The problem of randomness versus relative natural determinism in evolution

[Subduction Zone]

What predictions?

Scenario..... Russia drops nukes across Ukraine tomorrow.
Using your predictions tell me which species survive and why.

Mutations happen so do to adaptions from the moment.

If a amazon tribe were to fail on hard times to where they only ate one meal a day, they wouldn't die, they would adapt to the current situation.
Homeless people do it all he time. They eat smaller amounts, ration it out, make it last. That's not from a mutation.

A population will learn to survive on whats there.

Oh you are trying to be wrong again. You should tell people ahead of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So random things(mutations) drive a process(evolution), but the process itself that is driven by randomness isn't random.

So things like random changing climates, random disasters, etc doesn't make a process driven by random things and events random?

Suppose you have a coin sorting device like so:

And you pour in a bunch of random coins.
Is it "random" that the same size coins end up together after the processing?

The mutations in evolution are the INPUT.
The INPUT is random.

The "processing" and subsequent output, is NOT random.

The input is random; the process itself is not.

That polar bears are white and grizzlies brown, is not "random".
Eventhough the mutations that gave them that color, were.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What fitness helped the dino's survive the meteor?

None, so they went extinct (well... except for the branch that produced birds).
Much like the other 99% of all species that ever lived.

There was nothing fit for something that was completely unexpected

Obviously plenty of species were fit enough to withstand such a cataclysmic event, since they managed to survive till breeding age AND managed to reproduce also. And the same for the off spring they produced and so on.

All species can tolerate a certain degree of hardship. Some more then others.
Big dino's were ill-equipped to deal with the cataclysmic disruption caused by those meteor strikes.
Small rodents were better equipped to withstand it. Which makes sense, since they require far less natural resources, which would have been significantly reduced in availability in the period immediately following the strikes.

If I require 1000 kg of food while you require only 1, then I'm going to be in BIG trouble if the supply is reduced to only 400 kg. You on the other hand, are very comfortable with such a supply. Especially with me gone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not so much mutation as reproductive variation.
Males and females mate, genes mix, producing varied offspring, natural selection advantages the better suited to the environment, which produces a higher percentage of the next generation......
Where, in this sequence, is the mutation?

Every newborn comes with a set of mutations.
Your child is a mix of your DNA + your other half's DNA + its own unique mutations.

Also, not all species produce sexually.
Not all species have genders.
Go back in time far enough, and genders don't even exist.

Recombination of DNA is one thing. Mutation is another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mutations happen so do to adaptions from the moment.

If a amazon tribe were to fail on hard times to where they only ate one meal a day, they wouldn't die, they would adapt to the current situation.
Homeless people do it all he time. They eat smaller amounts, ration it out, make it last. That's not from a mutation.

A population will learn to survive on whats there.

/facepalm

Adapting behavior to try and cope with a certain situation has nothing to do with genetic adaption which happens across generations at the genetic level, and which ultimately happens in symbiosis with the environment.

 

[Brian2]

Suppose you have a coin sorting device like so:

View attachment 65953


And you pour in a bunch of random coins.
Is it "random" that the same size coins end up together after the processing?

The mutations in evolution are the INPUT.
The INPUT is random.

The "processing" and subsequent output, is NOT random.

The input is random; the process itself is not.

That polar bears are white and grizzlies brown, is not "random".
Eventhough the mutations that gave them that color, were.

So it does sound like, given the nature of material and the possible chemistry that could produce different life forms and the environmental factors and niches available, that the end result could have been known from the start even though part of the process was random.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it does sound like, given the nature of material and the possible chemistry that could produce different life forms and the environmental factors and niches available, that the end result could have been known from the start even though part of the process was random.

No, because the input is random.

Take the coin sorter again.

The input is random. It could be an even, balanced mix among all size coins. In that case you can predict that each sorted box will contain about 25% of all the coins.

But it could also be completely different.
In order to predict the outcome, you would have to have a pretty good idea of what the input is AND you'ld also require a good understanding of the processesing that occurs.

In case of evolution, that would be close to impossible as the variables of the environment are so vast and by themselves very unpredictable at times, that at best one can make a few educated guesses.

 

[shunyadragon]

What predictions?

Scenario..... Russia drops nukes across Ukraine tomorrow.
Using your predictions tell me which species survive and why.

Those resistant to high levels of radiation like cock roaches. Not really relevant to history of natural evolution.

Mutations happen so do to adaptions from the moment.

Confusing. Mutations happen, but natural selection and adaptation occur over periods of time with changes in the environment.

If a amazon tribe were to fail on hard times to where they only ate one meal a day, they wouldn't die, they would adapt to the current situation.

Maybe true, but not relevant to the question of how evolution takes place.

[/quote] Homeless people do it all he time. They eat smaller amounts, ration it out, make it last. That's not from a mutation. [/quote]

Maybe true as simple facts of life, but not relevant to the question of how evolution takes place.
Too confu

A population will learn to survive on whats there.

Learn to survive? You need to study and understand evolution better.

 

[Brian2]

No, because the input is random.

Take the coin sorter again.

The input is random. It could be an even, balanced mix among all size coins. In that case you can predict that each sorted box will contain about 25% of all the coins.

But it could also be completely different.
In order to predict the outcome, you would have to have a pretty good idea of what the input is AND you'ld also require a good understanding of the processesing that occurs.

In case of evolution, that would be close to impossible as the variables of the environment are so vast and by themselves very unpredictable at times, that at best one can make a few educated guesses.

Since I am talking about God (aha, tricked you ) and God knows how things work and can even control for environmental factors and know what sort of refinements that would produce, it seems that God could know the end results because of the materials used and the beginning point and knowing what the environments would be all over the earth and all the changes that would take place. The randomness of the environment was not random when God was controlling it over time.
And come to think of it, this change in environment and time needed for random mutation to have their potential effects, would explain why God needed all that time to produce the end result, which was planned from the beginning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since I am talking about God (aha, tricked you ) and God knows how things work and can even control for environmental factors and know what sort of refinements that would produce, it seems that God could know the end results because of the materials used and the beginning point and knowing what the environments would be all over the earth and all the changes that would take place.

If the outcome of mutations can be predicted, then they aren't random with respect to fitness.
So no, that doesn't work.

And for the record: I smelled this coming a mile away so you didn't "trick me"

But sure, if you assume someone or something (god, an alien, a human, an extra dimensional centaur, a super quantum computer, whatever) to have full knowledge about every aspect of the universe AND perfectly knows the input of random mutations, then I guess it could be done. Although there is still uncertainty build into the system from the bottom up... for example, a mutation can logically be seen as that it is going to get selected since it really means an advantage for the organism... yet that creature can get struck by lightning and die. It can catch a desease. It can die in so many unpredictable ways, it's not even funny. So every prediction is always going to be probabilistic in nature and never perfectly accurate.

The randomness of the environment was not random when God was controlling it over time.

I'm sorry but in this topic I'm going to request that we only confine ourselves to supportable claims.
I have no use for claims about unfalsifiable entities doing things in mysterious ways such that it can't be distinguished form the non-existent and the non-occuring.

I consider it an incredible waste of time and energy.

And come to think of it, this change in environment and time needed for random mutation to have their potential effects, would explain why God needed all that time to produce the end result, which was planned from the beginning.

While painting the bullseye around the arrow, you can come up with post hoc "explanations" for pretty much anything.

 

[Brian2]

If the outcome of mutations can be predicted, then they aren't random with respect to fitness.
So no, that doesn't work.

And for the record: I smelled this coming a mile away so you didn't "trick me"

But sure, if you assume someone or something (god, an alien, a human, an extra dimensional centaur, a super quantum computer, whatever) to have full knowledge about every aspect of the universe AND perfectly knows the input of random mutations, then I guess it could be done. Although there is still uncertainty build into the system from the bottom up... for example, a mutation can logically be seen as that it is going to get selected since it really means an advantage for the organism... yet that creature can get struck by lightning and die. It can catch a desease. It can die in so many unpredictable ways, it's not even funny. So every prediction is always going to be probabilistic in nature and never perfectly accurate.

God would not be predicting however, God would be controlling to get a certain outcome.

I'm sorry but in this topic I'm going to request that we only confine ourselves to supportable claims.
I have no use for claims about unfalsifiable entities doing things in mysterious ways such that it can't be distinguished form the non-existent and the non-occuring.

I consider it an incredible waste of time and energy.

Even though it is in "The Material World" it is still in RF. Unfalsifiable entities are part and parcel of RF and it seems even in this topic also.
Imo it is not a supportable claim to say that evolution could happen without a designer, the unfalsifiable entity.

While painting the bullseye around the arrow, you can come up with post hoc "explanations" for pretty much anything.

Painting the bullseye around the arrow seems to be to come up with post hoc explanations is what evolution is full of.

 

[metis]

Not so much mutation as reproductive variation.
Males and females mate, genes mix, producing varied offspring, natural selection advantages the better suited to the environment, which produces a higher percentage of the next generation......
Where, in this sequence, is the mutation?

Mutations are a dime a dozen, so it's a continuing process that never stops.

 

[Valjean]

Every newborn comes with a set of mutations.

True, every time a cell reproduces there's a good chance for mutation, but my point is, the variation in sexual species that natural selection works with is mostly reproductive variation.

Also, not all species produce sexually.

True, but I was talking about the over-attribution of mutation in sexual organisms, as the source of the variation natural selection works with.

Not all species have genders.

No species has gender.

Go back in time far enough, and genders don't even exist.

You mean sex. Gender is a linguistics term for a kind of noun class. English humorously took advantage of the fact that it has natural gender, corresponding to the biological sex of the referent, to conflate the two.
Natural gender is unusual. Conflating sex and gender would never occur in a language with animate-inanimate genders, or natural-artificial.

 

[Valjean]

We Never Know said: ↑

If a amazon tribe were to fail on hard times to where they only ate one meal a day, they wouldn't die, they would adapt to the current situation.
Homeless people do it all he time. They eat smaller amounts, ration it out, make it last. That's not from a mutation.

Nor is it evolution. The change is behavioral, not anatomical.

A population will learn to survive on whats there.

True--if it's lucky, but evolution is not learning. It's an accumulation of genetic variation over many generations.

 

[Valjean]

Since I am talking about God (aha, tricked you ) and God knows how things work and can even control for environmental factors and know what sort of refinements that would produce, it seems that God could know the end results because of the materials used and the beginning point and knowing what the environments would be all over the earth and all the changes that would take place. The randomness of the environment was not random when God was controlling it over time.
And come to think of it, this change in environment and time needed for random mutation to have their potential effects, would explain why God needed all that time to produce the end result, which was planned from the beginning.

I understand your rationalization, but its an unevidenced claim, presupposing the omniscient, magical God you're trying to defend.

Brian2 said:
Painting the bullseye around the arrow seems to be to come up with post hoc explanations is what evolution is full of.

No, it's you who's trying to fit observed facts into an unevidenced fantasy.
The ToE is probably the most extensively evidenced, consilient, tested and predictive theories an all of science.

 

[Valjean]

Mutations are a dime a dozen, so it's a continuing process that never stops.

Not following.
Yes, mutation happens all the time, but in sexed organisms it's not the primary source of the variation natural selection works with.

 

[Brian2]

No, it's you who's trying to fit observed facts into an unevidenced fantasy.
The ToE is probably the most extensively evidenced, consilient, tested and predictive theories an all of science.

The ToE seems correct in a general sense.

 

[Brian2]

Nor is it evolution. The change is behavioral, not anatomical.
True--if it's lucky, but evolution is not learning. It's an accumulation of genetic variation over many generations.

Our learning and behaviours can have evolutionary/genetic effects.
Less food will result in smaller descendants. I presume the smaller people will survive and live to pass on their genes.
This can be reversed when more food is available but I don't know what the evolutionary mechanism would be there. (evidenced in Japan etc)

 

[We Never Know]

/facepalm

Adapting behavior to try and cope with a certain situation has nothing to do with genetic adaption which happens across generations at the genetic level, and which ultimately happens in symbiosis with the environment.

Facepalm all you like.

I accept evolution as the best explination but I don't think its as cut and dry as some do.
Take the dino meteor, it wiped out most of the food and if you needed 500lbs of food a day to survive, you wouldn't survive. Smaller species that needed less food adapted/were already able to survive what happened. The ones that died or survived wasn't about mutations or niches in my opinion.
I also think more than one species of ape evolved toward human but only a few became dominant, started interbreeding and here we are.

I also don't think the big bang is cut and dry. It all either came from nowhere or it all always existed. Maybe a spill over from another universe, who knows.

 

[Valjean]

Our learning and behaviours can have evolutionary/genetic effects.
Less food will result in smaller descendants. I presume the smaller people will survive and live to pass on their genes.
This can be reversed when more food is available but I don't know what the evolutionary mechanism would be there. (evidenced in Japan etc)

Malnutritive stunting is neither behavioral nor learned, it's a physiological condition, acquired through scarce food.. It's not imprinted in your genes to be passed on to the next generation.

That said, any natural, genetic variation, like left handedness, blue eyes or smaller size, can be passed on to your offspring. If environmental conditions--like scarce food--advantage individuals who need less of it, like small people, this can confer a reproductive advantage. The healthier, small people will thrive and likely have more children, and the short variation will increase as a percentage of the population. This is basic Natural Selection.

Any chance genetic variation, that confers a reproductive advantage, can cause a generalized change in a species over many generations. That's what natural selection is.