creates, including but not limited to a completely random selection of the filter itself, and the results are STILL not random. It has nothing to do with WANT.

We take the same bag and fill it with coins of different denominations. Then we randomly pull the coins from the bag and drop them through a hole that is only big enough to pass coins of the size of a nickle or smaller, and we look at whether those coins are heads or tails. Do you really think the results will be less random simply because they go through that hole first?

That's a horrible analogy. You're imposing a filter that has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. How does that apply to evolution? It doesn't. Let's say there are brown and green colored bugs of the same species. Now let's impose a filter of birds that only see and thus eat green bugs against brown trees. My example looks at which color of bugs are still alive after a color-dependent filter is in place. Your example looks at something completely unrelated such as how long their legs are.

Once again this is showing that you're trying to impose mathematical terms meant for contrived man-made setups onto a natural environment, and using poor logic to do so. Maybe you aced a math exam because you were able to parrot back a basic idea, but it's clear you do not have a solid understanding of their applicability.

Natural selection does not select for a specific result, it only selects what fits through that hole. Some of what fits through that hole is good, and some is bad, but it all fits.

How is it that you don't believe "what fits through that hole" is not a specific result? Or to be more clear, a specific frequency of results? No, not everything "fits". Green bugs die because the environment selects AGAINST that trait. Antibiotics kill off ALL bacteria that aren't resistant. I assure you: not everything fits through environmental filters.

Funny, when I read that article at Wiki it clearly did not support your assertion that mutations occur at different rates among species.

Are you sure you don't have trouble reading?

Mutation rate in various species

Mutation rates differ between species and even between different regions of the genome of a single species.

It appears that it EXACTLY supports my claim. I know a good ophthalmologist if you want a referral.....

Meanwhile, have you looked up that term phylogenetics I recommended in my previous post?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh? And what makes something "unnatural"? Please share.

While evolution can occur from sudden unpredictable events as you mentioned, it also happens from other chronic affecting pressures such as predation, isolation, migration, and starvation. By your understanding, these processes would be required to be "unnatural", and again I am left wondering what in the world that MEANS to you.

Unnatural is anything that is directed by intelligence. My understanding of evolution is that it is entirely natural, you are the one that is arguing that there is some sort of intelligent intervention necessary to make the process work.

And I'm sure you're real bright at math where those terms apply, but this is biology. That doesn't mean math concepts are no longer applicable, but it DOES mean that math terminology is not designed for biological systems and as such should not be coerced onto them. Now if we're talking about trying to code an ecosystem into a computer program, then one would absolutely need intelligent filters to approximate the setup. That's where conceptual math terminology is practically applied.

Here's an easy way to settle this: what documentation do you have that that specific math term applies to biology, or that mutation outcomes are random? Here's a few articles that support non-random evolution outcomes:
Biological evolution based on nonrandom variabilit... [Biochemistry (Mosc). 2009] - PubMed result
Non random DNA evolution. [Biol Res. 1997] - PubMed result
Non-random clonal evolution in 45 cases of chronic... [Leuk Res. 1979] - PubMed result
Non-random variability in evolution of base compos... [Nature. 1969] - PubMed result

Those specific math terms always apply. Random results are inevitable with a random process. Just because a bunch of biologists misuse the terms does not change the underlying facts, anymore than someone saying that the sun rises in the east means the Earth does not revolve around the sun. Some things are simply understood.

Randomness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start here and read about it on your own if you want to learn about it, I am not going to educate you because I do not have the patience for willful ignorance.

WANT? Who said I WANTED that outcome? You're still trying to apply math terminology to a non-contrived system. The filter can be ANYTHING the environment creates, including but not limited to a completely random selection of the filter itself, and the results are STILL not random. It has nothing to do with WANT.

You did, when you subconsciously made the whole so small that only one size, and shape, would fit through. Since we both know evolution does not do that, your example was nothing more than an attempt to justify your position when you knew it was wrong.

That's a horrible analogy. You're imposing a filter that has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. How does that apply to evolution? It doesn't. Let's say there are brown and green colored bugs of the same species. Now let's impose a filter of birds that only see and thus eat green bugs against brown trees. My example looks at which color of bugs are still alive after a color-dependent filter is in place. Your example looks at something completely unrelated such as how long their legs are.

Once again this is showing that you're trying to impose mathematical terms meant for contrived man-made setups onto a natural environment, and using poor logic to do so. Maybe you aced a math exam because you were able to parrot back a basic idea, but it's clear you do not have a solid understanding of their applicability.

I am not imposing a filter. Natural selection is simply a term that describes the fact that some species survive, and some do not. Sometimes evolution actually favors the weakest, not the strongest.

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

What is happening here is that you are trying to ignore the fact that mathematics is fundamental to all science, including biology. In fact, math helps describe not only the fundamental structure of the universe, it describes everything in it. Just because you have a personal problem with math does not mean it does not apply to something.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/bioinfo.html
Marriage of Math and Genetics Forges New Scientific Landscape -- Part 2 of 2
Mathematical Biology Homepage.
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~moret/poincare_survey.pdf

Come back when you can admit that math is universal.

How is it that you don't believe "what fits through that hole" is not a specific result? Or to be more clear, a specific frequency of results? No, not everything "fits". Green bugs die because the environment selects AGAINST that trait. Antibiotics kill off ALL bacteria that aren't resistant. I assure you: not everything fits through environmental filters.

I love that you are parroting that old saw that a color dependent filter even exists, despite the fact that those brown bugs stand out on green leaves. If we examine the one real life example that is the favorite of both the pro and anti evolution camp we can see that the genes for both actually exist in equal numbers, and the actual colors actually change from generation to generation as the environment changes. Some generations the white peppered moth dominates, and others the black one does. The species survives because it produces both.

It does not matter if it is a specific result or not. If what goes into that hole is random, what comes out is random. The species survives because it makes both brown and green, and one, or the other, will carry on the next generation.

What makes one bacteria, that is an exact genetic copy of its parent, except for that random mutation that makes it resistant to antibiotics, not a random result? Is it the fact that some of those resistant bacteria are resistant because their cell walls are stronger, or is the fact that others are resistant because it processes the poison differently? Random input = random output.

Period.

Evolution happens on a species level, individuals sometimes get lucky, and sometimes die. That is irrelevant to the species as a whole.

Mutation rate in various species

Mutation rates differ between species

and even between different regions of the genome of a single species.

It appears that it EXACTLY supports my claim. I know a good ophthalmologist if you want a referral.....

It surely does, unless you look at the context:

Mutation rates differ between species and even between different regions of the genome of a single species. This should not be confused with the idea that mutations accumulate at different rates over longer periods of time than a generation. These different rates of nucleotide substitution are measured in substitutions (fixed mutations) per base pair per generation. For example, mutations in so-called Junk DNA which do not affect organism function tend to accumulate at a faster rate than mutations in DNA that is actively in use in the organism (gene expression). That is not necessarily due to a higher mutation rate, but to lower levels of purifying selection. A region which mutates at predictable rate is a candidate for use as a molecular clock. If the rate of neutral mutations in a sequence is assumed to be constant (clock-like), and if most differences between species are neutral rather than adaptive, then the number of differences between two different species can be used to estimate how long ago two species diverged (see molecular clock). In fact, the mutation rate of an organism may change in response to environmental stress. For example UV light damages DNA, which may result in error prone attempts by the cell to perform DNA repair.
The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more.[1][3]
More generally, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10−4 to 10−6 mutations per base pair per generation[4], and for bacteria the rate is around 10−8 per base pair per generation[5]. The highest mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−6 to 10−8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−3 to 10−5 per base per generation[5]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3×10−6 or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[6]; these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation[1].

That puts enough qualifiers on your statement that everything I said about your claim is true.

Meanwhile, have you looked up that term phylogenetics I recommended in my previous post?

Would you like me to link to an article about how mathematics helps to explain phylogenetics?

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution happens on a species level

Correction: evolution works at the population level, not the species level. (There can be more than one population of a given species).

 

[antagon]

Unnatural is anything that is directed by intelligence. My understanding of evolution is that it is entirely natural.

selection has 'unnatural' contributors. some animals have value systems which prefer certain traits over others or rituals which throw fitness contests which nature has not provided in the environment. this is intelligence.

initself, this is an evolved component of animal behavior which lends to stronger populations and guides genetic drift toward ostensible fitness.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Unnatural is anything that is directed by intelligence. My understanding of evolution is that it is entirely natural, you are the one that is arguing that there is some sort of intelligent intervention necessary to make the process work.

Where did I argue there is intelligent intervention? Can you quote me saying that ANYWHERE? No. Once again you impose your poor ideas onto biologic concepts, creating straw man arguments. So humans are "unnatural" by your definition? And what about learned behavior such as apes using tools? Also "unnatural"? What about species in niche isolation? Natural or unnatural? What if humans did the isolating? It's clear to me now your problem is that you're trying to reduce all of the complex possibilities of nature into some contrived dichotomous option of either "natural" or "unnatural", whereby you define what is intelligent and project mathematic terminology designed for man-made modeling onto your simplified blinded viewpoint of the world. Meanwhile, you fail to realize this thing you call "unnatural intelligence" is just another product and reactant of evolution.

Random results are inevitable with a random process.

Except natural selection is NOT a random process. This seems to be a concept you are having difficulty with. When a mold known as P. notatum produces an agent that kills bacteria, there is nothing random about their deaths. So what is "random" about the filter of a "natural" organism consistently producing a non-random environmental pressure?

WANT? Who said I WANTED that outcome?

You did, when you subconsciously made the whole so small that only one size, and shape, would fit through. Since we both know evolution does not do that

We do? Again I find myself asking: what evidence do you have to support the idea that specific filters are not set that only certain outcomes are possible? The fact that you are delving into the idea of what I "want" when I selected any shape is foolish. In fact, if I randomly selected the shape of the filter, completely removing the idea that I'm specifically wanting something, it would still provide only one size and shape to fit through, thus producing non-random results. So that's random drawings, a randomly selected filter, and non-random outcomes with respect to the specific filter. Now as I stated from the first response to you: I'm not interested in getting into the philosophy of what you deem is "random" relative to specific points in time. Once the filter is set in place, the subsequent results are not random, even though one could claim the results are random relative to the pre-filter selection. Again, not interested in such an argument, as environmental pressures are the center of evolution, not the starting point without such pressures.

I am not imposing a filter. Natural selection is simply a term that describes the fact that some species survive, and some do not.

In your analogy you specifically stated "we randomly pull the coins from the bag and drop them through a hole that is only big enough to pass coins of the size of a nickle or smaller". That IS a filter: it allows a specific subset to pass while removing everything else. Once again I question your reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.

Sometimes evolution actually favors the weakest, not the strongest.
Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

Again you appear to be coercing things into some dichotomous argument, in this case "weakest/strongest". Yet again I find myself asking: what does that even MEAN? You want to boil down the complexity of life into weak/strong? Where does learned behavior come into play? Where does adaptive reasoning work with that? What about reproductive frequency? You just proved what I alluded to previously: you're very good at reading something and parroting back the conclusion without understanding the underlying concept or applicability. Case in point:

What is happening here is that you are trying to ignore the fact that mathematics is fundamental to all science, including biology. In fact, math helps describe not only the fundamental structure of the universe, it describes everything in it. Just because you have a personal problem with math does not mean it does not apply to something.

Yet another straw man argument on a concept you're clearly just parroting back. No one has suggested that math doesn't apply to biology, yet that's all you seem to be able to incorrectly read. The point is that the terminology and concepts which are applicable to man-made mathematics modeling do not apply to a natural system. Life is NOT a computer program that involves an intelligent developer that initiates intelligent filters while using random number generators. That does NOT mean math stops working outside of a computer program, but it does mean that the entire complexity of the natural world cannot be reduced to "natural vs unnatural".

So let's recap the glaring shortcomings you continually exhibit:

• You can't read.
• When you don't understand the other person's argument, which is often, you create a straw man argument.
• You can't process information and understand the underlying concept
• You don't understand the practical application of terminology, which produces
• Improper simplification of complex systems, regardless of how large, into coerced dichotomies, completely unsupported by the original system

I love that you are parroting that old saw that a color dependent filter even exists, despite the fact that those brown bugs stand out on green leaves. If we examine the one real life example that is the favorite of both the pro and anti evolution camp we can see that the genes for both actually exist in equal numbers, and the actual colors actually change from generation to generation as the environment changes. Some generations the white peppered moth dominates, and others the black one does. The species survives because it produces both.

It was an example. Yet again you seem incapable of extracting the underlying concept. Notice how you can't say the same thing about the bacteria example, which is much more concrete. Furthermore, these genes do NOT exist in equal numbers. They are defined by the Hardy Weinberg equation, not half and half splits. Yes, that is math in biology, something that has still not been refuted by anyone in this thread.

What makes one bacteria, that is an exact genetic copy of its parent, except for that random mutation that makes it resistant to antibiotics, not a random result? Is it the fact that some of those resistant bacteria are resistant because their cell walls are stronger, or is the fact that others are resistant because it processes the poison differently? Random input = random output.

Except you didn't go into the output at all. Yes, random mutation that makes it resistant to antibiotics is a random result. Applying antibiotics as a filter/environmental pressure to the population creates a non-random result: ALL susceptible bacteria die, and all resistant bacteria live. Just because mutation occurs can lead to drift, certainly. It takes that second part that creates a non-random outcome to really push evolution. In this case, the non-random outcome is bacteria resistant to antibiotics. You still seem incapable of refusing these results.

It surely does, unless you look at the context:

Mutation rates differ between species and even between different regions of the genome of a single species. This should not be confused with the idea that mutations accumulate at different rates over longer periods of time than a generation. These different rates of nucleotide substitution are measured in substitutions (fixed mutations) per base pair per generation. For example, mutations in so-called Junk DNA which do not affect organism function tend to accumulate at a faster rate than mutations in DNA that is actively in use in the organism (gene expression). That is not necessarily due to a higher mutation rate, but to lower levels of purifying selection. A region which mutates at predictable rate is a candidate for use as a molecular clock. If the rate of neutral mutations in a sequence is assumed to be constant (clock-like), and if most differences between species are neutral rather than adaptive, then the number of differences between two different species can be used to estimate how long ago two species diverged (see molecular clock). In fact, the mutation rate of an organism may change in response to environmental stress. For example UV light damages DNA, which may result in error prone attempts by the cell to perform DNA repair.
The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more.[1][3]
More generally, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10−4 to 10−6 mutations per base pair per generation[4], and for bacteria the rate is around 10−8 per base pair per generation[5]. The highest mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−6 to 10−8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−3 to 10−5 per base per generation[5]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3×10−6 or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[6]; these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation[1].

That puts enough qualifiers on your statement that everything I said about your claim is true.

And what part of that refutes my claim that mutation rates differ between species? You appear to continue providing support to what I said, in opposition to what you said. Highlight any context in there that refused mutation rates occur at different rates. I assume you'll use this opportunity to claim something like "it's in there, you just don't see it" simply because you CAN'T provide such specific refutation.

So let's summarize:

• I give you a number of peer reviewed published articles in scientific journals that overview the non-randomness of evolution. Your refutation: nothing.
• I claim you are coercing terminology onto a field where it doesn't apply, specifically stating "That doesn't mean math concepts are no longer applicable". Your response: "you are trying to ignore the fact that mathematics is fundamental to all science". Straw man argument from inability to read.
• I state that evolution requires both random mutation and environmental pressures to produce non-random outcomes. Your counterexample: "bacteria mutations are random", completely ignoring the second necessary part, being environmental pressures being applied.

Let's face it: the entirety of your claim is based on refuting things I never said, comprised of a poor understanding of evolution, while using coerced dichotomies on complex systems. You can end your huffy rants with "period" or "cuz I said so" or "so there" all you want, but these things don't prevent you from continuing to be wrong. Meanwhile, I continue to provide relevant and applicable evidence which directly addresses the question.

 

[antagon]

Natural selection is simply a term that describes the fact that some species survive, and some do not.

this is too narrow. selection can also be pushed by reproduction which has implications in animal behavior. frequency and plurality of reproduction could also constitute an advantage irrespective of mere survival. this could be physiological or psychological. both possibilities could be evolved traits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution happens on a species level

Correction: evolution works at the population level, not the species level. (There can be more than one population of a given species).

That is technically true. However, if populations differentiate enough that they evolve separately they will speciate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unnatural is anything that is directed by intelligence. My understanding of evolution is that it is entirely natural.

selection has 'unnatural' contributors. some animals have value systems which prefer certain traits over others or rituals which throw fitness contests which nature has not provided in the environment. this is intelligence.

initself, this is an evolved component of animal behavior which lends to stronger populations and guides genetic drift toward ostensible fitness.

I agree. Humans are a prime example of this. Nonetheless, unless a conscious effort is made to eliminate randomness evolution will remain random.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I argue there is intelligent intervention? Can you quote me saying that ANYWHERE? No. Once again you impose your poor ideas onto biologic concepts, creating straw man arguments. So humans are "unnatural" by your definition? And what about learned behavior such as apes using tools? Also "unnatural"? What about species in niche isolation? Natural or unnatural? What if humans did the isolating? It's clear to me now your problem is that you're trying to reduce all of the complex possibilities of nature into some contrived dichotomous option of either "natural" or "unnatural", whereby you define what is intelligent and project mathematic terminology designed for man-made modeling onto your simplified blinded viewpoint of the world. Meanwhile, you fail to realize this thing you call "unnatural intelligence" is just another product and reactant of evolution.

The only possible way to eliminate randomness from a process where it exists is by making a conscious effort to eliminate it. Your insistence the natural selection somehow makes evolution non random is an argument that it is directed by intelligence. I deliberately choose to use language that is inflammatory to show you how absurd your position is. Is it my fault that you are so stuck in your bias that you refuse to accept the possibility that you do not understand something?

Except natural selection is NOT a random process. This seems to be a concept you are having difficulty with. When a mold known as P. notatum produces an agent that kills bacteria, there is nothing random about their deaths. So what is "random" about the filter of a "natural" organism consistently producing a non-random environmental pressure?

It does not matter, it is only part of the equation, and any equation that that contains a random element always has a random result.

ALWAYS

The only way to eliminate this is to consciously tamper with the equation to eliminate the random element.

We do? Again I find myself asking: what evidence do you have to support the idea that specific filters are not set that only certain outcomes are possible? The fact that you are delving into the idea of what I "want" when I selected any shape is foolish. In fact, if I randomly selected the shape of the filter, completely removing the idea that I'm specifically wanting something, it would still provide only one size and shape to fit through, thus producing non-random results. So that's random drawings, a randomly selected filter, and non-random outcomes with respect to the specific filter. Now as I stated from the first response to you: I'm not interested in getting into the philosophy of what you deem is "random" relative to specific points in time. Once the filter is set in place, the subsequent results are not random, even though one could claim the results are random relative to the pre-filter selection. Again, not interested in such an argument, as environmental pressures are the center of evolution, not the starting point without such pressures.

Again.

Any equation that has a random element always produces a random result.

In your analogy you specifically stated "we randomly pull the coins from the bag and drop them through a hole that is only big enough to pass coins of the size of a nickle or smaller". That IS a filter: it allows a specific subset to pass while removing everything else. Once again I question your reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.

And the results are random.

Again you appear to be coercing things into some dichotomous argument, in this case "weakest/strongest". Yet again I find myself asking: what does that even MEAN? You want to boil down the complexity of life into weak/strong? Where does learned behavior come into play? Where does adaptive reasoning work with that? What about reproductive frequency? You just proved what I alluded to previously: you're very good at reading something and parroting back the conclusion without understanding the underlying concept or applicability. Case in point:

Yet another straw man argument on a concept you're clearly just parroting back. No one has suggested that math doesn't apply to biology, yet that's all you seem to be able to incorrectly read. The point is that the terminology and concepts which are applicable to man-made mathematics modeling do not apply to a natural system. Life is NOT a computer program that involves an intelligent developer that initiates intelligent filters while using random number generators. That does NOT mean math stops working outside of a computer program, but it does mean that the entire complexity of the natural world cannot be reduced to "natural vs unnatural".

Which has been my point all along.

Your fundamental claim is that natural selection somehow makes evolution non random. The only way to do that is by inserting an unnatural element into the equation that eliminates randomness. You keep insisting that I am trying to force a choice here, and all I am doing is pointing out your basic misunderstanding of the entire process. You even stated that I do not understand math, and am misapplying it because evolution does not work by math. (Not an exact quote, but that is the gist of what you said.)

The fact is that math describes everything, and a basic understanding of mathematics is essential to all science. It was not that long ago that biology majors were not required to get a solid grounding in math. those days are gone, and will never return.

So let's recap the glaring shortcomings you continually exhibit:

You can't read.

• When you don't understand the other person's argument, which is often, you create a straw man argument.
• You can't process information and understand the underlying concept
• You don't understand the practical application of terminology, which produces
• Improper simplification of complex systems, regardless of how large, into coerced dichotomies, completely unsupported by the original system

You are the one that is doing all of these, I have continually made only one point in this thread, that a random element makes the result random. You have continually tried to argue that:

1. I did not understand enough about math to apply it to anything.
2. That math terminology and biology have nothing to do with each other.
3. That natural selection is an active filter that eliminates the random element that makes evolution work.

It was an example. Yet again you seem incapable of extracting the underlying concept. Notice how you can't say the same thing about the bacteria example, which is much more concrete. Furthermore, these genes do NOT exist in equal numbers. They are defined by the Hardy Weinberg equation, not half and half splits. Yes, that is math in biology, something that has still not been refuted by anyone in this thread.

I understand.

Because I am able to understand enough about your examples to show how they fail to prove your point I somehow am missing the underlying subtleties that actually prove your point.



Thanks for the info about HWP. I would like to point out that this does not prove that genes for both colors do exist in equal numbers, it just states, correctly, that an equilibrium is impossible because external factors affect the results. I will admit that my assertion is not based on anything more than an assumption though. It is entirely possible that one color or the other is more prevalent, but the determination is made by multiple factors, not just the birds that prefer to eat those bugs off the trunk.

All of these combine to constrain the results, it does not change the underlying fact that they are random.

Except you didn't go into the output at all. Yes, random mutation that makes it resistant to antibiotics is a random result. Applying antibiotics as a filter/environmental pressure to the population creates a non-random result: ALL susceptible bacteria die, and all resistant bacteria live. Just because mutation occurs can lead to drift, certainly. It takes that second part that creates a non-random outcome to really push evolution. In this case, the non-random outcome is bacteria resistant to antibiotics. You still seem incapable of refusing these results.

That is not a non random result, it is a statistically predictable result. The degree each bacteria reacts to the antibiotic will be different. Each bacteria will receive a different level of exposure. The end result is that all bacteria that survive will be resistant to that antibiotic to a different degree.

So let's summarize:

• I give you a number of peer reviewed published articles in scientific journals that overview the non-randomness of evolution. Your refutation: nothing.
• I claim you are coercing terminology onto a field where it doesn't apply, specifically stating "That doesn't mean math concepts are no longer applicable". Your response: "you are trying to ignore the fact that mathematics is fundamental to all science". Straw man argument from inability to read.
• I state that evolution requires both random mutation and environmental pressures to produce non-random outcomes. Your counterexample: "bacteria mutations are random", completely ignoring the second necessary part, being environmental pressures being applied.

Actually,

1. You give me a number of peer reviewed articles in an attempt to convince me that I am misapplying terminology. None of the prove that evolution is not random, they just use terms that make it seem that way superficially.
2. Math always applies, and you have acknowledged that yourself. If math applies, the terminology has to apply, or it is not math. What exactly do biologists use instead of math?
3. I know evolution needs both random and non random elements, you will never see anywhere where I insisted otherwise. (I do think some of the things you think are non random are actually random, but that does not mean there are no non random factors.) That does not change the underlying fact that a random element means a random result.

That is the part you refuse to grasp here. You keep saying I am the one with the problem because you insist that making anything non random makes the whole thing non random.

Let's face it: the entirety of your claim is based on refuting things I never said, comprised of a poor understanding of evolution, while using coerced dichotomies on complex systems. You can end your huffy rants with "period" or "cuz I said so" or "so there" all you want, but these things don't prevent you from continuing to be wrong. Meanwhile, I continue to provide relevant and applicable evidence which directly addresses the question.

No, the entirety of my claim rests on the simple premise that a random element means a random result. You counter by claiming I am arguing things I am not, and insist that I counter points that are irrelevant to my position.

If I am wrong that mathematics clearly states that randomness in an equation can result in non random results you should have no problem proving it. Instead you resort to assertions that even though math applies to biology, it is actually a different math that uses a different terminology. This is not a matter of me making an assertion and resorting to "I said so."

How does that work again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Natural selection is simply a term that describes the fact that some species survive, and some do not.

this is too narrow. selection can also be pushed by reproduction which has implications in animal behavior. frequency and plurality of reproduction could also constitute an advantage irrespective of mere survival. this could be physiological or psychological. both possibilities could be evolved traits.

You do have a point, but ultimately it still comes down to the fact that some survive, and others do not. The factors are complicated, but the results are not.

 

[konradv]

Evolution happens on a species level

Correction: evolution works at the population level, not the species level. (There can be more than one population of a given species).

Actually, it happens on the individual level. It's only when the trait gets spread around to others and reaches a level where enough individuals are homozygotic for the trait, that it moves to the population level. If the trait is sufficiently different, such that those who have it only mate with others who have the trait, a new species would emerge.

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution happens on a species level

Correction: evolution works at the population level, not the species level. (There can be more than one population of a given species).

That is technically true. However, if populations differentiate enough that they evolve separately they will speciate.

Or they can evolve into different ecotypes of the same species, even ring species


That's twice in a row now. You should just quit.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The only possible way to eliminate randomness from a process where it exists is by making a conscious effort to eliminate it. Your insistence the natural selection somehow makes evolution non random is an argument that it is directed by intelligence. I deliberately choose to use language that is inflammatory to show you how absurd your position is. Is it my fault that you are so stuck in your bias that you refuse to accept the possibility that you do not understand something?

Support here: nothing.

It does not matter, it is only part of the equation, and any equation that that contains a random element always has a random result.

Support here: nothing. By the way, which equation are you referring to in this case? I'd like to see the equation laid out.

The only way to eliminate this is to consciously tamper with the equation to eliminate the random element.

Yet another vague term you seem incapable of defining. "Unnatural" or "conscious" or "intelligent". I have asked several times what determines these things, and multiple times you have avoided answering. Is learned behavior conscious? Unnatural? Intelligent? Is isolation or starvation "unnatural" if man creates it? If another animal creates it?

Which has been my point all along.

Yes it has. Unfortunately, the opposite of that point has NOT been my point all along, despite your best straw man attempt at claiming such.

You even stated that I do not understand math, and am misapplying it because evolution does not work by math. (Not an exact quote, but that is the gist of what you said.)

Actually, completely opposite of what I said. Good job not being able to read once again. You cannot quote me in context and show I've EVER implied such a thing. Once again: nice straw man.

• You can't read.
• When you don't understand the other person's argument, which is often, you create a straw man argument.
• You can't process information and understand the underlying concept
• You don't understand the practical application of terminology, which produces
• Improper simplification of complex systems, regardless of how large, into coerced dichotomies, completely unsupported by the original system

You are the one that is doing all of these,

Oh I have? Can you point to a single straw man argument I've made? I just pointed to ones you make frequently. Can you point out where I have simplified a complex system into coerced dichotomies? I'm not quite sure whether you're just failing at trolling or desiring to look like an idiot at this point, but "I'm rubber you're glue" doesn't really work after third grade.

Thanks for the info about HWP. I would like to point out that this does not prove that genes for both colors do exist in equal numbers, it just states, correctly, that an equilibrium is impossible because external factors affect the results. I will admit that my assertion is not based on anything more than an assumption though.

You're right that it doesn't prove that genes for both colors exist in equal numbers. That was YOUR claim. Which is still wrong. Furthermore, the Hardy Weinberg EQUILIBRIUM does not state equilibrium is impossible. You are correct however in stating your assertion, much like most of everything else you've said in this thread, is not based on anything more than an assumption.

All of these combine to constrain the results, it does not change the underlying fact that they are random.

Now you're just outright backpedaling. "Constrain" the result? That's like rolling 6 side dice that are weighted to always land on two. That's constrained, and it's not random at that point any longer, regardless of the randomness and variability of the worker who happened to make the constrained dice.

Except you didn't go into the output at all. Yes, random mutation that makes it resistant to antibiotics is a random result. Applying antibiotics as a filter/environmental pressure to the population creates a non-random result: ALL susceptible bacteria die, and all resistant bacteria live. Just because mutation occurs can lead to drift, certainly. It takes that second part that creates a non-random outcome to really push evolution. In this case, the non-random outcome is bacteria resistant to antibiotics. You still seem incapable of refusing these results.

That is not a non random result, it is a statistically predictable result.

Ah, it's not "non-random", it's "statistically predictable". I've not seen someone backpedal so hard in a long while. This is incredibly amusing.

It's amazing that a few posts ago you were applying a physical environmental filter on coin size, and claiming the outcome was based on a completely unrelated, clearly random variable: heads or tails. NOW when presented with an actual evolution pressure in example, it changed from "must be random" to "statistically predictable". Tell me: what percentage of completely antibiotic resistant bacteria survive the antibiotic? Let's see what the statistics predict.

1. You give me a number of peer reviewed articles in an attempt to convince me that I am misapplying terminology. None of the prove that evolution is not random, they just use terms that make it seem that way superficially.
2. Math always applies, and you have acknowledged that yourself. If math applies, the terminology has to apply, or it is not math. What exactly do biologists use instead of math?
3. I know evolution needs both random and non random elements, you will never see anywhere where I insisted otherwise. (I do think some of the things you think are non random are actually random, but that does not mean there are no non random factors.) That does not change the underlying fact that a random element means a random result.

So your refutation to peer reviewed articles is "they're wrong because I said so". The published articles you've presented to support you case.... still nothing. See that bolded part in that quote? That's where you go wrong. I've asked you to define the words you have used such as intelligent, natural, and conscious, and even provided specific situations for you to apply them to. You are completely incapable of this simple task because they don't apply. The terms you are using are applied to equations made partially by people and partially by random number generators in mathematical modeling. You therefore identify the former as "intelligent/conscious/unnatural" and the latter as "unintelligent, unconscious, natural". These words completely lose their meaning when applied to the natural world. Whether man consistently plants seeds of the tastier fruit or wild animals consistently eat and disperse seeds of the tastier fruit does not change the "naturalness" of the event or outcome. We ARE animals.

That is the part you refuse to grasp here. You keep saying I am the one with the problem because you insist that making anything non random makes the whole thing non random.

Once again, another straw man argument presumably stemming from your inability to comprehend language. I have never stated that making ANYTHING non random makes the whole thing non random. Multiply a random number by a static integer and the result is still random. But if you only allow randomly generated integers from 1 to a million comprise your subset if they are between 2 and 4, the result is no longer random. This is where you backpedal and say something about "statistical predictability", isn't it?

If I am wrong that mathematics clearly states that randomness in an equation can result in non random results you should have no problem proving it.

Oh I see. You want ME to prove something based on what YOU said. Perhaps I should say puff the magic dragon exists and challenge you to prove me wrong?

No you see, YOU prove what YOU claim. I have supported what I claimed with scientific literature, and enough examples to get you to backpedal numerous times and even admit you have been making assumptions. You have supported your claim with an example where the outcome has NOTHING to do with the filter, making straw man arguments, showing your lack of knowledge with hardy weinberg equilibrium and gene frequencies, refusing to define the very terminology you claim applies universally, and backpedaling. Meanwhile, others in this thread have been picking apart the things you've been saying time and time again.

 

[Missourian]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I read in Discover Magazine that our brains are getting smaller.



Brains Study Brains | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correction: evolution works at the population level, not the species level. (There can be more than one population of a given species).

That is technically true. However, if populations differentiate enough that they evolve separately they will speciate.

Or they can evolve into different ecotypes of the same species, even ring species


That's twice in a row now. You should just quit.

I am not a biologist, something I make quite clear throughout this thread. That said, how does the existence of ring species prove me wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only possible way to eliminate randomness from a process where it exists is by making a conscious effort to eliminate it. Your insistence the natural selection somehow makes evolution non random is an argument that it is directed by intelligence. I deliberately choose to use language that is inflammatory to show you how absurd your position is. Is it my fault that you are so stuck in your bias that you refuse to accept the possibility that you do not understand something?

Support here: nothing.

It does not matter, it is only part of the equation, and any equation that that contains a random element always has a random result.

Support here: nothing. By the way, which equation are you referring to in this case? I'd like to see the equation laid out.


Yet another vague term you seem incapable of defining. "Unnatural" or "conscious" or "intelligent". I have asked several times what determines these things, and multiple times you have avoided answering. Is learned behavior conscious? Unnatural? Intelligent? Is isolation or starvation "unnatural" if man creates it? If another animal creates it?


Yes it has. Unfortunately, the opposite of that point has NOT been my point all along, despite your best straw man attempt at claiming such.


Actually, completely opposite of what I said. Good job not being able to read once again. You cannot quote me in context and show I've EVER implied such a thing. Once again: nice straw man.


Oh I have? Can you point to a single straw man argument I've made? I just pointed to ones you make frequently. Can you point out where I have simplified a complex system into coerced dichotomies? I'm not quite sure whether you're just failing at trolling or desiring to look like an idiot at this point, but "I'm rubber you're glue" doesn't really work after third grade.


You're right that it doesn't prove that genes for both colors exist in equal numbers. That was YOUR claim. Which is still wrong. Furthermore, the Hardy Weinberg EQUILIBRIUM does not state equilibrium is impossible. You are correct however in stating your assertion, much like most of everything else you've said in this thread, is not based on anything more than an assumption.


Now you're just outright backpedaling. "Constrain" the result? That's like rolling 6 side dice that are weighted to always land on two. That's constrained, and it's not random at that point any longer, regardless of the randomness and variability of the worker who happened to make the constrained dice.


Ah, it's not "non-random", it's "statistically predictable". I've not seen someone backpedal so hard in a long while. This is incredibly amusing.

It's amazing that a few posts ago you were applying a physical environmental filter on coin size, and claiming the outcome was based on a completely unrelated, clearly random variable: heads or tails. NOW when presented with an actual evolution pressure in example, it changed from "must be random" to "statistically predictable". Tell me: what percentage of completely antibiotic resistant bacteria survive the antibiotic? Let's see what the statistics predict.


So your refutation to peer reviewed articles is "they're wrong because I said so". The published articles you've presented to support you case.... still nothing. See that bolded part in that quote? That's where you go wrong. I've asked you to define the words you have used such as intelligent, natural, and conscious, and even provided specific situations for you to apply them to. You are completely incapable of this simple task because they don't apply. The terms you are using are applied to equations made partially by people and partially by random number generators in mathematical modeling. You therefore identify the former as "intelligent/conscious/unnatural" and the latter as "unintelligent, unconscious, natural". These words completely lose their meaning when applied to the natural world. Whether man consistently plants seeds of the tastier fruit or wild animals consistently eat and disperse seeds of the tastier fruit does not change the "naturalness" of the event or outcome. We ARE animals.

That is the part you refuse to grasp here. You keep saying I am the one with the problem because you insist that making anything non random makes the whole thing non random.

Once again, another straw man argument presumably stemming from your inability to comprehend language. I have never stated that making ANYTHING non random makes the whole thing non random. Multiply a random number by a static integer and the result is still random. But if you only allow randomly generated integers from 1 to a million comprise your subset if they are between 2 and 4, the result is no longer random. This is where you backpedal and say something about "statistical predictability", isn't it?

If I am wrong that mathematics clearly states that randomness in an equation can result in non random results you should have no problem proving it.

Oh I see. You want ME to prove something based on what YOU said. Perhaps I should say puff the magic dragon exists and challenge you to prove me wrong?

No you see, YOU prove what YOU claim. I have supported what I claimed with scientific literature, and enough examples to get you to backpedal numerous times and even admit you have been making assumptions. You have supported your claim with an example where the outcome has NOTHING to do with the filter, making straw man arguments, showing your lack of knowledge with hardy weinberg equilibrium and gene frequencies, refusing to define the very terminology you claim applies universally, and backpedaling. Meanwhile, others in this thread have been picking apart the things you've been saying time and time again.

You know what, I give up. It is obvious that you are deliberately arguing points I am not making in an attempt to make me look foolish. You ignore fundamental concepts of statistics, and even the fact that all medical studies are deliberately designed with random blocks in order to minimize the effect of random factors, and insist that I do not know what I am taking about. You even insist that I supply you with a single equation that proves that random elements mean random results. If I did provide one, you would then claim it is an anomaly, and does not apply to evolution.

Go run off and hide under your blanket of ignorance and enjoy. The real world will continue to work the way it does without the support of your belief. It can get along with out the people who believe in creation and intelligent design, it can get along without you and your belief that evolution is not random.

I understand your knee jerk defense of your position, because creationists have repeatedly tried to use the randomness of evolution in a misguided attempt to discredit it, but that just shows how little they understand about the entire process. The sad thing is that biologists are now stuck in a position of denying science to promote it. Kinda weird, even if it makes sense to a degree.

Have fun, and feel free to claim victory in your own mind.

 

[antagon]

Unnatural is anything that is directed by intelligence. My understanding of evolution is that it is entirely natural.

selection has 'unnatural' contributors. some animals have value systems which prefer certain traits over others or rituals which throw fitness contests which nature has not provided in the environment. this is intelligence.

initself, this is an evolved component of animal behavior which lends to stronger populations and guides genetic drift toward ostensible fitness.

I agree. Humans are a prime example of this. Nonetheless, unless a conscious effort is made to eliminate randomness evolution will remain random.

i believe there are these efforts. their consciousness is moot, however. two beetles wrestling for a mate might not be a conscious endeavor, however, it lends to the determination of evolution for specific traits. the vibrancy of colors on tropical birds is recognized by these species and has developed over time as a hallmark of fitness, despite there not being any environmental characteristics which favor a brightly colored bird. how conscious might that be?

i feel the part of evolution which is most random is mutation. even this is impacted by many factors which draw back to the wider theme of evolution. various conditions may increase the chance for mutations, and even these could be behavioral. the propensity to mutate varies, and other evolution mechanisms indicate that it may play a role in determining this.

when factoring epigenetics into the mix, the 'random' modifier is further blurred.

 

[JBeukema]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I read in Discover Magazine that our brains are getting smaller.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jul/brains-study-brains

Well, that explains the emergence of politics.