Does evolution mean we're products of random chance?
Great comments, all!
Thought I’d jump back to the “random mutation” topic that Randy, Sy, David Lahti, and others found so striking in Episode 2. The emphasis upon the random nature of mutations was, I think, quite necessary.
That evolution means we are products of mere chance is often THE reason given for fundamentalist anti-evolution fervor. From YEC to Stephen Myers ID theory anti-evolution position, the reason for their anti-evolution position is that they understand randomness in mutations to mean that we are mere “products of random chance” or freak accidents of nature if evolution is true.
In a June 6, 2011 Christianity Today editorial entitled, “No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel”, the rationale starts like this:
“First, in Darwinian thought, pure randomness was the engine of evolution. But randomness denies the divine Reason (the Logos in the language of John's Gospel) behind the creative process. Christians must root for intelligence over chance.”
Accordingly, Christians who try to come to terms with the evidence for evolution often start by believing that God had to guide evolution in an interventionist way or spontaneously created organisms in stages then allowed to adapt. Thus, this leads to the denial of the evidence for evolution as a sufficient process from a modern science perspective and that denial can impact the credibility of our witness for the gospel. And I expect it is a kicking against the goads of what I now understand to be God’s creative tool.
My biggest hurdle
But, if evolution is sufficient for the origin of species, just how is God not redundant? God as redundant is the notorious charge of notorious atheist, Richard Dawkins. That was the biggest hurdle in my paradigm shift to an evolutionary creation view in 2010 after 34+ years as a scientific creationist. That is, at least until I realized that the “God is redundant” argument fails to consider the possibility that God’s essential Design could have simply been further back.
Thanks to ASA and other resources, I’ve since gained far more satisfying perspectives than I’ve ever had before and I feel that my faith far more rationally grounded than ever before. God isn’t proved in this new paradigm, as I had thought for most of my life (my faith was practically sight), but then, God isn’t supposed to be proved – “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”. But, what a joy it is to now have a faith that is also in sync with modern science! Thanks Randy, Denis, Paul, Mike B. & Mike T., Sy, Mark, all!
Taking better perspectives on randomness to the streets:
Here’s what I find satisfying on the topic of randomness. The following are some related thoughts I’m planning to take to the streets in an upcoming blog post. I’m a relative newbie to ASA and these thoughts aren’t fully formed yet. But I’d love to know what any of you think of the concepts and how to present them.
“Doesn’t evolution mean we are products of random chance?”, is the #1 question (if anyone says anything at all), that I hear most often from my church friends after my paradigm shift. Other than simply, “No.”, there isn’t a really good one or two sentence answer. Yet, I can’t bear the thought that this is what they think. Here are the key parts of an attempt that I’ve been considering.
Natural selection is “…the opposite of random” (Tyson) or “…anything but random” (Dawkins)
It could have been easily missed, but Tyson was careful to state that the natural selection component of evolution is “the opposite of random”. Tyson certainly didn’t emphasize that aspect as much as the random nature of mutations. He didn’t tease out the fact that the net-effect of evolution:
Random mutation + natural selection = a non-random process
Even notorious atheist, Richard Dawkins, ridicules the notion that evolution means we are products of random chance. Here’s what Richard Dawkins says in this Q & A exchange:
“Q: …A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.
Dawkins: That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random…”.
Features of life, including high intelligence and advanced civilization are INEVITABLE
Well, if that isn’t enough to shake-up most people’s misconceptions of evolution as being all-about-random-chance, then they should see the quotes of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan affirming the INEVITABILITY of high intelligence and an advanced civilization in an evolutionary paradigm. What?!? Yes, see, “What if Evolution Meant High Intelligence and an Advanced Civilization Were Inevitable???” Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan both agree with Simon Conway Morris and Kenneth Miller that “high intelligence and an advanced civilization” are INEVITABLE in evolution, i.e., under sufficient conditions for complex life.
That’s not so random!
That view isn’t consensus…yet. But, it is a modern science view. It’s a view that wouldn’t have been held 15 years ago, I understand.
Did God just have functional requirements?
I liken the relationship between God and evolution to the development of automated information systems (AISs), i.e., software development, where I have some experience writing user requirements as well as doing development (coding) work. The cardinal rule for documenting user’s requirements for AISs is to provide the developers with “functional” requirements – you can’t tie the system engineer’s and computer programmer’s hands with exactly how to do the programming or how to design the graphic user interface (GUI), i.e., what it has to look like. Just tell them what functions the user needs. Sometimes the same set of functional requirements are given to 3 or more different vendors to see what they come up with – the vendors compete for which one can design the best looking, best performing, best designed system that meet those functional requirements.
I expect evolution as God’s ordained and sustained Creative tool is like that.
Perhaps God simply had his functional requirements (e.g., “high intelligence and an advance civilization”) and originally Created all of nature in such a way to automatically and inevitably fulfill those functional requirements through evolutionary processes, resulting in “endless forms most beautiful and wonderful” (to re-coin a famous phrase of Darwin’s). I get choked-up just thinking about it.
What an invention!
All of nature is created by God and His essential design was perhaps front-loaded in the fine-tuned initial conditions and physical laws at the time of the Big Bang – conditions and laws that have been shown by physicists to be exquisitely finely tuned for life. Or, perhaps it was the conditions that allowed a multiverse that inevitably produced our universe and its laws. Regardless, perhaps God had his functional requirements (intelligence, camera-like eyes, etc.) and left it for His creation of nature to automatically and inevitably work-out those functional requirement through evolutionary processes without micromanaging the outcomes wherever the conditions end-up being sufficient, perhaps on countless planets in orbits around countless stars, and.
The ubiquitous evidence of convergence in evolution supports the conclusion of inevitability
I’m not sure about Carl Sagan’s reasons for being in agreement with Simon Conway Morris and Kenneth Miller on the inevitability of high intelligence, but the reason Richard Dawkins agrees is NOT the argument that all things are possible in an infinite universe/multiverse. No, it is the ubiquitous evidence for evolutionary convergence (where the key features of life have evolved independently in vastly diverse organisms). This is clear from, “Climbing Mount Improbable” and other books by Dawkins discussing the evidence for convergence in evolution.
I certainly can’t do the topic justice like Simon Conway Morris would, but the ubiquitous evidence of convergence arguably shows that the key features of life are inevitable, i.e., given life in the first place (a separate issue) and under sufficient conditions and enough time. Hundreds of examples are catalogued and described in, “Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe” by Simon Conway Morris. Not familiar? Here’s a collection of links on his stuff.
For example, think how many different kinds of living creatures can fly. Birds fly, bees fly, mammals (bats) fly, some reptiles fly, etc. Why?!? None of these diverse organisms have a common flying ancestor, except perhaps reptiles and birds. The ability to fly arose independently at least several times. Assuming they evolved that way, this is strong evidence that flight is inevitable in a world where creatures can take to the air for advantage.
Hummingbirds, bumble bees and some unrelated insects even have the remarkably convergent ability to hover. Others glide like flying squirrels, flying fish and even certain snakes glide. More broadly convergent in the use of air for locomotion to get from place to place also extends to plant, such as the seeds of milkweed, cattails, dandelion, not-to-mention the helicopter-like seeds of maple, just to name a few.
The octopus (an invertebrate), predatory snails (invertebrates), jumping spiders, etc., all have camera like eyes with a lens and remarkably similar structure to our own. But they have no common ancestor with eyes. And vertebrate and invertebrate eyes are known to have formed in different ways (Google it). Camera-like eyes evolved independently multiple times. The same is shown for intelligence and other key features of life. This is where at least Richard Dawkins agrees with Simon Conway Morris.
Now, Stephen J. Gould used to argue that, if you rewound the tape of evolution and did it all over again, you’d come up with something completely different. That still appears to be predominant scientific consensus today. But, Simon Conway Morris persuasively argues that, no, if you ran the tape of evolution all over again, one thing is certain, you’d have camera-like eyes, you’d have flight and you’d have intelligence, and etc.
Then, how many eyes do the aliens have?
No, I haven’t seen an alien, yet. But, we can predict how many eyes they have. We don’t have just as good a chance of being a Cyclops, for example, or of having 9 eyes as having exactly 2 just as we do. Just one eye won’t do because you need a spare. If you lose an eye or you get poked in the eye running through the wood from danger, you’re toast, unless, of course, you have a spare.
You also need 2 eyes for depth perception.
But, having more than two eyes is unlikely for at least these reasons:
- While 2 allow for depth perception and a spare – I’m not sure what having 3 eye or more buys you.
- Integrating more than two eyes would be an order of magnitude more complex for the brain;
- With 3 or more eyes it’s extremely hard to get a date, much less mate! ;-o)
- Ladies, think of all the extra time required for make-up with 6 eyes ;;;-o) and
- Seriously, comparing groups of organisms like the invertebrate octopus and vertebrates, as well as most insects, etc., these groups have no common ancestor with eyes, yet each have each independently and convergently evolved exactly two main eyes. Even in spiders (arachnids all have 8 eyes), those that have camera-like eyes, like the jumping spider, have only 2 main eyes.
Where would eyes be located?
You’re also not likely to see eyes on feet or knees, for example, but rather up high and predictably near mouth and olfactory senses (nose), perhaps even above them, for obvious reasons. And so on and so on, many features of living things are predictable no matter the random nature of mutations. Simon Conway Morris greatly expounds on reasons for the observe convergent evolution of bilateral symmetry and hundreds of other proposed reasons for the ubiquitous examples of evolution on our, so far, lonely planet.
Randomness, yes, but not in the driver’s seat of change
So, random mutations do NOT DRIVE evolution. Constraints do. Constraints DRIVE evolution – constraints like natural selection acted upon by those considerations above and many others.
Constraints that natural selection (itself a constraint) acts upon, just to name a few, include:
- Niche requirements – the requirements of the niche that is being filled or competed for (e.g., for an earthworm, eyes, limbs, & a big brain would be impediments and are selected against);
- Mate’s choice – the peacock & birds of paradise don’t have those extravagant feathers to fly better – apparently they are fashion statements;
- Islands of stability – aspects of structural stability, best practices, if-you-will, that organisms land upon in achieving many of life’s key features (e.g., bilateral symmetry) guide evolutionary change and are expounded upon in detail by Simon Conway Morris in “Life’s Solution…”
- Inherent chemical constraints of biomolecules that are, in turn, constrained by the elements of the periodic table as well as their relative abundance, that are, in turn, constrained by the nature of subatomic particles and their interactions based in turn on the fundamental properties, constants and physical laws of our universe that, in turn, at some point owe themselves to God, I expect.
Some constraints owe themselves to the initial fine-tuned conditions of our universe/multiverse and others to being on a rather special planet in the habitable zone with all the right stuff (e.g., carbon, water, atmosphere, Chipotle & Starbucks around the corner, etc.) and probably many other factors worthy of further investigation. Other constraints are the chance result of the particular features of our planet that are apparently unique in our solar system. But, the possibilities are not endless. There are only so many elements in the periodic table, only so many molecules, e.g., H2O, that can form from them, and only so many elements, perhaps only carbon, that can form the backbone of the molecules of life. And there is an unimaginably vast universe where the right stuff is likely to appear again and again.
Simple H2O analogy
I’ve searched for the best simple analogy. No analogy is perfect but it helps me to liken randomness in mutations to the random movement of water molecules. Regardless of whether in liquid or gaseous state, H2O molecules move about more or less randomly, i.e., notwithstanding diffusion gradients, wind and other constraints we’ll get to in a minute.
Spill some water and it will move throughout the house if you don’t clean it up or step in it first.
But, despite water’s random movement, if you go turn on the faucet to get a glass of water isn’t it about 100% predictable that the water will come out the faucet and proceed down the drain or into your glass? Why? Well, obviously, those randomly moving water molecules move in a predictable manner and direction because they are constrained in various ways. There are the pipes, the sink or glass, gravity, momentum, the adhesive/cohesive properties of liquid water, the phase states (liquid, solid, gas properties of water) of water, and etc. All these constraints are drivers against the tendency for water molecules to evaporate and randomly diffuse through the house. The active word here is “constraints”.
An equal-opportunity-provider of change
I’m not sure who coined the phrase, but I’ve heard that random mutations can best be thought of as an equal-opportunity-provider of the possibility for change. No mutations, no change. No change, no adaptation. No adaptation, then probably extinction.
And, if mutations were not random, i.e., encompassing the largest number of possibilities, then, arguably, the alternative possibilities to BEST adapt to changing environments or to venture into new niches would be limited.
Acquired ability for engineering?
Yes, as Shapiro seems to make some case for, biological systems apparently have acquired some engineering ability such that not all mutation happen in a completely random manner. But, if accurate, we can’t assume that those engineering features came about by OTHER than an evolutionary process that involved nothing other than randomness in mutations and natural selection.
Other perspectives on God and randomness,
Points 1-5 below are some conclusions from a remarkable 2012 talk, "The Nature and Purpose of Randomness”, by Dr. Mark Shelhamer, a Biomedical Engineer at John Hopkins University.
- "Randomness is a law as fundamental to how God runs the universe as any other physical-mathematical law we know."
- "Randomness is not haphazard -- it follows rules."
- "…randomness has a beauty and organization of its own…it should be embraced as one of God's organizing principles”
- A bell curve is the predictable result of a statistical sampling of random events.
- Radioactive decay of radioisotope atoms is completely random. But the net result of a large sample is a constant half-life that is one of the most predictable things in physics -- why half-life is used in radiometric dating methods.
- This excerpt of a BioLogos article entitle, “Misconceptions about Randomness”, clears up a number of them, including these two:
“Misconception #2
Randomness means anything can happen, and all possibilities are equally likely.
People often think randomness means the outcome is completely open-ended, but you can’t roll a 7 on a 6-sided dice, nor draw a red marble from a bag of blue ones. Even random processes function according to rules. (The logistic map in the last section is another good example.)
Sometimes, the word random is used to mean unbiased. If you want to know who will win a political election, you make sure to poll a random sample of people, not just those hanging around a Tea Party rally. But the word random doesn’t have to mean that all possibilities are equally likely. When maternal and paternal chromosomes get together during conception, they exchange long sequences of DNA in a process called recombination. We now know that recombination happens more often in some places of the genome than others, but the specific sites where it will occur in a given embryo are impossible to predict. So recombination is random in the sense that it is unpredictable, but not in the sense that all outcomes are equally likely.
Misconception #3
Randomness always leads to disorder.
On the contrary, randomness often leads to exquisitely ordered and complex outcomes. In my next post, we'll watch a simulation of viral self-assembly from individual proteins bouncing around in a jar. You could repeat the simulation a thousand times and always get the same result, even though the particular assembly pathway would look different each time. That is, if the starting materials are present and the conditions (temperature, pH, etc) are right, you will always get a beautiful, highly symmetric virus. Random motion is the mechanism used to search “solution space” for a favorable outcome.
Fractals provide another great example of patterns emerging from randomness. Fractals are chaotic patterns with the same basic property: no matter how much you “zoom in,” the overall structure is maintained. Clouds, trees, crystals, and snow flakes are naturally-occurring fractals.
You can construct a fractal like the Sierpinski triangle shown at left by rolling a die and following simple rules.3 If 100 people in a room independently rolled a die 100 times and followed the rules, they would all have different sequences of rolls, but all would end up with the same pattern!
Thus, for many random processes, the fine details may be unpredictable along the way, but the macro-level outcome is foreseeable.”
Randomness solves other problems
If randomness can be used solve other problems in nature and by man, then it is easy to see how randomness can be one of God’s organizing principles and easier to see how it could be used by God to accomplish His purposes through evolutionary processes.
Our Immune System Relies on Random Recombination to Fight Disease
Randomness in evolution is not without analogy in biology. The ability of our own immune system to recognize trillions of different invading organisms relies on the random recombination of a just a few specific gene sequences. See “Adaptive Immunity: How Randomness Comes to the Rescue”.
Mathematical problems, like determining the area of a circle, can be also be solved using randomness.
See Mark Shelhamer’s (cited above) explanation of how randomness can be used to determine the area of a circle, for instance, and other examples of randomness being used to solve problems, bring about good things and otherwise serve a purpose.
More on randomness:
Hot off the presses, these two articles offer a deeper dive into related perspectives on randomness. Each is well worth the price of the issue, if not a subscriber.
·
Oh, and I really liked the graphics this time.
