It is mutations that are random. Evolution is more than just random mutations. Evolution is also natural selection which is not random. In fact, we detect natural selection by looking for a divergence from a random distribution. Vertical inheritance is also not random. We don’t have species randomly interbreeding with one another.
2 Likes
Methinks there is an inherent confusion here.
The process is random, but the results and analysis are not?
But it does not really matter. My first and usual criticism concerns the ability of Evolution to achieve its goals by a random (and therefore uncontrolled) deviation. And the expected scope or size of deviation that it claims. IOW that any form of deviation can accomplish the changes that are involved in any hierachy, nested or otherwise, when there is such a vast difference in physical and/or metabolic structure between the so say connected species. Differences that, in the past, put these creatures in separate classes with distinct and incompatible properties. Localised hierachies do not trouble me. Long ones do.
Richard
If I may speak directly, @RichardG: That you are asking this question indicates that you do not understand what it is you have been criticizing.
There is no single equation in the theory of evolution such that you could speak meaningfully of capital-E-evolution having parameters.
However, as I have already indicated but you have overlooked, many equations used in population genetics have parameters with empirically verified values. Biologists have also established through empirical research the stochastic distribution of the kinds of mutations and their selection coefficients.
These empirically established parameters yield insights into the relationships between species, as our friend and thread participant @glipsnort has documented in this article. I encourage you to read it carefully; you’ll find it quite worth your time.
So biologists have used multiple mathematical methods (nested hierarchy experiments with genomic and character data, molecular clock observations, studies like @glipsnort’s of mutation distributions) that all point in the same direction as conclusions based on paleontology and evo-devo. When scientists find multiple classes of evidence that can all be explained by a single theory, they find that theory to be a convincing description of reality.
Christian biologists do not subscribe to your “not so humble opinion.” Stochastic phenomena could very well be God’s means to intervene as He pleases without violating the laws and principles by which the universe is governed.
You seem to be admitting that you have no practical experience with or even acquaintance with the details of bioinformatics, the statistical methods used in biology, or population genetics modeling using the Hardy-Weinberg and its derivatives.
Without such a basic understanding, you have no ability to assess the kind of evidence these methods generate, or more generally, how scientists think about the world – whether it be quantum physics, biology, or any other scientific discipline that makes use of stochastic methods. Thus when you draw a conclusion about how scientists are doing their work, such as when you say that biologists only make conclusions about evolution because they start with the assumption of evolution, I am inclined to attribute your statement to lack of familiarity with the field.
You do seem to have a theological issue with the use of stochastic methods. This is not surprising in view of the fact that theology has been with us for millenia, while stochastic methods have only been employed in science for a little over a century. If you feel like my brief description of how stochastic methods can be reconciled with theology needs more discussion, by all means, please share your thoughts.
Grace and peace,
Chris
2 Likes
Yes I looked and it was way over my head I thought I was intelligent (and my IQ would substantiate that thought) but clearly the concepts are not within my skill set.
I looked up stochastic
having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
There are three types of lie. Lies, damned lies and statistics. (including probability)
They prove nothing.
Richard
When they are carefully calibrated and have huge error bars, yes. When they are badly calibrated (using rates generated for 1-year lifespan organisms for unrelated ones that live 40, using the earliest appearance of a group in a database without checking that its placement there is correct, etc.) they can give very inaccurate results.
Even in terms of the original theory - actually, especially in terms of the original theory - it is variation that is random. Darwinian evolution is not, hence “survival of the fittest”. The concept of drift introduces a greater degree of randomness.
You are right, but thermodynamics is produces predictable results while evolution does not, which is why it is called random even when it is not.
Asserting something does prove it. Science has yet to demonstrate how evolution is predictable, which seems to be the test of non-random, even though I am trying to show how this can be done. It is not hard.
Meanwhile many scientists are resistant to an idea that seems to indicate that the universe is the product of an intelligent mind and ID does not want to lose its basic argument.
Only parts of evolution are random. Other parts, such as vertical inheritance and natural selection, are not random.
Next, random processes can and do produce predictable results over large numbers of trials. That is something you still don’t seem to understand.
You don’t seem to have any evidence to back up that criticism. It appears to be an unfounded opinion.
For example, I have asked you several times to show me a difference between the chimp and human genome that could not be produced by the observed and known mechanisms of mutation. You have yet to do so.
Then show us the genetic differences and explain why the known mechanisms of evolution could not produce those differences.
Let’s go back to our human/chimp example. We observe that humans are born with about 50 to 100 mutations, so let’s go with the lower end at 50. Let’s have a generation time of 25 years and a constant population 100,000 people. On the low end, it is estimated that the chimp and human lineages split about 5 million years ago.
So let’s work with those numbers. That’s 50 mutations per person, and 100,000 people. That’s 5 million mutations per generation. Over 5 million years with a generation time of 25 years, that would be 200,000 generations. 5 million mutations per generation for 200,000 generations would be 1,000,000,000,000 mutations, or 1 trillion (1E12) mutations. This is the number of mutations that would have occurred in the human population over that time period, 1E12.
So how many mutations separate chimps and humans? That number is about 40 million (40E6). Let’s say half of those mutations occurred in each lineage. That would mean we would need about 20 million mutations to occur in the human and chimp lineages to produce the differences we see today. As my calculations already show, there were 1E12 mutations that occurred in the human population. This means there were 50,000 times more mutations than were needed to produce the differences. In other words, only 1 in 50,0000 mutations needed to be kept in order to produce what we see.
Do you really think it is going to be any different as we look at more distant branches?
Let’s look at a slightly different calculation. There are 6 billion bases in the diploid human genome, and 3 possible substitution mutations at each base position. That is 18 billion possible mutations across a diploid genome (haploid would probably be a better choice here, but going with the biggest numbers). At 50 mutations per person, how many births do we need to get all of the possible mutations, assuming all have an equal chance? That would be about 360 million births which is easily achievable with current population numbers. It would also be easily achievable over millions of years with a smaller population.
4 Likes
This just proves you don’t actually read and absorb what I say. I told you that the connection with chimps is not really the issue.
It also illustrates the extrapolations that you base large changes on the data of small ones.
Richard
The ignorance of this statement is monstrous.
Sounds like a similar claim, and there is far far far more truth to it. There are three types of lie. Lies, damned lies and religion. But you might as well claim that everything people say is a lie. Only it is logically impossible for such a claim to be true.
So how about dropping the damned lies of which all of these claims are examples and speak the truth instead.
SOME (even a lot) of what people say is a lie.
SOME uses of religion are lies.
SOME uses of statistics and probability are lies.
Certainly the mathematics of statistics and probability are not lies. Those are among the few things you can actually prove to be true. And they prove and explain a lot. They explain why casinos are a profitable business. Likewise they provide the science by which refrigerators and air conditioners work. To simply call these lies is a lie so big it is horrific. And using the fact that sometimes these are used to lie is VERY poor and lame excuse – the kind of thinking used to prop up all kinds of evils like racism. People supporting ignorance like this belong in the middle ages. Sigh… if only we could send them back to such a time.
This paper is not complicated – not at ALL! I don’t think even a college education is required to understand this let alone some specialized training in the sciences. No. The most likely reason this would not be understandable to someone with any education is the same explanation Jesus gives for parables in Matthew 13… some people simply do not want to understand.
2 Likes
I do not know for a fact that I have an ancestor prior to my great-great-great-grandfathers. That’s as far back as my genealogical research has taken me.
But I extrapolate that thousands of my ancestors were alive in A.D. 0.
Is that extrapolation justified?
Best,
Chris
3 Likes
The only mistake I see in that extrapolation is thinking the years go back to 0. 
2 Likes
Classic off by one bug. 
3 Likes
If you say that natural selection is not random, but offer no evidence that this is true, then you concede that evolution is random and not true.
This is not helpful, is it? You guys should have called me on this! I think it would be more helpful if I explain what the paper is saying.
The point is that small changes in DNA happen as a result of copying errors of 4 different kinds according to measurable probabilities that such copying errors can occur. And when we compare the DNA of different people and count those types of DNA differences they match right up to those probabilities. But when we compare the DNA of humans with chimpanzees and count those same DNA differences, these also match right up to those probabilities also. Is their any reason why we would expect the same numbers if the differences were a product of design? No. Scientific procedure was followed – testing an hypothesis and accepting the result. This can in no way be described as looking for evidence and seeing a pattern that we wanted to see.
3 Likes
Why?
Richard
We would not expect the numbers to match the probabilities of copy errors unless they are produced by copy errors. We certainly would not expect God to force His designs into such a pattern in order to deceive us. It isn’t reasonable for the same reason it is not reasonable to believe the world was created this morning with all the memories of a yesterday inserted to make us think there was a yesterday. We cannot prove the world wasn’t created this morning, but it renders life absurd and meaningless to believe in a reality contrary to what everything tells us. When someone has gunpowder burns on their hand then it is not reasonable to believe fairies put those on the person to make fools of us, regardless of whether we are unable to prove this is not the case. It is only reasonable to accept the conclusion consistent with the evidence that the person fired a gun.
2 Likes
There are so many inaccuracies in your analogies it is not worth trying to decode them.
And besides, I am not 100% sure what you are trying to prove. You seem to be of the Light the blue touch paper and retire immediately camp? God is not, and doesn’t have to be a part of His creation? All we need is to understand Jesus?
Our theologies would appear to be as appart as our views on Evolution.
Richard
What inaccuracies? Do you make any attempt at understanding the parables of Jesus or is the parable of the sower just agricultural advice to you?
Prove??? You asked a question. I answered it.
God created Himself? What are you talking about?
Need for what? If we want to do things in biology (and thousands of other human activities) then we certainly need to understand more than that.
I have VERY little doubt about that. But I haven’t seen any comprehension by you as to what those differences even might be.
2 Likes
And I cannot follow your logic and train of thought that can suddenly throw up the parables of Jesus into a discussion about the validity of an analogy, and, or the validity of scientific methodology.
As I have stated elsewhere, this is not about my ability to read and understand the bible and I would thank you not to question either of them.
Richard