The problem of randomness versus relative natural determinism in evolution

[shunyadragon]

The problem of understanding randomness concerning the nature of the outcome of cause and effect events in evolution and in reality all of our physical existence is a perpetual problem from the layman's use and view of 'what is random. This is glaringly a problem from many Christian apologists' rejection of evolution because they assert that the process of evolution cannot be natural because it is random without cause.

The proposal 'relative natural determinism' does not translate to absolute rigid determinism, because the outcomes of cause and event outcomes variation throughout the natural world is within a limited range determined by natural laws, and ultimately the environment in the case of evolution as described as fractal based on Chaos Theory.

In many threads, I have argued that other than the randomness of the timing of individual outcomes of individual cause and effect events the processes of evolution and actually the entire nature of our physical existence is not random concerning the outcomes of the chains of cause and effect outcomes. The following article addresses this issue. I question some of the terminologies, but the article does refer to some new analyses of the research and observations of life as a result of the observed 'parallel evolution' of different plants where the environmental factors determined a similar outcome.The many many examples of parallel evolution occurring throughout the evolution of life throughout the history of life demonstrate that environmental factors determine the outcome of evolution over time.,

https://scitechdaily.com/yale-study-suggests-that-evolution-can-be-predicted/

Evolution might be less random than we thought.

Evolution has long been thought of as a relatively random process, with species’ features being formed by random mutations and environmental factors and thus largely unpredictable.

Editorial note" The above is not really true of how recent scientists view randomness in evolution. but reflects a layman's view.

But an international team of scientists headed by researchers from Yale University and Columbia University discovered that a specific plant lineage independently developed three similar leaf types repeatedly in mountainous places scattered across the Neotropics.

The terminology I question is 'Evolution might be less random than we thought.' It is either random or not. Similarly, you cannot be 'almost pregnant.'

See the following reference for more details:

Reference: “Replicated radiation of a plant clade along a cloud forest archipelago” by Michael J. Donoghue, Deren A. R. Eaton, Carlos A. Maya-Lastra, Michael J. Landis, Patrick W. Sweeney, Mark E. Olson, N. Ivalú Cacho, Morgan K. Moeglein, Jordan R. Gardner, Nora M. Heaphy, Matiss Castorena, Alí Segovia Rivas, Wendy L. Clement, and Erika J. Edwards, 18 July 2022, Nature Ecology & Evolution.
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01823-x

 

[Brian2]

The problem of understanding randomness concerning the nature of the outcome of cause and effect events in evolution and in reality all of our physical existence is a perpetual problem from the layman's use and view of 'what is random. This is glaringly a problem from many Christian apologists' rejection of evolution because they assert that the process of evolution cannot be natural because it is random without cause.

The proposal 'relative natural determinism' does not translate to absolute rigid determinism, because the outcomes of cause and event outcomes variation throughout the natural world is within a limited range determined by natural laws, and ultimately the environment in the case of evolution as described as fractal based on Chaos Theory.

In many threads, I have argued that other than the randomness of the timing of individual outcomes of individual cause and effect events the processes of evolution and actually the entire nature of our physical existence is not random concerning the outcomes of the chains of cause and effect outcomes. The following article addresses this issue. I question some of the terminologies, but the article does refer to some new analyses of the research and observations of life as a result of the observed 'parallel evolution' of different plants where the environmental factors determined a similar outcome.The many many examples of parallel evolution occurring throughout the evolution of life throughout the history of life demonstrate that environmental factors determine the outcome of evolution over time.,

https://scitechdaily.com/yale-study-suggests-that-evolution-can-be-predicted/

Evolution might be less random than we thought.

Evolution has long been thought of as a relatively random process, with species’ features being formed by random mutations and environmental factors and thus largely unpredictable.

Editorial note" The above is not really true of how recent scientists view randomness in evolution. but reflects a layman's view.

But an international team of scientists headed by researchers from Yale University and Columbia University discovered that a specific plant lineage independently developed three similar leaf types repeatedly in mountainous places scattered across the Neotropics.

The terminology I question is 'Evolution might be less random than we thought.' It is either random or not. Similarly, you cannot be 'almost pregnant.'

See the following reference for more details:

Reference: “Replicated radiation of a plant clade along a cloud forest archipelago” by Michael J. Donoghue, Deren A. R. Eaton, Carlos A. Maya-Lastra, Michael J. Landis, Patrick W. Sweeney, Mark E. Olson, N. Ivalú Cacho, Morgan K. Moeglein, Jordan R. Gardner, Nora M. Heaphy, Matiss Castorena, Alí Segovia Rivas, Wendy L. Clement, and Erika J. Edwards, 18 July 2022, Nature Ecology & Evolution.
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01823-x

I would say that if God had a hand in guiding evolution then it is less random than is thought.
I would also think that when we consider the materials involved and the starting point, they might determine the possible end points.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evolution isn't random.
But there's a big random element in it, ie, mutation.

 

[We Never Know]

Evolution isn't random.
But there's a big random element in it, ie, mutation.

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?

 

[Valjean]

Random mutation is not the primary source of the diversity that natural selection selects from. Most of the variation is a product of reproductive variation, in effect, a palette derived from previously selected parents, providing a much less random sample to select from than mutation could provide.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans thought behaviour proves what it falsely believed. As behaviour is innate involved in decision making by a human thinking.

Healthy humans say I'm with the highest greatest. I'm with God...you sick human are cursed ....so you'd better pray to be healed.

So they say hence you can't be with God.

A fallacy as the theist then says yet God created all things. Any position.

So you then realise human behaviour is first consciousness making any choice of any worded statements.

Just human.

So humans say dead past bodies prove change has occurred.

You ask what conditions do bodies own today to be present? Procreation of its type.

Or procreation affected by other types.

As a man human is already a variable body to a woman human. Procreation states how a variable was introduced.

So humans theist know. Ice had changed biology on earth. Always knew that answer.

Biology different forms existed before humans life living a long time before its nature or dinosaur eradication.

After the ice age.

Theists said hence ice was not just life's current term biology saviour.

It depicted it's iced presence as the seasonal controller. And seasons said science adapts the genetic type expressing.

Pretty basic why they said ice the saviour was a type of new god. So never cause it's body mass to be changed or sacrificed. In full knowledge why.

As only humans by observation living state what they claim is any highest or greatest as it already is.

So you can't go back in theory was the churches updated human theists advice.

Many advices ignored now we're akready known. And were the ancient man's highest scientific revelation.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Mutation is just one element of a system.
It doesn't single handedly "drive" it.

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

Ever heard of a "fitness function"?

 

[We Never Know]

Mutation is just one element of a system.
It doesn't single handedly "drive" it.

Ever heard of a "fitness function"?

What fitness helped the dino's survive the meteor? There was nothing fit for something that was completely unexpected, so destructive and world changing but by chance and randomness things managed to survive.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution isn't random.
But there's a big random element in it, ie, mutation.

No, only the timing of individual mutation events as with all of nature. Mutations follow well-defined predictable patterns of chains of cause and effect outcomes that follow Natural Laws and the pattern of the chain of cause and effect mutations follows a fractal pattern within a limited number of outcomes like all cause and effect events in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What fitness helped the dino's survive the meteor? There was nothing fit for something that was completely unexpected, so destructive and world changing but by chance and randomness things managed to survive.

It appears that you are trying to get the science wrong again. Yes, some changes will be too strong or too rapid for many species. When a massive change like that occurs we get mass extinctions. The survivors will still fill the new niches in predictable ways. Disasters cannot be predicted, but what happens after them can be.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that if God had a hand in guiding evolution then it is less random than is thought.
I would also think that when we consider the materials involved and the starting point, they might determine the possible end points.

Actually, I believe in God, but the nature of our physical existence from the human perspective is indifferent as to whether God exists or not.

IF God exists Creation reflects NAtural Laws and processes as we describe them in science, Science is only able to investigate and falsify theories and hypotheses of the physical, but it is the most reliable but limited source of how things happened.

 

[rational experiences]

Especially when the living now is the data used to compare variables of life lived once but died.

Why now present was said is the greatest with God so don't look back or you'll destroy presence.

 

[PureX]

Acts of chance are quite rare, but not insignificant in the existential process.

 

[Altfish]

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?

The change in the species is random BUT then natural selection kicks in. Some mutations will be detrimental and those with that mutation will die out. Some are advantages and those will flourish. Some mutations will be benign and lead to no advantage/disadvantage.

 

[Revoltingest]

What fitness helped the dino's survive the meteor? There was nothing fit for something that was completely unexpected, so destructive and world changing but by chance and randomness things managed to survive.

Fitness function - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

Mutations create more variations within the gene pool, and then natural selection, genetic drift, and possibly even more mutations can kick in. It's a rather sloppy process but it is what it is.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at life on earth, it is primarily water and organics compounds. In terms of evolution, water never changes. Water was H20 when life first appeared on earth and water is still H20, today. The organic compounds, on the other hand, continue to change. Protein are more complex. Evolution has one stable bookend; water, and one wild card bookend; organics. The wild card has to deal with the stable bookend, that sort of anchors it in conceptual space. Water loads the dice in terms of organic selection and evolution.

If you were to dehydrate yeast cells and replace the water with any other solvent, nothing in the cell will work property. But if we add water back, everything works perfectly and life appears. Water is the chemical environment that defines the parameters of natural selection for life at the chemical nanoscale. Like a desert or rain forest sets parameters for macro-life, water does this as the nanoscale. There are specific ways to optimize in water.

The experimental observations above; everything only works in water, tell us that all the organics were chosen; natural selection to be able to work within water. If it does not work well in water, it will not be selected. There is not a lot of useless materials in cells. Mutations will need to pass the water test before it will be accepted for change. The water loads the dice or counts cards in terms of the vector of change. Change is not quite as random as currently assumed.

An analogy is a circle is a locus of points equidistant from a fixed point. We can draw a circle by nailing down one end of fixed string ,and move the other end, so it is always the same distance from the fixed point. However, the free end cannot leave the circle, but is stuck within that locus.

 

[Valjean]

Mutations create more variations within the gene pool, and then natural selection, genetic drift, and possibly even more mutations can kick in. It's a rather sloppy process but it is what it is.

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?

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

More than a bit confusing. Randomness means an unpredictable, unknown cause, unknown outcome.

Nothing known in nature is driven by unknown things, cause.' Randomness and determinism would be used to describe the outcome of cause-and-effect events.

Science can determine the causes, patterns, and the range of outcomes of the range of possible outcomes of cause and effect events. What is random is the outcome of an individual case and effect event. Science can predict the possible range if the outcomes when more than one is possible.
.

 

[We Never Know]

It appears that you are trying to get the science wrong again. Yes, some changes will be too strong or too rapid for many species. When a massive change like that occurs we get mass extinctions. The survivors will still fill the new niches in predictable ways. Disasters cannot be predicted, but what happens after them can be.

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.