(May 10, 2014 at 10:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:I'd really like to know in what specific sense evolution is seen as not being random, without first requiring the acceptance of absolute physical determinism as a confirmed aspect of reality.

Evolution, in the sense of descent with modification, is a non-random process whereby beneficial traits are selected for. This is why camels have third eyelids and elephants don't have thin legs and bird claws. In other words, evolutionary traits are manifestly NOT selected for randomly, any more than you would install a fuel injection system on a bird feeder, just because one happened to be available.

Mutation is indeed random, but mutation, in and of itself, is not evolution.

Boru

Maybe, but you will get a variety of adaptations to a new environment. And given two similar environments which are isolated from each other, you will very possibly get different adaptations (and species). Just because new phenotypes are better adapted doesn't mean they aren't also random.

Imagine that a group of early humans or prehumans was killed by an unfortunate event, rather than making a lucky escape. Totally random event, massive effect on evolution.

"You do know what a "law of nature" is don't you. Its a description of what we observe not us telling the universe what to do "or else"."
~Downbeatplum

Ahaha you are now my best friend

(May 11, 2014 at 4:23 am)bennyboy Wrote: Maybe, but you will get a variety of adaptations to a new environment. And given two similar environments which are isolated from each other, you will very possibly get different adaptations (and species). Just because new phenotypes are better adapted doesn't mean they aren't also random.

And just because there are multiple success states to a system doesn't mean that system is entirely random either. Besides, "random events being acted on by non-random forces" is very different than the "complete and utter chaotic random chance" scenario that creationists like to characterize this as.

I'm not sure about getting intelligence from nothing but i think this thread (the op) has provided ample evidence that it is possible to get nothing from intelligence.

Occaisonal shit an run?

(May 11, 2014 at 4:23 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 10:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Evolution, in the sense of descent with modification, is a non-random process whereby beneficial traits are selected for. This is why camels have third eyelids and elephants don't have thin legs and bird claws. In other words, evolutionary traits are manifestly NOT selected for randomly, any more than you would install a fuel injection system on a bird feeder, just because one happened to be available.

Mutation is indeed random, but mutation, in and of itself, is not evolution.

Boru

Maybe, but you will get a variety of adaptations to a new environment. And given two similar environments which are isolated from each other, you will very possibly get different adaptations (and species). Just because new phenotypes are better adapted doesn't mean they aren't also random.

Imagine that a group of early humans or prehumans was killed by an unfortunate event, rather than making a lucky escape. Totally random event, massive effect on evolution.

There is certainly plenty of randomness within the system. Random events throughout the earth's history have wiped out entire phyla. Mutations may or may not be entirely random.

There are certainly random mutations but are all mutations random? Rather, one might ask are the rates of mutation random?

I have a theory, based entirely on thin air at the moment, that a species facing environmental change and therefore under stress may prove to be more likely to experience mutation that one that is happily settled in its niche in its environment.

This might explain why some groups have experienced little dramatic change over hundreds of millions of years (crocodilians for example) whilst others (e.g. Whales) have undergone mind-blowing adaptation.

Just a thought....

(May 11, 2014 at 5:24 am)max-greece Wrote: I have a theory, based entirely on thin air at the moment, that a species facing environmental change and therefore under stress may prove to be more likely to experience mutation that one that is happily settled in its niche in its environment.

I'm also interested in this idea. What, for example, if the chance of mutation is a genetic trait? Could we find the genes responsible and make super-mutatey species for lab experiments?

(May 11, 2014 at 7:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 11, 2014 at 5:24 am)max-greece Wrote: I have a theory, based entirely on thin air at the moment, that a species facing environmental change and therefore under stress may prove to be more likely to experience mutation that one that is happily settled in its niche in its environment.

I'm also interested in this idea. What, for example, if the chance of mutation is a genetic trait? Could we find the genes responsible and make super-mutatey species for lab experiments?

Love "super mutatey"

I suppose we already have that in bacteria. They seem to be able to mutate at the drop of a hat. Bad news for us of course...

(May 11, 2014 at 5:24 am)max-greece Wrote: I have a theory, based entirely on thin air at the moment, that a species facing environmental change and therefore under stress may prove to be more likely to experience mutation that one that is happily settled in its niche in its environment.

This might explain why some groups have experienced little dramatic change over hundreds of millions of years (crocodilians for example) whilst others (e.g. Whales) have undergone mind-blowing adaptation.

Dude, that's stabilizing selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection

(May 11, 2014 at 8:47 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(May 11, 2014 at 5:24 am)max-greece Wrote: I have a theory, based entirely on thin air at the moment, that a species facing environmental change and therefore under stress may prove to be more likely to experience mutation that one that is happily settled in its niche in its environment.

This might explain why some groups have experienced little dramatic change over hundreds of millions of years (crocodilians for example) whilst others (e.g. Whales) have undergone mind-blowing adaptation.

Dude, that's stabilizing selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection

On the one hand - cool, on the other I am saying a bit more than this - that the rate of mutation is linked to species stress (with no proof of that).

If someone else has had this theory before me - well - it wouldn't be the first time.