Evolution is NOT random
dkomo
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.
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.
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.
r norman
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.
Guy A Hoelzer
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$1o1o$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkom...@comcast.net
wrote on 5/13/08 11:23 AM:
r norman
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.
Lorentz
> So why do people keep discussing it as though it were?
"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."
urillan
> In article <g0cmbb$1o1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>
> dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
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.
Perplexed in Peoria
"dkomo" <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:g0cmbb$1o1o$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> 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.
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.
dkomo
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.
> People discuss it as random because it meets all our criteria for
> random.
>
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.
John W Edser
Guy A Hoelzer <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote
> 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.
JE:-
Hi Guy,
Yes, "random" simply means measured but
NOT UNDERSTOOD.
> 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
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
Glen M. Sizemore
> 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.
GS: And the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists because of our ignorance,
right? You should see Prigogine's discussion of the role of irreversible
processes in the emergence of dissipative structures. It won't do you any
good, but I'm not really offering it for YOUR benefit.
>
> 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.
GS: That's one helluva argument!
>
> To rerun the "tape of life" you first have to rewind it.
GS: Only you would have to first record it. And, if you could literally
record, it then playing it back would constitute on a facsimile.
>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.
GS: When one arranges a system to show convection cells, for example, in a
highly constrained preparation, two possibilities are observed, and there is
no predicting which will emerge. Either the cells are rotating L-R-L-R etc.
or they are rotating R-L-R-L etc. Now, of course, you can say that this is
because we simply do not understand the system in sufficient detail to be
able to predict accurately, but this is simply assuming what you are trying
to prove. The alternative view is that irreverisibility, and its attendant
unpredictability, is an intrinsic part of Nature, and a pragmatic view of
science suggests exactly that.
Cordially,
Glen
Entertained by my own EIMC
news:g0iael$1uvu$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Yes, but (and no less obviously) in some cases we can perceive, more or less
mathematically yet nevertheless rationally reveal and explain, trends and
tendencies (some of which get to be called and considered scientifically
established principles/theories ;->) within "Nature's" in some ways both
infinite and impossible to precisely predict "self"-patterning.
[A less easily misinterpretable and definitely more general expression than
"Nature" is "What Is"; and the insertion of "self" could certainly have been
successfully subtracted from the previous paragraph.
However, what the heck! :-) ]
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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?
That begs the question of whether, on a quantum level, such identity is
even possible.
How can two allegedly identical electrons subjected to allegedly
identical environments act differently, as QT suggests they may?
And if electrons can act differently, why can't pick-up sticks also?
Virgil
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
While I quite agree that there are random processes at scales sto large
for quantum effects to be relevant, my point is that there are events in
which quantum effects ARE relevant, despite dkomo's claim to the contrary
Lorentz
> Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote
>
>
>
> > dkomo,
>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.
with respect to the functionality or viability of the variation. The
context is there, always. DKOMO has just decided to skip over the
context.
He is using the word random in a rather, well, nonrandom way. He
want to call scientists losers, so he choses a definition of "random"
that is consistent with his belief.
>
> 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.
survivability of the person who is unfortunate enough to receive that
variation. However, the mutation that leads to Down's syndrome is one
of the most common mutations that are immediately detectable. The
probability of receiving a trisomy that leads to Down's syndrome is
relatively high. Therefore, the idea that the probability of mutation
increases with fitness has been observationally falsified. If
variation increased with fitness, the Down's syndrome trisomy would be
very rare.
That was an easy falsification.
Virgil
urillan <uri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which of two sperm cells wins, clearly can make a macroscopic difference.
The gender of the offspring, for one thing, is determined by that sperm
cell.
John W Edser
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net wrote:
>>> dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> Brownian motion is sufficient to explain the randomness, quantum
> phenomena need not be invoked.
JE:-
Randomness means measured _but not understood_ which is the only valid
scientific definition of randomness. This must remain separated from
just the mathematical use of the same term as a measure of what is probable.
In the sciences we strive to provide understanding. However, this is not
the case for mathematics which can only measure and calculate in an
entirely reversible way. The two combined provide an incredibly powerful
epistemology whereas separately, science loses its teeth and mathematics
ceases to be self consistent (as proven by Godel).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
The most basic nature of mathematics is that everything remains
logically reversible across "=", ">" or "<" signs _when empirically this
is simply not the case_ (please refer to previous posts which addresses
the empirical and non reversible nature of multiplication which simply
does not exist within mathematics). Without at least one non reversible
sequitur we cannot make sense of anything. The most basic of these is time.
If time is reversible, as it is within mathematics, then no frame of
reference exists for anything so "anything goes". Each non reversible
sequitur provides a constant of some kind which has to be defined
outside and not inside of mathematics. These critical constants provide
the only bulwark we can employ within mathematics against a veritable
storm of reversibility. If every proposed theory constant become reduced
to just a variable via the common process of modeling oversimplification
then no frame of reference can now be supplied only allowing the
mathematical identification of the term "randomness" and not any
scientific use of it.
My point is that _we simply do not know why anything remains logically
non reversible_, all that we know is that some things are minimally
providing time, such that those which are not, cannot be validly
considered in splendid isolation to those that are. Consider what
comprises one minimal independent unit of information: one sentence in
any language, i.e not one word or just one letter simply because each of
these has to be defined using at least one sentence. One minimal unit of
information absolutely requires two things non reversibly linked as
subject and predicate such that the subject remains a proper sub set of
the predicate and not the reverse. This can be found in any sentence
within any language except mathematics. It is the more critical non
reversible relationship which provides _sense_ allowing the probable
events of mathematics.
Only two types of logical sequiturs are known: reversible and non
reversible. Both are employed within a rational argument and not just
the one. These can be combined as only four statement types which in
turn remain related to each other in just 3 possible ways providing 12
tests (as illustrated in the traditional square of opposition which is
over a 1000 years old). To the left of each proposition type there is a
non verification and to the right a verification such that any one of
these cannot be deleted without deleting all three. The diagonals
represent refutation. Any theory/hypothesis presents a composite of
these four proposition types.
> 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.
JE:-
What we consider to be random is only the product of our ignorance
of this universe. The fact that we can measure probabilities comes with
the compliment of defined non probabilities _which can be falsified by
nature_.
> 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.
JE:-
We use science to reliably predict the future all of the time.
Regards,
John Edsger
Independent Researcher
r norman
wrote:
You are arguing for a Laplacian demon with full knowledge of the
position and momentum of all particles in a Newtonian deterministic
universe. In your thread of the same subject line in talk.origins I
describe a series of reasons why the universe is not deterministic in
this sense. Yes, it ultimately is based on either quantum randomness
in how the wave function is interpreted or else it is based on
uncertainty where a particle does not really _have_ a simultaneous
position and momentum, not merely that we can't measure it. In a
conceptual framework, even were the universe a Newtonian mechanism, I
argue that no finite system can have the knowledge of all the
particles to compute the system. So the universe may be deterministic
to some conceptual infinite power, to a god, but not to any
conceivable science.
r norman
wrote:
Absolutely. In the thread on talk.origins I expand on how quantum
events can have significant impact on macroscopic systems, certainly
enough to destroy any claim on determinism.
Virgil
John W Edser <ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> In the sciences we strive to provide understanding. However, this is not
> the case for mathematics which can only measure and calculate in an
> entirely reversible way. The two combined provide an incredibly powerful
> epistemology whereas separately, science loses its teeth and mathematics
> ceases to be self consistent (as proven by Godel).
Godel only proved that consistent mathematics at a sufficiently complex
level cannot prove itself consistent, which is quite different from what
you claim.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
John W Edser
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote
> You are arguing for a Laplacian demon with full knowledge of the
> position and momentum of all particles in a Newtonian deterministic
> universe. In your thread of the same subject line in talk.origins I
> describe a series of reasons why the universe is not deterministic in
> this sense. Yes, it ultimately is based on either quantum randomness
> in how the wave function is interpreted or else it is based on
> uncertainty where a particle does not really _have_ a simultaneous
> position and momentum, not merely that we can't measure it. In a
> conceptual framework, even were the universe a Newtonian mechanism, I
> argue that no finite system can have the knowledge of all the
> particles to compute the system. So the universe may be deterministic
> to some conceptual infinite power, to a god, but not to any
> conceivable science.
JE:
The random element means WE CAN MEASURE IT (using mathematics) BUT WE
SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT (using the sciences). Mathematics is not a
science. Just because we can measure probability does not mean that we
understand it. Todays confusion between science and mathematics has sown
the seeds for a destructive Post Modern epistemology which was and
remains based on the misuse of mathematics. Today's Neo Darwinistic
evolutionary theory establishment is Post Modern because it predicates
itself on things like probabilities, i.e. something that we can measure
_but do not understand_. Science is all about understanding in a
falsifiable way and not just, not understanding.
dkomo
The pick-up sticks are macroscopic objects subject to the laws of
classical physics, which worked quite well for more than two centuries
after Newton until the discoveries of atomic physics. The trillion
piles of pick-up sticks will be absolutely identical in their
macroscopic configuration. It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
pattern.
dkomo
The universe itself is that finite(?) system. The universe has all the
knowledge it needs to compute the next state of its existence for the
next Planck time after the given present state. As Seth Lloyd and some
other physicists have pointed out, the universe can be viewed as a vast
cosmic computer.
For the pick-up sticks example, the answer I was looking for is that all
trillion piles will be identical in macroscopic configuration. Quantum
fluctuations will have no effect as the sticks fall because the sticks
are simply much too large and have too much mass.
Again, since living things are macroscopic objects, and are affected by
macroscopic forces in the world around them, is not their evolution as
completely determined as are paths of the falling sticks across the
trillion worlds?
Lorentz
> r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote
>
Today's Neo Darwinistic
> evolutionary theory establishment is Post Modern because it predicates
> itself on things like probabilities, i.e. something that we can measure
> _but do not understand_. Science is all about understanding in a
> falsifiable way and not just, not understanding.
>
Modern. Post Modern is the belief that reality is determined by the
collective belief of human beings. It is a belief that scientific
theory is a construct of the human mind. The physical reality behind
properly constructed probabilities exist independent of the collective
human mind.
The misconception described is based on a false tautology with a
partial truth. Yes, we USE a value for probability of an event in the
absence of a deterministic equation for that event. His logic is that
when a deterministic equation is found, the probability value ceases
to mean anything. However, the reality is that the probability STILL
represents part of the reality, regardless of whether people use the
deterministic equation or not. The probability describes the
redundancy of the initial conditions. This redundancy exists whether
or not people are there. The priorities set by the user of the
probability are themselves part of the physical conditions of the real
world.
One can consider blackjack. The cards really exist. Yes, there
is a partial deterministic way to "beat the game." One can in
principle "count cards." "Counting cards" reflects a method of
changing the probabilities in favor of the person playing relative to
"intuition." There is a set of probabilities for "counting" that
exist, and a set of probabilities for "intuition" that exists. Both
sets reflect part of the physical reality of a deck of cards.
However, their "use" depends on the initial conditions. If the
card player is afraid of the Mafia more than the results of his
intuition, he won't count. If the card player is afraid of the results
of his intuition more than the Mafia, he will count. If the person
want to understand the physical reality of a deck of cards, he may
want to play both ways at home. However, the existence of two sets of
probabilities is not created by the human mind, it is merely
discovered. The human mind itself is not created by the human mind.
The card player "discovers" his preferences. The history of the card
player is a real physical trajectory, and exists regardless of
"collective events."
This is not off-topic. Getting back to evolution:
Theories of natural history are not any more Post Modern than
blackjack. Even if one had exact physical theories that precisely
calculated the development of animals from initial conditions, it
would not in any way compromise the importance of either paleontology
or "neoDarwinist analysis." Because of redundancy in history, there
would still be an interest in what the initial conditions were. For
instance, one could calculate using this "deterministic theory"
several trajectories leading to the current diversity of animal life.
Some of these trajectories would involve a "Cambrian explosion" 550
MYA, and others would not. However, there would still be no way to
determine that there was a "Cambrian explosion" without paleontology.
There would still be no way to determine which of the possible
trajectories that pass through the "Cambrian explosion."
It is odd that some people should slam "Post Modernism" in one
post and quote Karl Popper in another post since Karl Popper is the
most popular "Post Modernist" alive.
Guy A Hoelzer
ed...@ozemail.com.au wrote on 5/15/08 2:37 PM:
>
> Guy A Hoelzer <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote
>
>> 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.
>
> JE:-
>
> Hi Guy,
>
> Yes, "random" simply means measured but
> NOT UNDERSTOOD.
I would extend this view in a way I think is critical to the concept of
randomness. Your definition would seem to imply, perhaps unintentionally,
that their is information in randomness of value if only it could be
understood. I'm sure that often accounts for some of the apparent
randomness, but I'm also sure that it never accounts for all of it. I think
there is plenty of variation consequent to causations that is utterly
meaningless to any particular system. The symbols composing this message
are, for example, truly meaningless and without directional impact on say
the evolution of cod fish. Even if cod had the wherewithal to decode the
meaning of this message, it would be foolish for them to bother. The effort
would involve a net cost with no benefit. This is roughly, I think, why
systems evolve to ignore (be insensitive and robust to) so much of the
variation (including potential information) they encounter. Most of it is
truly random with regard to the functioning of the system, whether it might
be useful to other systems or is so fundamentally random that it has no
meaning for any system.
In addition, the fluctuations in randomness (broadly defined as above) can
serve as a source of raw energy to fuel the metabolism of a system. The
Brownian motion of particles can, for example, drive a steam engine or a
tornado. Randomness can, therefore, be essential to a system even if the
system does not extract any information from its variation.
Cheers,
Guy
Glen M. Sizemore
Humans do, indeed, make calculations and computations, and then they respond
in various ways to the products of these activities. The notion, however,
that the Universe makes computations and subsequently responds to the
products of those "activities" strikes me as utter nonsense.
>As Seth Lloyd and some
> other physicists have pointed out, the universe can be viewed as a vast
> cosmic computer.
And a sow's ear could be viewed as a silk purse. But that doesn't make it
so.
<snip>
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
> strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
> pattern.
Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
quantum events.
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> For the pick-up sticks example, the answer I was looking for is that all
> trillion piles will be identical in macroscopic configuration. Quantum
> fluctuations will have no effect as the sticks fall because the sticks
> are simply much too large and have too much mass.
A stick exactly balanced on its point might well eventually fall in
different directions in each of those trillion piles, and anything,
however large, which is in a position of unstable equilibrium can be
effected by quantum fluctuations.
dkomo
Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
raised to the power of a trillion worlds.
Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.
There are inhomogeneities in the earth's gravitational field due to
density fluctuations in surrounding matter, not to mention density
inhomgeneities within the stick itself. Tiny inhomogeneities indeed but
orders of magnitude greater than any quantum fluctuations. Then there
is the problem of the stick getting struck billions of times every
second by molecules of the atmosphere. Then there are the corliolis
forces due to the earth's rotation. Finally, how long would the stick
have to stay balanced in order to experience the quantum fluctuation
before it was struck by one of the other other falling sticks? All
these effects are macroscopic and repeatable, and would have to be
negated before a quantum fluctuation could affect the way the stick falls.
Forget about it.
dkomo
A computer goes: input->process->output. It's an information
transducer. It changes the information in the input to information
going out according to some algorithm.
Now take two molecules colliding. The information input are the two
trajectories in phase space of the molecules. The output information
are two different trajectories in phase space after the collision. The
process algorithm is classical mechanics. This simple collision has
"processed" and "transformed" information like a tiny computer.
Now enlarge the picture to the whole universe.
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <g0nk4a$1p7k$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
> >>strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
> >>pattern.
> >
> >
> > Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
> > pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
> > direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
> > quantum events.
> >
>
> Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
> initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
> trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
> raised to the power of a trillion worlds.
The set of vertical positions from which a stick's eventual direction of
falling would be effected by quantum events has positive measure.
>
> Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.
It only has to be sufficiently in balance to have its future positions
macroscopically effected by quantum effects. If Schroedinger's cat's
life can be affected by quantum effects, so can the final positions of
pick up sticks.
r norman
wrote:
>In article <g11mb0$1aci$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
I confess to being the creator of the "pick-up sticks" metaphor. It
was really just that and not a serious example of a situation strongly
influenced by quantum phenomena. However there are, indeed, enough
possibilities where quantum phenomena can be magnified to exert a
macroscopic effect. Biology is the best example where the behavior of
an entire organism is produced by the behavior of its cells which is
produced by the behavior of its organelles which is produced by the
behavior of its molecules which most definitely can be influenced by
quantal fluctuations. In particular, there are organisms known where
activity in a single neuron releases significant behavior. And
fluctuations in the details of molecular gates in the membrane can
alter the firing of the neuron. Also there are powerful amplifying
factors in cell signaling machinery so that individual molecular
events can cause significant changes in the activity of a cell. We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon but only a very
small number is necessary to evoke a response and we can measure the
response to single photons. Certainly the absorption of a photon by a
molecule must be taken to be a quantal event.
As to the pick-up sticks. I can imagine a situation so carefully
balanced where the brownian motion of air molecules can affect the
pattern of activity. If not pick-up sticks, then certainly there are
situations where this can occur. Again, in biology, brownian motion
of molecules is responsible for chemical reactions. And the
absorption of a photon by a particle in the statistical ensemble
produces a momentum kick and changes the resulting pattern of brownian
motion. No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even replicating the
original conditions.
DK
>We
>humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon
We are! (Albeit only when well dark-adapted and even
then at a low rate compared to, say, turtles).
>No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
>deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even
>replicating the original conditions.
Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple example:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/Bunimovich/Bunimovich.html
DK
Lorentz
> Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
> not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
> effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
> of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
> level. As in this simple example:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/B...
>
> DK
You are right about chaotic effects being for all practical
purposes nondeterministic. I think that is what Gould actually meant,
but stated in Gould's condescending style.
For example, a chaotic eventthe posters that disagree are making a
mistake as to what Gould meant by contingency..
I think part of the confusion is with Gould's statement about
"rewinding the tape of life." One of the posters here makes the
arguable claim that rewinding is a deterministic process.
Gould made a lot of ambiguous statements. At the same time, he
made arrogant remarks putting down physical scientists who worry about
ambiguity. Gould is a bit wrong.
Gould is implying that the observer who rewinds the events is
changing some of the initial conditions on an atomic level. It's like
the "butterfly effect" in chaos theory. Gould is rewinding the event
after stepping on some atom-sized collision. He then moves forward
after stepping on another atom-sized collisions. He is claiming the
resulting history, with these collisions changed, will be entirely
different. Or maybe he is changing a butterfly sized collision. In any
event, he really should have called "the tape of life" the "software
program of life." Gould thinks that there is an unseen "random number
generator" to history. Just like the butterfly in chaos theory.
However, Gould is trying to distance himself from mathematicians and
physical scientists who use such concepts.
Chaotic processes have certain statistical properties that can
be determined. Such as the Lyapanov number. Even in a classical
chaotic process, one can determine the Lyapanov number. So in the
broadest statistical sense, chaotic processes are deterministic. The
effort to quantify the dynamics of evolution has been very hard, but I
think it has gained rich dividends. Gould tends to dismiss such
efforts.
I suspect if the tape of life were rewound and run forward, we
would end up with the same "Lyapanov number" or its analog. So life
isn't as "contingent" as Gould claims. But I don't know.
I like Dawkins better than Gould because he addresses the
quantitative concepts in evolutionary theory, even in his popular
writing. However, I think that Gould's ideas should not be dismissed
out of hand. Just remember Gould is sometimes a little too arrogant to
write clearly.
dkomo
Keep in mind that just because an event takes place at the quantum
level, that doesn't mean it is a random event. A photon striking an
atom will cause an electron to be ejected 100% of the time if the energy
of the photon is greater than the ionization energy of the electron.
There's no *probabilty* less than one that the electron will be ejected!
Another example is measuring the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.
This energy is an eigenvalue of the lowest energy eigenstate of the
atom. These kinds of eigenvalues are *determinate*, not probabilistic!
Measure the ionization energy a million times, and you will get the same
value a million times (within experimental error).
You're throwing out all these examples of quantum phenomena but you
haven't considered which are truly random, and which aren't.
I'm preparing a second draft of my "Evolution is NOT random" thesis
which will address the question of quantum events. It will, in part,
make use of the "E" word -- emergence.
dkomo
How is this simulation non-deterministic? It's produced by a computer
running an algorithm. Not only is it deterministic but it is completely
repeatable.
Chaos is NOT a source of randomness in nature.
DK
>DK wrote:
>> In article <g170bf$kt8$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman
> <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We
>>>humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon
>>
>>
>> We are! (Albeit only when well dark-adapted and even
>> then at a low rate compared to, say, turtles).
>>
>>
>>>No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
>>>deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even
>>>replicating the original conditions.
>>
>>
>> Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
>> not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
>> effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
>> of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
>> level. As in this simple example:
>>
> http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/Bunimovich
>/Bunimovich.html
>>
>> DK
>>
>
>How is this simulation non-deterministic? It's produced by a computer
>running an algorithm.
It is deterministic. But it shows the source of non-determinism
in nature - infinitely small changes end up producing global
effects.
>Chaos is NOT a source of randomness in nature.
It is. Change the initial positions 0.5% from what's shown
and you get completley different outcome.
DK
DK
>On May 24, 2:20 am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>> In article <g170bf$kt...@darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman
> <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
>> not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
>> effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
>> of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
>> level. As in this simple
> example:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/B.
>..
>>
>> DK
> You are right about chaotic effects being for all practical
>purposes nondeterministic. I think that is what Gould actually meant,
>but stated in Gould's condescending style.
> For example, a chaotic eventthe posters that disagree are making a
>mistake as to what Gould meant by contingency..
> I think part of the confusion is with Gould's statement about
>"rewinding the tape of life." One of the posters here makes the
>arguable claim that rewinding is a deterministic process.
> Gould made a lot of ambiguous statements. At the same time, he
>made arrogant remarks putting down physical scientists who worry about
>ambiguity. Gould is a bit wrong.
Gould has been wrong on too many things. What made Gould
"Gould" is that he was a brilliant writer.
> I like Dawkins better than Gould because he addresses the
>quantitative concepts in evolutionary theory, even in his popular
>writing.
Me too.
DK
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Keep in mind that just because an event takes place at the quantum
> level, that doesn't mean it is a random event.
But some of them certainly seem to be.
E.g., the spin of an electron.
r norman
wrote:
>r norman wrote:
If an electron does absorb a photon, then it does, with probability
one. If it does not, it does not, with probability one. But what is
the probability that the absorption will occur? Not every photon is
absorbed.
The energy levels of a structure are deterministic. But whether an
electron makes a jump between levels is not.
Buddy
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.
dkomo
The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.
My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.
Cj
Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
dkomo
Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
If you want to replay the tape and allow all manner of macroscopic
contingencies to change, then Gould's thought experiment becomes
vacuous. Of *course* then evolution would be different. Nobody could
could disagree with that.
I'm looking for intrinsically random events that could affect the way
life evolved. Meteors and volcanic erruptions and continental drift and
global climate change are not random events. They would repeat in any
replay.
Guy A Hoelzer
Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man. If
meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
allow to be categorized as random. If I said that evolution would have been
different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same". Nobody
would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
so. Don't pretend to have an argument supporting that notion when all you
have is a very simple tautology based on assuming the conclusion you claim
to support.
Guy
in article g2974b$13du$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkom...@comcast.net
wrote on 6/5/08 10:18 AM:
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
Can electron spins count as butterfly wings?
Cj
> Cj wrote:
>> "dkomo" <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:g245u7$18qd$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>>
>>>Buddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course evolution is random.
>>>>Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.
>>>>
>>>>If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
>>>>the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
>>>>that planet will be different.
>>>>Yes WILL be different.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
>>>are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
>>>evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
>>>will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
>>>than they did on earth.
>>>
>>>My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
>>>(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
>>>same lifeforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> --dk...@cris.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years
>> ago
>> things would be very different now and not 99% like now...
>>
>>
>
> Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
> replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.
The "tape of life" is a very poorly chosen metaphor since a tape replay
theoretically produces identical results to the original sequence. On the
other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
different because of the enormous effect of random events on
multiple processes operating over a very great time span. I think that the
"tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact recreation
of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an incorrect
metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think that
the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
think the argument is a non-starter.
Cj
Cj
news:g2bs1b$2jqs$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Only if singular quantum events can cause macroscopic effects.
Cj
Entertained by my own EIMC
"Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote in message
news:g2fo1m$1fdq$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
I don't wish to defend this the tape metaphor, but neither would I like to
throw out a certain "baby" of mine ("with the bathwater"), either.
I have found it is possible to cut and look through an all-in-one
[corrective/protective/magnifying/panoramic] system of "lenses" [one cut
from science-aligned lingual logic rather than mathematical logic] to allow
a marginally unprecedented integrative insight into, and a permanent unified
understanding of, the evolutionary patterning that produced especially our -
the human - lineage.
If one looks at our evolution this way, one can (or at least I have) come to
accept that from and during the multicellular (more precisely the
'neuromuscular') period and aspect of the "evolutonary patterning tendency"
(within this universe) can be fruitfully interpreted as involving a
universal subprinciple of Darwin's most simple heuristic 'super principle'.
This subprinciple is one that have summarized as (something to the tentative
tune of) "AEVASIVE" or - more simply - as per the pragmatic expression from
which the first to capitals of AEVASIVE was no less pragmatically derived;
namely, "ambiadvantageously evolved" [or "ambiadvantageously adaptive
effects via actention selection involving (amongst else but nevertheless a
both an acronym-building and highly instructive example) various endorphins
[or "endoopiates" - if a more inclusive but 'not kosher' (=unconventional)
category of some centrally involved neurotransmitters is considered].
What the concEPT of "ambiadvantageous" mutations (or ditto new or improved
adaptations) is referring to is not something so simple and trivial that it
is easy to absorb.
[I bet that the most important part of this difficulty (that people have
with digesting what I mean by it) is anchored in the fact that the forms (or
broadly defined class) of adversity referred to by this conEPT is a common
conditioning co-factor in the development of people's personalites, and that
it also commonly get neurophysiologically converted into a largely constant
source of *automatically defensively selective* "actention" (what I mean by
"actention" does *also* comprise the content of people's
cognitive-intellectual activities and awareness).]
"Ambiadvantageous" is also a 'concEPT'. By this very capitalization I make
sure that the only fairly philanthropical origin and in some respects
'homeopathically off-putting' character of some more or less etymologically
pioneering terms contrived by me are identified, qualified, and/or warning
flagged.)
I use "ambiadvantageous" (in whatever suitable grammatical form) for
referring to
1. that ('on one side of the sides of an *ambi*_dextrous hand')
"specific/synaptic hibernation" [i.e., how one may (far from inEPTly / in an
thoroughly justifiable way) refer to an inhibitory function that pre or
post-synaptically "gates" the excitatory output from neurons that most
centrally, would otherwise directly and specifically cause fear/pain-type
"actention modules" to become fully activated/energized or "paid" (since
vital neurometabolic resources would then be spent rather than adaptively
saved)] is the only adaptive inibitory self-regulatory function possible in
respect of selection pressures in the form of non-seasonal or irregularly
occurring and non-climatic predicaments that are not completely physically
restrictive (i.e. prohibitive of outward muscle-driven motility) but
nevertheless inescapable; and,
2. (on the other {*ambi*_dextrous} hand), that this function is frequently
naturally required to be performed (else not survived) against a likewise
naturally selective background of 'evolution-encouraging' environmental (and
procreation promoting) "opportunities" (of course they can also occur in
parallel with in principle avoidable, or escapable, environmental threats,
but in this explanatory context this fact carries no point-making weight
whatsoever) that can be internally COMBINED with REWARD-based LEARNING and
the possibility of "opportunistically adaptive/advantageous" (in contrast to
primarily defensively adaptive/advantageous) "REROUTING" [made possible by
genetically predisposed neural plasticity and brain-fuctural proximities] of
the central excitatory signal-generating "cores" (consisting of by "Synaptic
Hibernation Inducing Type" predicaments long-term potentiated excitatory
neurons) of the corresponding CURSES (or CURSES type memories).
The only very marginally unprecedented concEPT of "CURSES" is the result of
the shortest possible spelling of a thus-required-to-be-pronounced acronym
that is derivable from something along the lines of: "conditioned-in,
chronically kept 'hibernated', hence unconscious, regardless repercussively
retained, stressful situations (specifically SHI-type such), effecting
symptoms".
dkomo
> dkomo,
>
> Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man. If
> meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
> allow to be categorized as random. If I said that evolution would have been
> different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
> not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
> say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same". Nobody
> would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
> the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
> so. Don't pretend to have an argument supporting that notion when all you
> have is a very simple tautology based on assuming the conclusion you claim
> to support.
>
Problems with newsgroup access last night and this morning are causing
my replies to be somewhat disjoint. This is a follow-on to my previous
reply to your post earlier this morning.
Here is an archetypical example of what I mean by "pseudorandomness".
It is a superficial randomness which I think is similar to the type of
randomness most people refer to when they talk about evolution.
The digits of pi pass every statistical test for randomness, no matter
how stringent. Does this really mean that the digits are truly random?
Hardly. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of numerical algorithms
that can generate the digits of pi going out as far as we want. That
means that those digits are repeatable and deterministic, not
intrinsically random. The best way to describe them is that they are
"pseudorandom".
dkomo
I use the term "tape of life" as shorthand and because it was Gould's
original proposal. What I'm really proposing is a follows:
Start with a trillion (or some other large number) of identically
prepared earths. The starting conditions for these earths would have to
include all aspects of the surrounding physical environment, for example
the solar system with the sun, asteroids and comets, all with identical
starting conditions. Now start time going at the same instant on all
these earths. Now you can ask, "what could possibly be different on
each earth to cause evolution to diverge?" *That's* the question I'm
asking. Where could the randomness, if any, be coming from?
> On the
> other hand a fresh rerun of the history of life would absolutely be
> different because of the enormous effect of random events on
> multiple processes operating over a very great time span.
I think your "random" events are nothing more than "pseudorandom" events
that are repeatable and deterministic and would not change the history
of life on any of the trillion earths. They would occur the same way on
each earth. Certainly, there is nothing random about volcano eruptions,
asteroid strikes and climate change that would cause these events to
differ from one earth to the next.
> I think that the
> "tape of life" rerun was an unfortunate choice of words and given their
> context different results would be guaranteed rather than exact recreation
> of events. Even the most sophisticated of authors can choose an incorrect
> metaphor when thinking of something slightly different. I don't think that
> the metaphor confused many readers since they understood the context. I
> think the argument is a non-starter.
> Cj
>
Cj
news:g2jpdu$gue$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quite a compost of postmodernist "logic"you have excreted. Anyway to say it
in English?
Cj
Entertained by my own EIMC
>
> Quite a compost of postmodernist "logic"you have excreted. Anyway to say
> it
> in English?
> Cj
>
No perfectly ordinary (old or recent) English grew out of a largely
deliberate effort to express precisely and poignantly [and perversely -
that's for sure (and not just because I am more peeved off than put off by
parts of the personality of so many people)] that our evolution did make us
almost completely generally deficient (and 'blind-spotted') in the
department of in-depth self awareness and, by automatic extension, in
relevant fields of scientific searches for (not excluding many philosophical
pursuits of) understanding, and in our ability to self- (and socially)
regulate.
So --- if you don't like listening to, learning from, and/or laughing at,
the basically perfectly science-aligned explanatory philosophical tonality
of my concEPT of AEVASIVE (or its constituent, and some complementary,
concEPTs), it is NOT AT ALL NECESSARILY your loss. :-|
Guy A Hoelzer
"where is the randomness in evolution?" You seem to be questioning whether
there is any real randomness of any form in the universe. With the
exception of a possible ontological separation between quantum mechanics and
macroscopic dynamics, which I don't personally accept, any source of
randomness in the universe would do. If anything changes in your "tape of
life", then everything could change (butterfly effects).
Guy
in article g2md66$1upa$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkom...@comcast.net
wrote on 6/10/08 10:21 AM:
dkomo
have preceeded my reply mentioning the digits of pi. -- dkomo]
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
> dkomo,
>
> Your historical tape metaphor is starting to look like a straw man.
YOu know as well as I do that the tape metaphor was orginated by Gould.
> If
> meteor strikes are not random, then please tell us what kinds of events you
> allow to be categorized as random.
Quantum events are the only events which in science are truly random in
the sense of being absolutely non-repeatable and acausal.
> If I said that evolution would have been
> different had a particular sperm carrying a particular novel mutation had
> not been the one to fertilize a particular egg, you could turn around and
> say "if you replay the tape then those details would be the same".
This is not a truly "random" event. Since I've started this thread, I
have seen replies using the term "random" in about half a dozen
distinctly different ways. For example, epistemological randomness,
which results from our lack of knowledge of all the causes which go into
determining an event. Or relative randomness, which really is a lack of
causal connection between processes. Relative randomness describes the
lack of connection between an organism's needs and mutations within it.
These are examples of what I would call "pseudo-randomness". They
appear to be random, but only on a superficial level. In any replay of
the tape, they are actually perfectly repeatable.
> Nobody
> would argue that history would have been different if it was defined to be
> the same. If you don't accept any role for randomness in evolution just say
> so.
I recognize quantum events such as occur in radiation to be random. At
present I'm analyzing how much of a difference quantum events such as
mutation causing radiation make to evolution in the large.
Guy A Hoelzer
Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
to be essentially random, then your (or Gould's) "tape of life" would surely
take evolution in a different direction when replayed. Genomic evolution of
populations and species is little more than mutational dynamics extending to
a grander scale. Some selective filtering certainly happens, but Neutral
Theory and the empirical evidence strongly link the processes of mutation
and evolution. Are you arguing that natural selection is so much in control
of evolution that the dynamics of neutral population genetics is irrelevant
to the evolution of organismal form? Do you think that neutral evolution,
and/or drift-induced maladaptive evolution, would replay differently,
whereas adaptive evolution would proceed the same way? If so, I disagree
because I think that directions of adaptive and non-adaptive evolution are
inextricably linked.
Cheers,
Guy
in article g2p1u1$crc$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, dkomo at dkom...@comcast.net
wrote on 6/11/08 10:27 AM:
Cj
Cj
Cj
In a replay of a tape everything would be the same because the tape is a
repeated record. If things were restarted from scratch almost
everything is intrinsically a random event. What's your point?
Cj
Guy A Hoelzer
I think you and I essentially agree. I didn't know where dkomo stood, which
meant it was impossible to meaningfully interpret his question. Like most
people, he seems to come down somewhere between the two extremes you
describe. He comes very close to complete determinism, but I think he
allows for some input of stochasticity, which is enough to change the tape.
In my response to him yesterday, I also probed to see how much of a diehard
selectionist he is. He might agree that neutral evolution would be
different, but argue that the evolution "that matters" (I am projecting on
dkomo with this language), adaptive (all phenotype?) evolution would still
be the same. This, or similar answers, would open up a whole new set of
issues.
Guy
in article g2rq2t$1rsv$1...@darwin.ediacara.org, Cj at cw...@gwi.net wrote on
6/12/08 11:31 AM:
DK
>dkomo,
>
>Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
>Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
>to be essentially random,
Not only radiation (incoming energy) is random but also whether
it is absorbed or not, and whether it is dissipated into heat or
results in a mutation are also purely random events. Given that
just about any biological system is chaotic at some point, this
fact ought to be enough to know that the evolution has to be
random.
Which does not, of course, means that quantum effects play any
special role in biological processes.
DK
dkomo
> In article <g2rq2t$1rsj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>, Guy A Hoelzer <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote:
>
>>dkomo,
>>
>>Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
>>Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
>>to be essentially random,
>
>
> Not only radiation (incoming energy) is random but also whether
> it is absorbed or not, and whether it is dissipated into heat or
> results in a mutation are also purely random events. Given that
> just about any biological system is chaotic at some point, this
> fact ought to be enough to know that the evolution has to be
> random.
>
Wow, chaos! Please give some examples of species which went chaotic
during some point of their evolution. Be as specific as possible. How
do you know that they went chaotic rather than being affected by more
mundane events like climate change or asteroid strikes?
Since you brought up chaos, I'll make use of it for my own claims. As
you probably know chaotic systems are often drawn toward attractors.
There is a theory by Brian Goodwin and others that most of the main
phenotypical features of living things are examples of attractors in
morphogenetic space. If that's true, then the detailed randomness of
mutations produced by radiation becomes largely irrelevant because no
matter what the sequence of these events, the organisms will be drawn
into the same attractors. They'll end up with pretty much the same
phenotypical features.
> Which does not, of course, means that quantum effects play any
> special role in biological processes.
>
Cj
> Hi Cj,
>
> I think you and I essentially agree. I didn't know where dkomo stood, which
> meant it was impossible to meaningfully interpret his question. Like most
> people, he seems to come down somewhere between the two extremes you
> describe. He comes very close to complete determinism, but I think he
> allows for some input of stochasticity, which is enough to change the tape.
> In my response to him yesterday, I also probed to see how much of a diehard
> selectionist he is. He might agree that neutral evolution would be
> different, but argue that the evolution "that matters" (I am projecting on
> dkomo with this language), adaptive (all phenotype?) evolution would still
> be the same. This, or similar answers, would open up a whole new set of
> issues.
>
> Guy
>
Gould chose a poor metaphor for replaying the history of life on this
planet. A tape recording is by definition a duplicate of the original.
Evolution isn't deterministic, it's a set of recipes and the results
depend on an enormous variety of contingencies. It appears that dkomo
is accepting S. J. Gould's metaphor literally and is insisting that the
history of life will repeat the same pattern because all variables are
deterministic. As a population dynamicist I can assure you that
nothing in the biology of populations is deterministic even if you use
delay difference equations to model everything.
In one of Gould's essays in which he replays the metaphor of a tape of
life's history he is quite specific about the lack of determinism in a
replay; in the cited case of Wonderful Life he muses on the survival of
extinct phyla from the Burgess shale and points out that there is
absolutely no way to determine a priori which genera will survive and
which will become extinct. Given 50 million years of sequential and
simultaneous stochastic events affecting the survival of variable
populations determinism in dkomo's sense is virtually impossible. All
life is stochastic which is why insurance companies make money by basing
their models on outdated life table data.
Cj
Cj
Reread your Gould, the context in every essay where he uses the tape of
life replay stipulates stochastic variation, he explicitly asserts that
the history of life on this planet would not be deterministic in a
replay. He had a poor choice of metaphor and never intended to assert
an unchangeable replay. I fear you are arguing for the technical
validity of an unfortunate metaphor; Gould explained (several times)
that what he wrote is not what he meant.
Cj
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
That depends on the number and nature of the attractors in the
appropriate phase space. With more than one attractor, even very minor
perturbations at certain critical points of an orbit can cause
convergence towards or orbiting around a different attractor.
Guy A Hoelzer
You are reading way too much into my comments. I am not arguing for the
validity of Gould's metaphor. I was merely trying to understand dkomo's
point of view and hence his question. I expect that there are interesting
assumptions and implications built into his question that could have gotten
to some core issues in evolution. I also suspect that he/she and I disagree
on most of those interesting issues.
I will challenge, however, an implication I detect in your position. You
seem to assume that stochasticity will always result in divergence when
running sets of evolutionary systems started from the same state (as with
models of chaos). I think this conflicts with lots of evidence to the
contrary showing generic aspects of systems (e.g., morphologies) that will
emerge repeatedly. Convergent evolution is a putative example of this sort
of thing. In other words, there seem to be both predictable kinds of
outcomes and unpredictable kinds when dealing with complex dynamical
systems. This is the main reason I am so taken by the notion of
universalities.
Cheers,
Guy
DK
>> In article <g2rq2t$1rsj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>, Guy A Hoelzer
> <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>dkomo,
>>>
>>>Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
>>>Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
>>>to be essentially random,
>>
>>
>> Not only radiation (incoming energy) is random but also whether
>> it is absorbed or not, and whether it is dissipated into heat or
>> results in a mutation are also purely random events. Given that
>> just about any biological system is chaotic at some point, this
>> fact ought to be enough to know that the evolution has to be
>> random.
>>
>
>Wow, chaos! Please give some examples of species which went chaotic
>during some point of their evolution.
I don't understand what you are saying. "Species which went
chaotic"? This does not make any sense to me.
>Be as specific as possible. How
>do you know that they went chaotic rather than being affected by more
>mundane events like climate change or asteroid strikes?
>
>Since you brought up chaos, I'll make use of it for my own claims. As
>you probably know chaotic systems are often drawn toward attractors.
Lets be more precise here: Many chaotic systems display attractor
behavior.
>There is a theory by Brian Goodwin and others that most of the main
>phenotypical features of living things are examples of attractors in
>morphogenetic space. If that's true, then the detailed randomness of
>mutations produced by radiation becomes largely irrelevant because no
>matter what the sequence of these events, the organisms will be drawn
>into the same attractors. They'll end up with pretty much the same
>phenotypical features.
I sense that you are confused what an attractor is. The thing is, the
exact trajectory within the attractor *is* very different depending on
the starting conditions. Look at the simplest case:
http://to-campos.planetaclix.pt/fractal/lorenz_eng.html
Click on CHAOS and examine several starting points. Sometimes
the "inside" is all yellow, sometimes it's all blue. Now consider
what happens to the evolution if blue is, say, radial and yellow
is bilateral symmetry.
Plus, when there is more than one attractor, a bifurcation behavior
is more norm than an exception. So you may very well never come
up with pretty much the same phenotypical features.
DK
Cj
>
>
> I will challenge, however, an implication I detect in your position. You
> seem to assume that stochasticity will always result in divergence when
> running sets of evolutionary systems started from the same state (as with
> models of chaos). I think this conflicts with lots of evidence to the
> contrary showing generic aspects of systems (e.g., morphologies) that will
> emerge repeatedly. Convergent evolution is a putative example of this sort
> of thing. In other words, there seem to be both predictable kinds of
> outcomes and unpredictable kinds when dealing with complex dynamical
> systems. This is the main reason I am so taken by the notion of
> universalities.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guy
>
I am not really implying that stochasticity will always result in
divergence in evolutionary models. Obviously channeling affects the
"random choices" of genetic changes. It isn't likely that a fish will
mutate to produce offspring with feathers. In working with different
fish species I find a lot of convergent solutions at the gross
anatomical level that imply environmental shaping. This induces the
rather questionable idea of "empty niches" for new species to occupy.
The original ecological definition of niche doesn't allow for the
logical possibility of an empty niche, perhaps we need a different word
for the concept?
There are indeed predictable sorts of of outcomes in evolution,
unpredictable outcomes also happen but are conceptually a different
kettle of fish as it were. The universalities I see in fish evolution
are primarily predictable ones in the sense that one would expect "that
sort of modification" to occur. For example the cichlid species flocks
of the African great lakes can be guaranteed to respond to environmental
modification with speciation as noted in Lake Victoria after the
introduction of the Nile perch. In geological terms this sort of
speciation is virtually instantaneous and leaves few or no transitionals
to track the biological events. I don't think Darwin anticipated rapid
speciation since most of the plants and animals in his work coundn't
exhibit it.
In short I don't expect divergence but I do expect differences. Change,
including extinction, is to be expected and some changes are
predictable, whereas others can be entirely unexpected. In my view
channeling is a universal phenomenon.
Cj
dkomo
> In article <g33tev$2ood$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>, dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>DK wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g2rq2t$1rsj$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>, Guy A Hoelzer
>>
>><hoe...@unr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>dkomo,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
>>>>Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
>>>>to be essentially random,
>>>
>>>
>>>Not only radiation (incoming energy) is random but also whether
>>>it is absorbed or not, and whether it is dissipated into heat or
>>>results in a mutation are also purely random events. Given that
>>>just about any biological system is chaotic at some point, this
>>>fact ought to be enough to know that the evolution has to be
>>>random.
>>>
>>
>>Wow, chaos! Please give some examples of species which went chaotic
>>during some point of their evolution.
>
>
> I don't understand what you are saying. "Species which went
> chaotic"? This does not make any sense to me.
>
You wrote "given that just about any biological system is chaotic at
some point". I took as an example of a "biological system" a plant or
animal species and was asking for some evidence of chaos in the
evolution, or even in the day-to-day life of any such species.
If this still doesn't make sense to you, just give me one or more
examples of *any* biological system exhibiting chaos. I'm looking for
empirical evidence, not high-blown mathematical chaos theory because I
too have read about theoretical possibilities of chaos in biology but
have seen very few concrete cases of such.
DK
Well, the classical prey-predator system can be chaotic. Just
google it - I am sure there are many examples.
But I'll give you a concrete biological example that has to do with
ecology:
I have a small fish pond in front of the house. Really small, above the
ground type. Every year I observed it (9 years), it develops
quite different ecosystem. In various years I witnessed: infestation by
green microscopic algae, hair algae growing uncontrollably,
all of its walls covered in brown stuff (bacteria/fungi?), another
year it was some white stuff, sometimes the water is crystal clear,
other years it is murky (but not green algae), one year the perfectly
clear water turned very brown in color. And so on.
Needless to say, I try to keep things as constant as I can in terms
of feeding, filtration, pH maintenance and ionic compositions. And I
do a good job at it (because I can and have enough knowledge of
how to do it). Still, no year was *exactly* the same in terms of
weather. The whole thing is evidently very unstable and prone to minor
influences that are hard to control. The reason is that the pond is
small and lacks "buffering" effects of the below ground ponds. So the
chaotic behavior of the ecosystem is amplified. Naturally, bigger
ponds, lakes, etc exhibit this behavior more rarely. But they still do.
So if you were to observe the 100 times bigger pond for 1000 years
(peanuts on geological scale) then even with other things relatively
constant you'll surely find the same seemingly unexplained transitions.
That's a hallmark of a chaotic system.
Now, I am sure you wouldn't argue that a change in the ecological
system does not create new selective forces, would you?
DK
dkomo
> dkomo,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your meaning and allowed scope of "randomness".
> Since some fraction of mutations are caused by radiation, which you consider
> to be essentially random, then your (or Gould's) "tape of life" would surely
> take evolution in a different direction when replayed.
Genomic evolution of
> populations and species is little more than mutational dynamics extending to
> a grander scale. Some selective filtering certainly happens, but Neutral
> Theory and the empirical evidence strongly link the processes of mutation
> and evolution. Are you arguing that natural selection is so much in control
> of evolution that the dynamics of neutral population genetics is irrelevant
> to the evolution of organismal form?
I meant to reply sooner, but then I started to review some population
genetics and got tangled up. As usual this theory raises more questions
than it provides answers to. I always get frustrated with it.
In my opinion, natural selection and genetic drift are more or less
equal contributors to the evolution of organismal form. I agree with
Gould that a large percentage of phenotypical features probably have
little adaptive utility and could have arisen "accidentally".
> Do you think that neutral evolution,
> and/or drift-induced maladaptive evolution, would replay differently,
> whereas adaptive evolution would proceed the same way? If so, I disagree
> because I think that directions of adaptive and non-adaptive evolution are
> inextricably linked.
>
However, that doesn't mean necessarily mean that mutations caused by
radiation necessarily would dramatically alter the direction of
evolution. That's because these mutations are "one-off" and any
particular mutation of this type is so rare as to proabably never
repeat. That means that even if it did drift to fixation, it would
likely be replaced soon enough with another mutation which is
*repeatable* and has a mutation rate high enough to allow that new
mutation to spread either through genetic drift or natural selection, so
we're back to my theory that the replay of evolution is largely, even
though not perfectly, repeatable.
dkomo
A good example perhaps of chaos in biology, but it has not a jot's worth
of impact on my main point that evolution is not random but (mostly)
repeatable. Repeatable, that is, except for quantum events that might
influence it slightly. So far, the only worthwhile quantum effect that
anyone has come up with that I can accept is radiation induced genetic
mutations. And I'm now arguing that these will not affect evolution in
any *major* way.
Chaos is a red herring. It is *not* an example of randomness! It is
not a counterexample to my main argument. You and Virgil should read
the following carefully:
"In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain
dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time –
that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial
conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result
of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of
perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems
appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are
deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by
their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This
behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_chaos
Attention! Attention! Repeat! Repeat: "...these systems are
deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by
their initial conditions, with no random elements involved".
Note how the Wiki article is linked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_chaos
Note the term "deterministic chaos" in the link.
I don't know what could more clear. Chaos would make absolutely no
difference in the evolution of life if we started from *identical
initial conditions*. Such a starting point has *always* been a part of
my argument.
> Now, I am sure you wouldn't argue that a change in the ecological
> system does not create new selective forces, would you?
>
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Virgil
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
That applies only to mathematical chaos theory in which there are no
quantum effects, but quantum effects in a physical chaos system can get
magnified by a butterfly effect just as miniscule mathematical
differences can be in mathematical models.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_chaos
>
> Attention! Attention! Repeat! Repeat: "...these systems are
> deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by
> their initial conditions, with no random elements involved".
False! False! False!
>
> Note how the Wiki article is linked:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_chaos
>
> Note the term "deterministic chaos" in the link.
Only in mathematical models can anything be perfectly deterministic.
In physics there is no such absolute determinism.
>
> I don't know what could more clear. Chaos would make absolutely no
> difference in the evolution of life if we started from *identical
> initial conditions*. Such a starting point has *always* been a part of
> my argument.
Identical down to to the spin on the last electron?
How does one even imagine that such an identity could be preserved for
more than a few seconds?
Can you guarantee that all radioactive decay events will duplicate
exactly? If not, does Schroedinger's cat live or die?