Also, I’m so glad we can agree that there is developmental bias! This implies a certain inherent teleology within the evolutionary process itself, and I think that’s really important.
BioLogos is not terribly good at explaining up to date science. They tend to be a mirror of the New Atheists, ID, and YEC, echoing the popular portrayals of evolution. There are exceptions to this (e.g. myself when I was there and @glipsnort , but as a rule they do present a largely neo-Darwinian view.
What you missed is just that BIoLogos is not the place to learn about the nuances of scientific controversies like EES. They function more like an education organization, rather than a scientific organization. They do not have many scientists working with them, though there are A Few Great Biologists at BioLogos.
1 Like
Of course there is teleology in evolutionary processes, but not because of developmental bias. The real question is if science can detect divine purpose. Developmental bias does not indicate divine purpose in any way. I’m not sure why you would think it does.
And of course we think there is developmental bias. Is this even controversial any where?
Andreas Wagner and Simon Conway Morris see gene regulatory networks, along with developmental bias and convergence as reason for a revived Platonism/Aristotelian Essentialism.
Maximus took Plato’s forms and turned them into the Logoi of the Logos. If the same evolutionary solutions keep getting reached, this implies that something like human beings are the “goal” of evolution. And if Christ is the TRUE HUMAN BEING, then the goal of evolution is Christ, and in Christ, the transformation of the entire cosmos. I think the NATURAL biology HINTS that evolution is “striving” towards something which is consonant with Maximus’ idea of the Logoi but also the cosmos as Macro-Anthropos.
1 Like
Why would YOU say there is teleology in the evolutionary process?
1 Like
As a sidenote, this is one reason I don’t like the idea of Adam as a special creation. I see the entire evolutionary process as ultimately headed towards mankind. It seems weird to me if God would choose to specially create an individual that he took the last several billion years to craft. It seems to ruin the teleology of the evolutionary process. Anyways, I MUST sleep now. I gained a lot from this discussion.
1 Like
I’m coming late to this thread. A few general comments from my perspective.
-
The hyperbole of some ESS supporters is indeed off-putting. The content of ESS varies. Some of it is really important, some of it is speculative but hard to test, some of it is correct but probably not very important, and some of it I haven’t really gotten my head around.
-
I mostly ignore both Shapiro and Noble. Many of the biological processes they’re pointing to are of interest, but I just don’t see the point of trying to tease out whether they’re being hyperbolical and sloppy in their conclusions, or actually proposing things that aren’t supported by the data.
-
Purely my impression, but I think that for a substantial majority of researchers actually studying evolution, most of these debates have very little practical relevance. Mostly they’re trying to understand particular pathways, species, ecosystems, or whatever, and the big debates don’t matter.
-
I tend to avoid calling mutations “random” just because it’s so confusing. I say that there are no known mechanisms for an organism to determine which particular mutations would be useful and then to create those mutations. (Usually, at least – there may be exceptions.) There is a mechanism that can determine classes of mutations that are more likely to be beneficial, or less likely to be detrimental: natural selection.
2 Likes
For me, the clearest case of mutations that should be called non-random (in the evolutionary sense) are the mutations involved in the CRISPR system. Many bacteria and archaea chop up invading viruses’ DNA and incorporate it into their genomes to provide a template for fighting off future infections. It’s a mutational mechanism whose function is clearly to create specific beneficial mutations.
1 Like
True, I always forget about about CRISPR as an example because it’s so mainstream.
1 Like
Thereby providing a nice example of how quickly and seamlessly new findings can be incorporated into biology even if they violate long-standing assumptions of evolutionary theory. CRISPR contradicts the Modern Synthesis? Oh. Everybody shrugs and goes back to whatever they were doing. (Either that or they all start working on CRISPR.)
1 Like
@swamidass
Is there a book that you can point me to that goes over what biologists mean by random? I mean more than just “without respect to fitness.” I mean something that could be cited in a paper as saying that randomness and order co-exist and just because a mutation is random, it does not mean that it is orderless. Or perhaps you could send me something where I can quote YOU as “personal communication.” An email, or whatever.
@Mark, I understand you are trying to sort out this disagreement between @Perry_Marshall and myself.
I need to recuse myself from this situation.
I’m unclear why @Perry_Marshall is aggressively challenging me on this. This is the area of my expertise, and he is refusing to engage with me directly. I reached out to him, asking to clarify in a phone call with him. He refused.
I do not understand his motivation or goals here. It appears he is either offended somehow by me, or is trying to create a controversy where there need not be one. Until he is willing a conversation with me, I do not plan to engage with his questions either directly, or by proxy. I hope at some point he will be willing to explain himself, and reconcile. Until then, please do not pass messages between us.
This is the basic foundations of statistics, probability, and statistical mechanics. Just reading a basic textbook, or just about any wikipedia page on statistical distributions should make this clear. It is possible @Perry_Marshall might have picked up the foibles of Shapiro and others in the EES, who appear to be challenging (or totally misunderstanding) the foundations fo these disciplines. This is very easy to sort out with involving me.
Sometimes, however, it is hard to understand a concept if a rhetorical point depends on misunderstanding the concept. I appears this may be the situation in which @Perry_Marshall finds himself.
1 Like
I’m actually not talking about you and Marshall at all. I’m writing an article and although I disagree with what SEEMS to be your definition of random, I want to make sure you are heard and represented fairly. Wikipedia will not work, I’m planning on submitting this to a scholarly journal. So I need something substantial.
Thanks,
Mark
1 Like
So I should look for a textbook on statistics, probability, or statistical mechanics?
Oh I see. I can help you with this. The best way to do this is privately over email. I’ll message you with it.
Also, I’m not sure you actually do disagree. I’m just explaining the jargon of the field. As a theologian you might very well and legitimately have a different definition for that word, and need to make a translation into your context. There is nothing wrong with this.
The part to which I’ve been objecting is the claim that, in the language of statistics and science, if we see order or structure in a variable, then it therefore is not at all random. This is just not true, and its an abuse of terminology. Random, in a modeling context, just means the things we cannot predict, or have not bothered to predict. It can include a whole grab bag of things. It is is not a theological or philosophical claim of ontological or epicurean chance. “Random” is merely a statement that there are parts of a system that we cannot fully explain or predict. That is it. Of course, there are parts of system we usually can explain and predict too.
The conflict here is more about conflating different meanings of the same utterance than anything else. The reason I object to EES is because they rely on this conflation for their point. I do not at all object to translating the meaning in science to a more appropriate term in theology.
The only 2 points i would think you must include in any discussion on the meaning of “Random” are:
[1] A Scientist can assert any version of unfathomabke randomness while still adhering to the Theological position that nothing is random to God; and
[2] Even something as cliche as a dice throw can be used to approximate true randomness even if the motion of dice is not randim at all.
Sure. Developmental bias certainly doesn’t require a rewrite of the modern theory of evolution. In fact, it fits in just fine with long standing concepts such as fitness landscapes and epistasis. Also, developmental bias involves the same mechanisms as already described in the modern theory.
I don’t find it difficult to believe that scientists would misrepresent the state of modern science in order to advance their agenda. This has been going on for over a century now.
Shapiro never engages the actual biological definitions of randomness and instead misrepresents what biologists mean by random mutations. Shapiro would say that shuffling cards does not result in a random assortment of cards because you purposefully mixed the cards up. That is how backwards his definitions are.
1 Like
I would suggest looking at the first sets of experiments that defined mutations as being random.
Luria and Delbruck, fluctuation experiment (1943):
Lederbergs, plate replica experiment (1952):
I think it is important to remember that the randomness of mutation is established by experiments and methodology, not by some ontological philosophy. At its most basic, random mutations not influenced by what would be beneficial in a given environment. Therefore, if transposon activity (which Shapiro is fond of) produces insertions that are beneficial, detrimental, and neutral and also show no evidence of being influenced by what would be beneficial then they are random mutations. Shapiro tries to pretend that transposon activity isn’t random because it is complicated, but that just doesn’t address what biologists mean by random. At that point you might as well claim that the lottery isn’t random because the machine that pickes the ping pong balls is complicated.
1 Like
We do not need to defend randomness at PeacefulScience.org.
Your continued efforts to do so seems to complicate all related conversations… and actually works against a clear presentation of the theology of Genealogical Adam.
Do you think you could desist from featuring randomness so frequently in your postings?
I know I’m not a moderator… but honestly… I cant even get a clear reading from some of your correspondents because they so closely identify randomness with every aspect of Evolution… even when God is intentionally not being random!
We do need to understand what scientists mean when they say that mutations are random with respect to fitness. We also need to understand the science that led them to these definitions.
If moderators find that my posts are problematic then I will desist.
Perhaps you are trying to read things into their posts that simply aren’t there.
2 Likes