Re: Evolution is NOT random

On May 24, 2:20 am, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:
In article <g170bf$kt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple example:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/B...

DK
You are right about chaotic effects being for all practical
purposes nondeterministic. I think that is what Gould actually meant,
but stated in Gould's condescending style.
For example, a chaotic eventthe posters that disagree are making a
mistake as to what Gould meant by contingency..
I think part of the confusion is with Gould's statement about
"rewinding the tape of life." One of the posters here makes the
arguable claim that rewinding is a deterministic process.
Gould made a lot of ambiguous statements. At the same time, he
made arrogant remarks putting down physical scientists who worry about
ambiguity. Gould is a bit wrong.
Gould is implying that the observer who rewinds the events is
changing some of the initial conditions on an atomic level. It's like
the "butterfly effect" in chaos theory. Gould is rewinding the event
after stepping on some atom-sized collision. He then moves forward
after stepping on another atom-sized collisions. He is claiming the
resulting history, with these collisions changed, will be entirely
different. Or maybe he is changing a butterfly sized collision. In any
event, he really should have called "the tape of life" the "software
program of life." Gould thinks that there is an unseen "random number
generator" to history. Just like the butterfly in chaos theory.
However, Gould is trying to distance himself from mathematicians and
physical scientists who use such concepts.
Chaotic processes have certain statistical properties that can
be determined. Such as the Lyapanov number. Even in a classical
chaotic process, one can determine the Lyapanov number. So in the
broadest statistical sense, chaotic processes are deterministic. The
effort to quantify the dynamics of evolution has been very hard, but I
think it has gained rich dividends. Gould tends to dismiss such
efforts.
I suspect if the tape of life were rewound and run forward, we
would end up with the same "Lyapanov number" or its analog. So life
isn't as "contingent" as Gould claims. But I don't know.
I like Dawkins better than Gould because he addresses the
quantitative concepts in evolutionary theory, even in his popular
writing. However, I think that Gould's ideas should not be dismissed
out of hand. Just remember Gould is sometimes a little too arrogant to
write clearly.

.