Evolution is not Random

[tongodeon]

Twice in the last two weeks, smart people have told me that evolution cannot explain the structure and variation of the natural world because evolution is "random", "chance", or created by "accident", and that complex structure cannot spontaneously arise from random disorder. I think this is not only a pretty common misconception but is the most

Comments

[occlupanid]

i'm glad you're attempting to explain evolutionary concepts, but saying that the effects of an evolutionary pressure are "predictable" is untrue. Same with "directed and ordered", which btw are [=nopleasenosoundsandsobs=] awful buzzwords to use when discussing evolution, especially with people who have to deal with Intelligent Design proponents. Allow me to throw a quick reference to Stephen J Gould's "Wonderful Life" into your direction, it's written better than any rant i can come up with. Evolutionary Pressures are not measurable or predictable, at least not in the way you might measure salinity in an ocean, or even predict a weather pattern.

[tongodeon]

saying that the effects of an evolutionary pressure are "predictable" is untrue

Huh? People are predicting the outcomes of adaptive pressure all the time. "Bees are going extinct because of cell phones." "Raccoons are becoming less afraid of humans and getting better at opening trash cans." Now maybe some of those predictions aren't actually true, but the actual outcomes aren't "unpredictable". People predict stuff like that all the time, and you can verify that kind of prediction with experiment or observation.

Evolutionary Pressures are not measurable or predictable, at least not in the way you might measure salinity in an ocean, or even predict a weather pattern.

I think you mean that the results of evolutionary pressure are empirical, but not always objectively quantifiable. The peppered moth becoming "darker" is an empirical observation, but it's not objectively quantifiable the way that "5% less salinity" is.

[occlupanid]

yes, you can predict stuff. go ahead, be my guest. But no way in hell can you predict the evolutionary outcome of any selective pressure. It's the kind of thinking that assumes that humans are going to have bigger brains because 'smarter' humans are more fit, because that's the "direction" of our evolution. There is no direction, obviously, but that means it is not "ordered" and "predictable".

[swingland]

actually, if anything, the dumber of our species are encouraged to produce more frequently than the classified intelligent ones

[occlupanid]

these are much better examples to work with. But there's no "predicting" success of species, is there? You can observe the problem with frogg eggs, but you cannot predict which frogs are going to survive until afterwards.

I guess my main problem is that selction pressure should be called "observable and quantifiable" instead of "destined, ordered and predictable", which sounds more like the older inaccurate "ladder of progress" that early biologists tried to shoehorn species into. Or worse, like the very people who think that there's a supernatural order-creator out there.

[tongodeon]

there's no "predicting" success of species, is there?

I'll give you a really great example of predicting the success of a species: evolutionary epidemiology. Viruses and pandemics. Bacteria and drug resistance. You can predict, down to the genome in some cases, the species which will achieve success given an evolutionary pressure. Granted, most of the reason why our predictions are so good is because viruses and bacteria are so simple and so well-studied. In the case of Avian Influenza A we've got the prediction down so well that it's like watching a horse race between the strains to see who finds the magic protein combination first.

[tongodeon]

I understand that you can't arrive at the biology of a chromatophoric octopus from the first principles of sand and saltwater. But that's not what I'm talking about. I think you're not understanding what I mean by "predict".

The foundation of Science is predictive, falsifiable hypotheses. You've got a theory (evolution) and to test this theory you use it to predict something. For example, tiktaalik. Based on what they knew about evolution and paleontology and and geology they predicted that a tiktaalik-like creature would be there, and there he was. You can predict all kinds of things and then verify them with investigation if you understand the principles correctly. If you really know what you're talking about you can predict what's predictable and what isn't

[swingland]

one of the greatest mistakes of man is assuming science is proof. as a satellite orbits the earth, any physicist could pop out the mathematical trajectory in its orbit around the earth and account for it slowing falling back to the surface. the problem is, is that these equations and calculations are "best estimates" that "most closely resemble this phenomena

[tongodeon]

one of the greatest mistakes of man is assuming science is proof. as a satellite orbits the earth, any physicist could pop out the mathematical trajectory in its orbit around the earth and account for it slowing falling back to the surface. the problem is, is that these equations and calculations are "best estimates" that "most closely resemble this phenomena".

Dude, you're totally getting ahead of me and messing with my narrative. That's next week's post.