Richard Dawkins' views on non-random natural selection

[jimmypippa]

My issue with the statement that natural selection is the opposite of random is this:

I would agree that it is valid in the easiest situation to understand how evolution works, which is a stable environment, over a "moderate" timescale, i.e. with constant selection pressures.

It is attractive to refute the "whirlwind in a junkyard creating a 747" fallacy used by creationists. However I suspect it is plays into the hands of Intelligent Design proponents, because it could be taken to imply that the natural selection pressure is predetermined, so a non-interventionist deity could have set the conditions up leading to the *inevitable* rise of humanity (aka worshipers). I have come across this argument from my RE teacher when I was at school in the 1980s in the UK. I guess this is probably pretty common amongst the more "Anglican" and "rational" wing of Christianity.

I would argue that due to co-evolution, the selection pressures for one organism are frequently changed by the results of random mutations in other organisms (for example the interactions between mammals and viruses).

I would say that this alone would render the selective pressures subject to random change.

If you then talk about what happened in geological history, then occurrences like asteroid impacts etc, would have been pretty arbitrary in how they cleared the ecosystems. Furthermore, as the ecosystems will have changed dramatically, surviving organisms would not have been so well-adapted to the new environments, so there would be lots of room for adaptation to many suddenly available niches. Which *potential* niches actually get filled would be influenced by the evolutionary history of the organisms that began to occupy the niches, and also which mutations occurred first. In other words, after a major change in the environment, the whole selective landscape is initially undetermined and subject to moulding by random events.

I would argue that the evolution of citrate metabolism in only some of the lines in the Long Term Evolution Experiment would significantly alter the selective landscape for any competitors for the e.coli in the flasks in question. In other words an unlikely random mutation has altered the selective landscape, and thus any future evolution for other organisms in that ecosystem.

I wonder if the evolution of grasses was a similar example in a real ecosystem.

I also wonder if part of the issue I have is due to my acaedemic background as a physicist working in engineering, where "random" events can have many distributions (typically a Possion distribution) but are not pre-determined. "The opposite of random" would, to *me* (and I suspect many with similar backgrounds) mean "pre-determined", which I contend isn't the case with evolution over long enough timescales.


EDIT: I tend to think of natural selection as loading the dice slightly, but not by very much, and I would argue that although the "game" might be *biased* it is still *technically* random, especially if the biasing itself is subject to random change as in the examples above

As an aside, I tend to think that true randomness is probably the ultimate explanation for the structure of the universe, and thus everything, as truly random variations immediately after the big bang could explain how nonuniformity (structure) could form from uniform initial conditions.

[mizvekov]

Well, my take is that if Richard keeps insisting on using only the non-technical definition of random, ignorant people will quote-mine technical literature and point out that it contradicts what he says. He should as much as he can explain the difference between popular random and stochastic when he talks about this, not just sometimes. As susu pointed out, mixing the two gets very inconsistent when you start talking about random variables, in that they are not necessarily random in the popular sense. I think this will all lend to great confusion in the long term.

[jimmypippa]

Well, my take is that if Richard keeps insisting on using only the non-technical definition of random, ignorant people will quote-mine technical literature and point out that it contradicts what he says. He should as much as he can explain the difference between popular random and stochastic when he talks about this, not just sometimes. As susu pointed out, mixing the two gets very inconsistent when you start talking about random variables, in that they are not necessarily random in the popular sense. I think this will all lend to great confusion in the long term.

As I said, a simplification that might work* against the most simplistic creationist canard (747 in a junkyard) and probably plays into the hands of Intelligent Design proponents

*I'd prefer to be technically correct and say "probabilistic" natural selection or something similar. If they say that is just "random" like the 747 in a junkyard, say that the odds are not even, and if they claim not to understand, suggest betting for money, by rolling a pair of dice 100 times: they win $2 every time 12 is scored, you win $2 every time 7 is scored. I think that would show that odds needn't be uniform.

[kiki5711]

Well, my take is that if Richard keeps insisting on using only the non-technical definition of random, ignorant people will quote-mine technical literature and point out that it contradicts what he says. He should as much as he can explain the difference between popular random and stochastic when he talks about this, not just sometimes. As susu pointed out, mixing the two gets very inconsistent when you start talking about random variables, in that they are not necessarily random in the popular sense. I think this will all lend to great confusion in the long term.

yaaa, it will be a problem for those who cannot use their common sense and continue to argue about bs that makes no difference in the subject as a whole. Most of us know what he meant but some choose to make it into a world wide addictive debate that accomplishes nothing.

[mizvekov]

Well, my take is that if Richard keeps insisting on using only the non-technical definition of random, ignorant people will quote-mine technical literature and point out that it contradicts what he says. He should as much as he can explain the difference between popular random and stochastic when he talks about this, not just sometimes. As susu pointed out, mixing the two gets very inconsistent when you start talking about random variables, in that they are not necessarily random in the popular sense. I think this will all lend to great confusion in the long term.

yaaa, it will be a problem for those who cannot use their common sense and continue to argue about bs that makes no difference in the subject as a whole. Most of us know what he meant but some choose to make it into a world wide addictive debate that accomplishes nothing.

Well, as mjpam also pointed out, saying it's the complete opposite of chance is overly exaggerated. The opposite would be determinism. It's like he believes in deterministic evolution, which some more advanced theists love, that a god could set the universe up for the eventual coming of homo sapiens.

[jimmypippa]

yaaa, it will be a problem for those who cannot use their common sense and continue to argue about bs that makes no difference in the subject as a whole. Most of us know what he meant but some choose to make it into a world wide addictive debate that accomplishes nothing.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with lying for jeebus:

creationsafaris are a case in point.


I can find others if you are interested

[mjpam]

Well, my take is that if Richard keeps insisting on using only the non-technical definition of random, ignorant people will quote-mine technical literature and point out that it contradicts what he says. He should as much as he can explain the difference between popular random and stochastic when he talks about this, not just sometimes. As susu pointed out, mixing the two gets very inconsistent when you start talking about random variables, in that they are not necessarily random in the popular sense. I think this will all lend to great confusion in the long term.

yaaa, it will be a problem for those who cannot use their common sense and continue to argue about bs that makes no difference in the subject as a whole. Most of us know what he meant but some choose to make it into a world wide addictive debate that accomplishes nothing.

The problem here is that equating "random" with "unbiased" and "nonrandom" with "biased" is that it essentially creates a distinction without a difference and leads to false conclusion about unbiased process. In particular, it leads to the false conclusion that unbiased processes can't produce direction. This couldn't be further from the truth, as drift can and does fix alleles by itself and, more importantly, severely limits the ability of selection to fix allele in the adaptive direction. In fact, for the extremely small advantages provided by most mutations in natural populations, the probability of the ultimate fixation of a particular mutation with a given advantage is extremely biased in the opposite direction. For example, in a population of 10⁹, the probability that a random mutation (initial frequency of 5*10^-10) with an advantage of 10^-7 is ~2*10^-7. In other words, the mutations is 5*10⁶ times more likely to be lost than it is to be fixed.

Now, it is also useful to consider that, if selection were nonrandom (as Dawkins insists it is), any allele with the slightest advantage would have a 100% chance of being fixed. Would you consider a reduction from 100% to .00002% (the aforementioned 5000000-fold reduction) to be significant?

[jimmypippa]

Now, it is also useful to consider that, if selection were nonrandom (as Dawkins insists it is), any allele with the slightest advantage would have a 100% chance of being fixed. Would you consider a reduction from 100% to .00002% (the aforementioned 5000000-fold reduction) to be significant?

Not quite true:

Richard agrees that there are two meanings for the term nonrandom, and prefers meaning#1.

*I* personally think that another phrase might be better than denying the meaning#2 ("highly biased", maybe?)

"As random as a bent game of dice?" (Actually I like that because it is simple and easy to remember: Natural selection is as random as loaded dice)

Partly that is because of my particular acaedemic background, and partly because I think that using meaning#1 is a simplification that could confuse people later on.

Part of the reason is that I disagree with the statement that, "Meaning 1 is the one used and assumed by everybody except professional statisticians." I would contend that in many branches of science and indeed biological sciences, meaning#2 is the commonly used meaning.


http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=97719&p=2414686#p2414686

Words, as Twatsworth rightly says, often have more than one meaning, sometimes r
elated meanings. Confusion, and even patronizing abuse, can result when somebody adopts one meaning and presumes that another person is using the same meaning. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives two definitions of the adjective 'random'. In this order:

1. Not sent or guided in a special direction; having no definite aim or purpose.

2. (statistics) Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population.

Meaning 2 is the one adopted by statistically-minded members of this Forum, not surprisingly since that is the technical definition used in their profession.

Meaning 1 is the one used and assumed by everybody except professional statisticians. It is the one I have consistently followed in all my books, and the one understood by the kinds of people I am trying to communicate with: the kinds of people who need to be convinced of the truth of evolution, or who need better comprehension of what evolution means.

The two halves of Meaning 1 are themselves open to confusion. Meaning 1b ('having no definite aim or purpose') is the meaning assumed by creationists, who therefore regard evolution by natural selection as random, because it has no definite aim or purpose (which they assume to mean intelligently designed aim or purpose). Meaning 1a ('not sent or guided in a special direction') is the meaning adopted by most biologists, who therefore regard natural selection, but not mutation or drift to fixation, as nonrandom because it sends or guides evolution in the direction of adaptive improvement. It has been a large part of my life's work to dispel the confusion between 1a and 1b. So engrossed was I in the battle between 1a and 1b, I was momentarily taken aback by a sudden outflanking manoeuvre from an unexpected source, namely Meaning 2 (which I was aware of but had largely ignored and even forgotten about).

After some reflection, I shall continue to use Meaning 1, and shall continue my efforts to disentangle the confusion between 1a and 1b. I might think about possible ways to clarify the side issue of the confusion with Meaning 2. I don't think it is unkind to say that the postings to this forum by partisans of Meaning 2 are not well-adapted to enlighten laypeople. I can't help wondering whether it would be wise even to attempt to explain Meaning 2 to laypeople, while the more important confusion between 1a and 1b remains the dominant barrier to general understanding of evolution.

And now, I don't know about the rest of you but I've had enough of this. I'm going back to work. Goodbye.

Richard

[gib]

By contrast the bottom layer of (white) English folks don't seem the least bit interested in religion (unless you count reading their horoscopes). Sweeping generalisation and patronising of me to boot i know, but from where i'm sitting i don't see any chavs or pikeys traipsing down to the local church.

"Pikeys" are not white and generally are actually religious.

Don't get me started on this.

Well for my point to stand please mentally remove my reference to do-as-you-likeys. All i'm saying is that on my local council estate you'll struggle to find much religious indoctrination. Forcing your kids to listen to bible crap is much more likely in the middle class households, imo.

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

[mjpam]

Now, it is also useful to consider that, if selection were nonrandom (as Dawkins insists it is), any allele with the slightest advantage would have a 100% chance of being fixed. Would you consider a reduction from 100% to .00002% (the aforementioned 5000000-fold reduction) to be significant?

Not quite true:
<snip>

I understand what you are saying with respect to how Dr. Dawkins is using random, but the point of my most recent post is that the equation of "random" with "unbiased" and "nonrandom" with "biased" is that it leads to a contradiction. In particular, drift, which Dr. Dawkins has explicitly called "random") does in fact impart a direction to the change of allele frequencies with in a population, which means that it fails to be "random" by definition #1. It will, in fact, fix alleles within a population, and it does so with a bias equal to the initial frequency of the allele, which means it fails to be "random" by definition #2. In other words, Dr. Dawkins has chosen to call something "random" that isn't "random" by the definitions of "random: he has chosen to use.

[Dlx2]

By contrast the bottom layer of (white) English folks don't seem the least bit interested in religion (unless you count reading their horoscopes). Sweeping generalisation and patronising of me to boot i know, but from where i'm sitting i don't see any chavs or pikeys traipsing down to the local church.

"Pikeys" are not white and generally are actually religious.

Don't get me started on this.

Well for my point to stand please mentally remove my reference to do-as-you-likeys. All i'm saying is that on my local council estate you'll struggle to find much religious indoctrination. Forcing your kids to listen to bible crap is much more likely in the middle class households, imo.

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

"Pikey" is slang for Roma but has been extended to Irish on the grounds that "they're all a bunch of worthless theiving trash so why bother telling one from the other."

[gib]

By contrast the bottom layer of (white) English folks don't seem the least bit interested in religion (unless you count reading their horoscopes). Sweeping generalisation and patronising of me to boot i know, but from where i'm sitting i don't see any chavs or pikeys traipsing down to the local church.

"Pikeys" are not white and generally are actually religious.

Don't get me started on this.

Well for my point to stand please mentally remove my reference to do-as-you-likeys. All i'm saying is that on my local council estate you'll struggle to find much religious indoctrination. Forcing your kids to listen to bible crap is much more likely in the middle class households, imo.

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

"Pikey" is slang for Roma but has been extended to Irish on the grounds that "they're all a bunch of worthless theiving trash so why bother telling one from the other."

Yes, extended by the Romanis according to one popular source. Moreover, it's subsequently been extended beyond that to encompass many other - and for some people, all - working class white people (following a similar path to chav) which is the contemporary usage i was employing. Employing unwisely as it turns out, but merely to illustrate my point.

[mjpam]

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

That would be "gadzo", and it is as derogatory for a Romani to call a non-Romani "gadzo" as it is for a non-Romani to call a Romani "gypsy" or "pikey". Think of these words as being like "cracker" and "n****r" for the respective US racial groups.

[mjpam]

There have been many people who have asked me why I am so set on a particular definition of "random" and why I am "ignoring" that Dawkins is using an different definition in his works. I think the following conversation illustrates the reason very well:

Richard said... I cannot believe Larry Moran is still using the ridiculous word 'adaptationist'. It was silly when Gould and Lewontin coined it, and it is even sillier today.

Obviously an enormous amount of evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift. I have emphasized this again and again in my books. I have gone so far as to say that the vast majority of evolutionary change, at a molecular level, is random. But that subset of evolution which gives rise to adaptation -- that's the interesting bit that biologists, apart from molecular biologists, actually see, can NOT be due to random drift. The only known mechanism capable of generating adaptation is natural selection. So, when we are talking about the evolution of legs that walk, wings that fly, eyes that see, claws that catch, noses that smell -- everything that tempts creationists to see what they think is design -- evolution is nonrandom.
If Larry does not believe in adaptation, we have a real problem on our hands. But I've met him, and he is not that stupid.

Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:51:00 PM

Larry Moran said... Richard Dawkins says,

I cannot believe Larry Moran is still using the ridiculous word 'adaptationist'. It was silly when Gould and Lewontin coined it, and it is even sillier today.

Actually I think its a very useful word. It describes a subset of evolutionary biologists who's (almost) exclusive interest is evolution by natural selection. They're really not interested in any other kind of evolution. They frequently use the word "evolution" as if it were a synonym for "evolution by natural selection." They are quite comfortable calling themselves Darwinists.

Most of the time this subset of scientists writes and speaks as though there was no other mechanism of evolution except adaptation by natural selection.

Obviously an enormous amount of evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift. I have emphasized this again and again in my books. I have gone so far as to say that the vast majority of evolutionary change, at a molecular level, is random.

Yes, you have said that, at least once. But let's not forget that all evolutionary change takes place at the molecular level—including change that occurs by natural selection.

Adaptationists tend to write and speak as if there was a kind of change that does not occur at the molecular level—presumably visible phenotypes—and that change doesn't occur by random genetic drift.

That's not correct. In fact it may be the case that most phenotypic variation is also fixed by random genetic drift and not by natural selection. Do you agree?

But that subset of evolution which gives rise to adaptation -- that's the interesting bit that biologists, apart from molecular biologists, actually see, can NOT be due to random drift. The only known mechanism capable of generating adaptation is natural selection.

That's not much of an argument, is it? What you are saying is that change that is due to natural selection is due to natural selection.

The real question is how much change is due to natural selection. We agree that most evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift but is there a subset of evolutionary change that isn't?

The trivial answer is yes. The subset that interests adaptationists qualifies. Does this subset of evolutionary change encompass all visible (to the naked eye) changes?

Are most of the phenotypic differences between, say Asians and Africans, due to adaptation or drift? I've always been puzzled about the position of those biologists who are only interested in adaptation. Do you only get interested in something once it has been proven to be an adaption or do you sometimes get interested in things that aren't proven adaptations and then lose interest when they are shown to be due to drift?

So, when we are talking about the evolution of legs that walk, wings that fly, eyes that see, claws that catch, noses that smell -- everything that tempts creationists to see what they think is design -- evolution is nonrandom.

We all agree. It's quite permissible to say that evolution by adaptation couldn't possibly work if it was only due to chance. However, it's not permissible to say that evolution—at least the kind I'm interested in—could not be due to chance.
Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:49:00 PM

Richard said...
Larry, if we are going to get that boring and pedantic, of course we agree, and nothing that I have ever said, either in my review of Coyne's book, or here, or before, denies it.

But it isn't just a question of whether you or I might find adaptation interesting. Jerry's book is a riposte to creationists, so let's ask what THEY find interesting. The answer, of course, is 'design'. In our scientific language, that means adaptation: the illusion of design.

To refute creationists, we have to explain the evolution of adaptation, and that means we have to concentrate on natural selection as the important driving force of evolution. You and I know that, if you actually measure gene frequencies over generations, the majority of changes are random: fixations of adaptively neutral mutations. But adaptively neutral mutations are totally IRRELEVANT to the problem of design. They might as well not be mutations at all. You will only CONFUSE creationists, and give them spurious aid and comfort (something your hero Steve Gould spent much of his life doing), if you bang on about evolution being random.

Creationists are forever traducing evolution as 'random'. They are forever saying things like "random evolution couldn't possibly produce something as complicated and efficient as an eye, or a bacterial flagellum". The best way to combat this foolish line of argument is to say, "No no, you are wrong, mutation may be random but natural selection is quintessentially NON-random." Can't you see how positively unhelpful your style of pedantry is?

Richard
Monday, February 16, 2009 4:31:00 AM

Larry Moran said... Richard Dawkins says,

To refute creationists, we have to explain the evolution of adaptation, and that means we have to concentrate on natural selection as the important driving force of evolution. You and I know that, if you actually measure gene frequencies over generations, the majority of changes are random: fixations of adaptively neutral mutations. But adaptively neutral mutations are totally IRRELEVANT to the problem of design. They might as well not be mutations at all. You will only CONFUSE creationists, and give them spurious aid and comfort (something your hero Steve Gould spent much of his life doing), if you bang on about evolution being random.

First, I'm not obsessed with refuting creationists. I'm also very interested in educating non-scientists who accept evolution. I'm even interested in educating scientists who accept the wrong version of evolution! :-)

Second, one way to educate everyone, including creationists, is to point out that much of life does not look designed. That's because many characteristics of living things are the results of accident and contingency and not of natural selection.

I think it's important for the average person to understand that evolution is sloppy. Many of the results we see today are not something that even has the appearance of design. Unlike you, I'd prefer to battle creationists by discrediting the false metaphor of design instead of agreeing with them.

Third, if promoting correct science means giving spurious aid and comfort to the bad guys then so be it. I hope you're not suggesting that people who disagree with you should keep their mouths shut just because the creationists might take advantage of dissent among evolutionary biologists?

Sometimes it sure sounds like that's what you're saying, although when challenged you usually deny it. I suggest that you try to avoid bringing up that topic. It didn't work with Stephen Jay Gould and it won't work with me.
Monday, February 16, 2009 8:58:00 AM

This presents problem for the argument that Dr. Dawkins is using "random" in the nontechincal sense purely to combat creationism, because, similar to what he did in his first response to me in this thread, he starts out by asserting that evolution is nonrandom, at least "interesting bit that biologists, apart from molecular biologists, actually see, can NOT be due to random drift". If that and the fact that he said earlier that he has "gone so far as to say that the vast majority of evolutionary change, at a molecular level, is random" can be said to be akin "support[ing drift] in several of [his] books", I guess it could be said that Dr. Dawkins "supports" drift in the same way that he "supports" a belief in the supernatural in The God Delusion: that is, by simply acknowledging that it exists. However, like Dr. Dawkins "support" in a belief in the supernatural in The God Delusion, his "support" of drift does not require him to speak favorably of it, which is indeed a strange usage of support.

My main point here is that, while Dr. Dawkins may claim to "to supported [drift] in several of [his] books", his pronouncements on the internet, to both the anonymous rabble and to professional evolutionary biologists, in fact diminish the importance drift of because apparently (in contradiction to research performed in bacteria, insects, fish, and, more generally, on phenotypic plasticity) adaptation constitutes "the interesting bit that biologists, apart from molecular biologists, actually see" and, supposedly, it "can NOT be due to random drift", which Humpty-Dumptyish redefinition of "support". In other words, Dr. Dawkins seems to present an inconsistent picture of his views on drift because, when he is writing for a popular audience, whom he claims won't understand the idea that drift's being random makes evolution random regardless of whether natural selection is random, he "supports" drift; whereas when he is conversing with others in his field, who presumably understand drift, he accuse them of "giv[ing] them spurious aid and comfort"* to creationists, who are presumably part of the general public which Dr Dawkins claim won't understand the randomness of drift and its relation to the randomness of evolution. Finally, it is only after asserting that evolution is nonrandom that Dr. Dawkins mentions that such an assertion refutes creationism, which is strange, since the alleged point of Why Evolution is True and The Blind Watchmaker is to refute creationism. The bald assertion of the nonrandomness of evolution, however, precedes the "refuting creationism" excuse, which would imply that the randomness denial is independent of the refutation of creationism, because its mention is not dependent on the fact that it occurs in a work that purports to refute creationism.

*curiously this echoes the US Constitution's definition of treason

[Dlx2]

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

That would be "gadzo", and it is as derogatory for a Romani to call a non-Romani "gadzo" as it is for a non-Romani to call a Romani "gypsy" or "pikey". Think of these words as being like "cracker" and "n****r" for the respective US racial groups.

That would be "gajo" and it is about as derogatory as the Hebrew/Yiddish "goy."

[mjpam]

btw i was under the impresion that 'pikey' was a term used by Romanis for non-Romani travellers, typically tinkers of Irish descent. I guess it comes down to agreeing on definitions.

That would be "gadzo", and it is as derogatory for a Romani to call a non-Romani "gadzo" as it is for a non-Romani to call a Romani "gypsy" or "pikey". Think of these words as being like "cracker" and "n****r" for the respective US racial groups.

That would be "gajo" and it is about as derogatory as the Hebrew/Yiddish "goy."

My source has "gadzo", at least in England, and I was riffing off of the Irish "pikey". As for the amount of offense, I was just assuming that "gadzo" was similar to "pikey", for no apparent reason, now that I think about it.

[mizvekov]

@mjpam
Why the hell did you create a post containing "coming soon", then changed it to "please delete", and now you transform it into that substantial post? I bet many here will completely miss it.

[mjpam]

@mjpam
Why the hell did you create a post containing "coming soon", then changed it to "please delete", and now you transform it into that substantial post? I bet many here will completely miss it.

I accidentally posted just the discussion, and I wanted to bump the thread when I posted my commentary, so I deeleted the discussion, put "coming soon" in its place, and posted the discussion with commentary at the end of the thread.

[mizvekov]

There have been many people who have asked me why I am so set on a particular definition of "random" and why I am "ignoring" that Dawkins is using an different definition in his works. I think the following conversation illustrates the reason very well:
<snip>

And all of this to appease an audience that won't probably even listen to him
Edit: To clarify here, the audience is creationists and by 'him' I refer to Richard.

[mjpam]

There have been many people who have asked me why I am so set on a particular definition of "random" and why I am "ignoring" that Dawkins is using an different definition in his works. I think the following conversation illustrates the reason very well:
<snip>

And all of this to appease an audience that won't probably even listen to him

You referring to me or Dawkins?

[mizvekov]

There have been many people who have asked me why I am so set on a particular definition of "random" and why I am "ignoring" that Dawkins is using an different definition in his works. I think the following conversation illustrates the reason very well:
<snip>

And all of this to appease an audience that won't probably even listen to him

You referring to me or Dawkins?

Dawkins ofcourse.

[mizvekov]

This whole exchange completely convinced me that it is pointless to try to argue with Richard that he should use a better definition of random.
The only way to move forward would be to somehow make him forget about creationists.
How to do that beats me though

[Ilovelucy]

Wow, there really is a whole lot of OT in this thread! Let's please stick to the topic and refrain from making snarky remarks about other members with differing opinions ( that applies to all sides concerned). And don't even get me started on the derail about pejoratives for travelling people...

Any off topic content from this post onwards will be binned.

[susu.exp]

It can be proved that any interval IS a finite set in the real world. No physical process can produce the same amount of randomness between two different intervals.

I´d like to see that expanded some more.

It's not about whether your calculator is garden variety. the costliest super-computer would be the same.

Not really. My calculator stores numbers and cuts them off at some point. If I multiply the square root of 2 (according to my calculator) with itself, I don´t get 2. However, if I type in (2)^0.5*2^0.5 in mathlab, mathlab gives me 2. It´s a question of what programs run on a turning machine. Whether I put e into my pocket caluculator or use it on a good piece of software makes a big difference.

Regarding your views on the Information theory, you are absolutely spot-on. Just you spell Kolmogorov wrongly.

You´re right. I keep mixing up letters - the worst in these types of discussion is my repeated misspelling of stochastic as stocahstic.

I guess it could be said that Dr. Dawkins "supports" drift in the same way that he "supports" a belief in the supernatural in The God Delusion: that is, by simply acknowledging that it exists.

But does he? My main criticism of his latest is that 3 times in Chapter 2 he outright rejects drift. There are few things in the book that get repeated that often, yet the claim that there is "is no such intrinsic tendency for variation to decrease in a population" is repeated thrice. And that is an error I find no excuse for, especially because I don´t see how the exact opposite of commonly accepted population genetics could be justified as "simplification".

Even "Like all animals, it was a member of the same species as its daughters and its mother." registers only as a minor gripe and that one throws out more than 2/3rds of all observed instances of speciation (it´s not as if observed instances of speciation had anything to do with the evidence for evolution, right).

[ericv00]

I guess it could be said that Dr. Dawkins "supports" drift in the same way that he "supports" a belief in the supernatural in The God Delusion: that is, by simply acknowledging that it exists.

But does he? My main criticism of his latest is that 3 times in Chapter 2 he outright rejects drift. There are few things in the book that get repeated that often, yet the claim that there is "is no such intrinsic tendency for variation to decrease in a population" is repeated thrice. And that is an error I find no excuse for, especially because I don´t see how the exact opposite of commonly accepted population genetics could be justified as "simplification".

That's interesting. But what is the statement intended to say? I do not have TGSOE, so I can't see the statement in context. And I have not been following the thread very adamantly.

Isn't mutation a force that trends towards increased variation while NS is a force towards decreased variation?

Am I being a bit dense this morning? Mind you, I am only half awake as I am responding. May I ask how this applies to drift?