Re: Evolution is NOT random

dkomo,

I'm afraid that I disagree with many of your assertions in this post and, of
course, your conclusions. If the foundation of thermodynamics is credible,
and I think it is, then the arrow of time is not reversible. As far as we
know that arrow has never been reversed and can never be reversed. I also
think that you set up a straw man by limiting the notion of randomness to
quantum phenomena. The way the term "random" has been used historically did
not imply effects without causation. It merely implies that there is no
meaningful connection, or opportunity for information transfer, between the
source of causation and the effected system. This definition of "random"
allows randomness to impinge on system dynamics in important ways. For
example, the Brownian motion of particles energizes steam engines. The
motions of those particles is not without causes to the extent that they are
interacting, yet those motions are entirely random with regard to the
structure and function of the steam engine. In my view, it would be as
silly to ignore the role of randomness in evolution as it would be to ignore
the role of randomness in the functioning of a steam engine.

Guy


in article g0cmbb$1o1o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dkomo at dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 5/13/08 11:23 AM:

So why do people keep discussing it as though it were? Evolution is a
deterministic process taking place in a deterministic world. The only
"randomness" about it is in our own minds due to our inability to
completely understand, track and predict what is going on. This
randomness is epistemological and relative, and is not a real feature of
nature.

Why do I say this? The only truly random processes in nature are
quantum processes and, as far I know, this quantum randomness plays no
role in genetic mutations. Mutations are chemical and thermodynamic
phenomena taking place in the macroscopic classical world above the
quantum realm.

So evolution plays out as part of the Newtonian clockwork universe and
statements like these: "If evolution was rerun a trillion times we would
get a trillion different results" and similar ideas from Stephen Gould
are utter bull***.

To rerun the "tape of life" you first have to rewind it. The rewind is
completely deterministic because the laws of physics are
time-reversible. Now when you play the tape forward you get exactly the
same results as before. Replay it a trillion times and you get the same
result each time.

I think Gould's replaying of the tape of life is a fantasy like the
fantasy we create when we ponder what would have happened if Nazi
Germany had won WWII or if the South had won the American Civil War. In
the real world, evolution of life on earth could have taken only a
single path, which is the path that it actually did take. Neither an
Intelligent Designer nor true randomness played any part.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx




.

Quantcast