So why do people keep discussing it as though it were?  Evolution is a
deterministic process taking place in a deterministic world.  The only
"randomness" about it is in our own minds due to our inability to
completely understand, track and predict what is going on.  This
randomness is epistemological and relative, and is not a real feature of
nature.

Why do I say this?  The only truly random processes in nature are
quantum processes and, as far I know, this quantum randomness plays no
role in genetic mutations.  Mutations are chemical and thermodynamic
phenomena taking place in the macroscopic classical world above the
quantum realm.

So evolution plays out as part of the Newtonian clockwork universe and
statements like these: "If evolution was rerun a trillion times we would
get a trillion different results" and similar ideas from Stephen Gould
are utter bullshit.

To rerun the "tape of life" you first have to rewind it.  The rewind is
completely deterministic because the laws of physics are
time-reversible.  Now when you play the tape forward you get exactly the
same results as before.  Replay it a trillion times and you get the same
result each time.

I think Gould's replaying of the tape of life is a fantasy like the
fantasy we create when we ponder what would have happened if Nazi
Germany had won WWII or if the South had won the American Civil War.  In
the real world, evolution of life on earth could have taken only a
single path, which is the path that it actually did take.  Neither an
Intelligent Designer nor true randomness played any part.

    --dk...@cris.com

In article <g0cmbb$1o1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,

Which of two simultaneous sperm cells to reach an ovum will fertilize
it, is certainly an event on a small enough scale so that quantum
randomness could occasionally play a role.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:23:39 -0400 (EDT), dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net>
wrote:

This displays a rather complete naivety about how the real world
works.  Brownian motion meets whatever criterion of randomness you
might choose, as does Johnson (nyguist or thermal) noise in a
resistor, neither of which need involve quantum indeterminacy.  You
can't replay the way bunched pick-up sticks fall.  There are ample
examples of randomness in living systems and evolutionary systems.

People discuss it as random because it meets all our criteria for
random.

dkomo,

I'm afraid that I disagree with many of your assertions in this post and, of
course, your conclusions.  If the foundation of thermodynamics is credible,
and I think it is, then the arrow of time is not reversible.  As far as we
know that arrow has never been reversed and can never be reversed.  I also
think that you set up a straw man by limiting the notion of randomness to
quantum phenomena.  The way the term "random" has been used historically did
not imply effects without causation.  It merely implies that there is no
meaningful connection, or opportunity for information transfer, between the
source of causation and the effected system.  This definition of "random"
allows randomness to impinge on system dynamics in important ways.  For
example, the Brownian motion of particles energizes steam engines.  The
motions of those particles is not without causes to the extent that they are
interacting, yet those motions are entirely random with regard to the
structure and function of the steam engine.  In my view, it would be as
silly to ignore the role of randomness in evolution as it would be to ignore
the role of randomness in the functioning of a steam engine.

Guy

in article g0cmbb$1o1...@darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkomo...@comcast.net
wrote on 5/13/08 11:23 AM:

On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:44:55 -0400 (EDT), Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com>
wrote:

Brownian motion is sufficient to explain the randomness, quantum
phenomena need not be invoked.  Anyone who believes the "classical"
world of physics is deterministic does not understand the chaotic
nature of the system combined with the finiteness of our observational
and computational ability.  Even if the philosophers say the classical
system is deterministic, there is no way we can use that to predict
the future so the world is for all realistic purposes as good as
random.

On May 13, 2:23 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
     I think the statement that I keep hearing is:
"Variation is random with respect to the fitness of the variation."
     Or variations on this. Another statement I hear is:
"Mutations are random with respect to the functionality of the
mutation."
    The idea being presented is not "determinism versus
indeterminism." The idea is: "viability versus nonviability."
     In the case of Gould's "punctuated equilibrium," by contingency
he is saying that even after long periods of natural selection, the
variation that accumulates is not viable with regards to episodic
events. For example, some species of animals may have survived the KT
extinction merely because they were hibernating or migrating somewhere
else at the time of the meteor impact. The correlation between
surviving the KT event and the accumulated variations is nil.
     The nautilus species may have survived because the common
ancestors of all extant nautilii were in their deep water larval state
at the time of the impact. The fact that they spend part of their time
in deep water was uncorrelated to the episodic fall of bolides. That
they happened to be in deep water in April rather than October is even
less correlated with year to year viability. However, some Nautilus
species just happened to luck out.
    This may have been deterministic on a vast Newtonian level, using
a supper computer with the trajectories of all bolides in the solar
system already stored in memory. However, there is no such computer
now and there certainly wasn't 65 million years ago. Really and truly
those nautilii were hatched under a lucky star (which maybe literal).
    I would have to say, though, that given the number of planets in
our solar system, and the number of solar systems in our galaxy, and
the number of galaxies in the universe, there may be some determinism.
I mean, somewhere a nautilus-like species had to coexist with a
primate-like species with the smarts. Large numbers make all events
probable. So much for Gould's "contingency."

On May 14, 1:44 pm, Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:

The fittest - fastest sperm get there first.  So, for a given egg,
between the X sperm, it's random among the fittest sperm.  Over a
large population, it's generally the fittest sperm.

Not that it matters because the it's not a single sperm determining it
all.

The paradigmatic case of a 'random' cause of mutation is getting hit
by a gamma, X, or uv ray.  If you truly believe that quantum randomness
is not involved in the emission or absorbtion of electromagnetic
radiation, then I think you need to reconsult whatever 'tao' you have
used as your source of quantum mechanical wisdom.

In any case, there are a lot of other 'random' aspects to evolution
besides mutation.  Like recombination and segregation.  Like that
butterfly in Brazil which causes the Hurricane in Jamaica with the
net result that some lizzards ride a log raft to Antigua.

You've listed examples of epistemological randomness.  These are
probabilistic theories of physical phenomena, but they are probabilistic
simply because we can't analytically handle these phenomena easily any
other way.  So we use statistics.

My question has to do with whether evolution is at its core truly random
beyond our statistically based and incomplete theories about it.

Let's forget about the idea of "replay".  I used that word because Gould
initially brought it up -- "replaying the tape of life".  Consider the
following thought experiment.  Imagine we have a trillion absolutely
identical worlds.  In each world we focus in on a bunch of pick-up
sticks standing on end.  The trillion bunches are absolutely identical.
  At exactly the same instant across all trillion worlds, the pick-up
sticks are allowed to fall as they will.

Now, answer the following question.  After the pick-up sticks have come
to rest in a pile, will the trillion piles be identical?  Why or why not?

The way you answer this question will allow us to determine whether
you're the one who's naive and doesn't know how the world works, LOL.

Getting back to evolution, now let's imagine a trillion absolutely
identical universes each containing an earth teeming with life at some
point many millions of years ago.  After millions of years of evolution
from that exact point in time, will those earths contain identical life
organisms or not?  *That's* what my original post was trying to get at.

I have no problem with epistemological randomness and the theories based
on it, as long as people don't confuse those theories with the actual
world of nature.

     --dk...@cris.com

Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote

JE:-

Hi Guy,

Yes, "random" simply means measured but
NOT UNDERSTOOD.

JE:-

I think that the problem which dkomo raised
remains critically valid. While I agree that
random processes provide heritable variation
within evolutionary theory, the entirely non
random process of Darwinian monocentric natural
selection (not be confused with Wallace's
dicentric theory which included group selection
for the first time) remains incorporated with
random heritable variation _within the one,same
theory_ providing 100% non random evolution as
empirical outcomes which can be falsified.

The logical structure of Darwin's unique
argument was and remains unambiguous and
specific: Darwin incorporated random variation
as a nested subset of non random natural
selection and NOT the reverse. This being the
case, random variation can only provide the
limits asto what non random natural selection
mayselect as a default process. IOW, the
evolution provided by Darwinism remains
non random andtherefore entirely falsifiable
even if the assumption as to how heritable
variation is provided remains just random and
non falsifiable. The same use of randomness
is made within valid theories of physics,
i.e. randomness  must at all times remain
contextual to something which is defined
NON random within the one, same theory.

Today's mathematical oversimplification of
Darwinism by Neo Darwinists reduces the
critical nested set structure of Darwin's
argument to just the reversible
intersecting sets deployed within mathematics
allowing heritable, random variation to
constitute an invalid independent theory
of evolution in its own right. The net
result of this is profound and twofold:

1) Neo Darwinian random evolution remains
mathematically correct but entirely non
falsifiable allowing models to become
hopelessly confused with the theory they
were derived from via the process of
simplification and over simplification.
These are respectively, the deletion/
change in a defined variable within a theory
and/or the change/deletion of a defined
constant. It is the latter deletion which
remains so much more important because
constants within theories provide critical
frames of reference.

2) Neo Darwinist Evolutionary Theory can
no longer distinguish between just heritable
variation and evolution _which was and remains
a key element of falsifiable Darwinism_. The
popular polycentric theories of today were and
remain non falsifiable, oversimplified models
of falsifiable Darwinian monocentricity within
which Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) defined as
the  total number of strictly, fertile forms
reproduced per parent per population, was and
remains unrealized/deleted/evaded. This is
simply not understood/evaded by the Neo
Darwinists who produce these uncorrected,
oversimplified models of Darwinian theory.
This appears to be because most of them are
mathematicians and not scientists. Mathematics
is not a science.

In short, Darwinian theory has been decapitated
by mathematicians entering evolutionary theory
who appear to have little idea as to what a
valid theory of science is, and is not.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

ed...@ozemail.com.au