Yes, the Evolutionary Process Does Depend on Randomness

Atheists will often assert that evolution is not random. (In fact, I was having this conversation just last night!) This is true if we’re talking about the natural selection part of the process, but natural selection can only select from what already exists. It’s the mutations that must provide the new genetic information, and mutations do not occur according to what is needed for an organism to survive; they can only cause the being to survive (and thus be selected) after they happen to occur. Stephen Meyer explains:

Yes, of course, natural selection is a “nonrandom” process as Dawkins correctly insists. Rates of reproductive success correlate to the traits that organisms possess. Those with fitness advantages will, all other things being equal, out-reproduce those lacking those advantages. Got it. Understood.

Yet, clearly, there is more to the evolutionary mechanism than just natural selection. Instead, the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism comprises (1) natural selection and/or (2) genetic drift acting on (3) adaptively random genetic variations and mutations (of various kinds). Moreover, as conceived from Darwin to the present, natural selection “selects” or acts to preserve those random variations that confer a fitness (or functional) advantage upon the organisms that possess them. It, further, “selects” only after such functionally advantageous variations (or mutations) have arisen. How could it do otherwise? Selection does not cause novel variations; rather, it sifts what is delivered to it by the random changes (e.g., mutations) that do cause variations. Such has been neo-Darwinian orthodoxy for many decades.

All this means that as a mechanism for the production of novel genetic information, natural selection does nothing to help generate functional DNA base (or amino acid) sequences. Rather it can only preserve such sequences (if they confer a functional advantage) once they have originated. In other words, adaptive advantage only accrues after the generation of new functional genes and proteins — after the fact, that is, of some (presumably) successful random mutational search. It follows that even if natural selection (considered separately from mutation) constitutes a non-random process, the evolutionary mechanism as a whole depends precisely upon an ineliminable element of randomness, namely, various postulated or observed mutational processes. (Nor is any of the above particularly controversial within evolutionary biology....)

Read the rest of the post, and see here for more on why the creation of all life through a random development of meaningful genetic information is, as Meyer said, “overwhelmingly more likely to be false than true.”

Comments

[Daniel]

Thanks for the post! This was very helpful and clarifying.

[B.E. Hunt]

Just as we are constantly reminded by STR, that the word "evolution" has several possible meanings, so to the word "random". What random means in terms of Neo-Darwinian is that the mutations are not 'purpose-driven', to borrow a phrase. That's all Dawkins was trying to point out. I don't find Meyer's thinking surprising or informative given this understanding.

The constant apologetic strategies aimed at refuting the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, I believe, are guilty of the straw man fallacy. Purposeless mutation/genetic drift, which is central to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, is a minor point these days as active biologists have recognized that this mechanisms does not have the power to create new kinds of living things. Mechanisms, such as lateral gene transfer (direct transfer of genetic information from one organism to another, such as bacterium), is now considered a more dominant mechanisms. All this to remind the readers that we must deal with the current line of thinking and reasoning and not spend our time and energy arguing against an outmoded model.

[kpolo]

My argument against evolution is based on the unique intelligence that man possesses. Every other trait - be it physical strength, agility, speed - is present in different degrees among animals. However, man is singularly unique and differentiated in his mental abilities:

- to be able to reason and understand the world
- to make moral judgments
- to develop technologies powerful enough to destroy the entire planet
- to make music and art
- to develop language and communicate
- to even break free from the confines of Earth's gravity and walk on the moon.

There is no reason to believe that evolution should produce such a peculiarly unique and super-developed trait in just one species. It just doesn't make any sense and there exists no good explanation for why it arose.

Genesis does explain why. For those who argue against the Bible, it would be pretty darn remarkable for folks who lived 4000 plus years ago to make such a claim about the unique gifting of man (Imago Dei).

[Matt]

This is a really great article. There are also several youtube videos online with lectures from Stephen Meyers that go into the difficulty in getting the origin of life given the inherent randomness in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The reliance on randomness along with the absurdity of randomness producing biological information is really an Achilles heel to the theory. It is no wonder that naturalists are so set on getting rid of it.

I used to wonder if evolution was worth spending time on, but it seems like such a stumbling block to so many people. Even though evolution, if true, wouldn’t prove that God does not exist or that he did not raise Jesus from the dead, it still seems to serve as an intellectual justification for atheism. That’s what it did for me earlier in life, and losing my faith in evolution was one of the first steps in my return to faith in God.

[bill childs]

to argue evolution or atheism is a weakness of faith. randomness is merely the building blocks of order. as einstine showed there is a power in all existence whether you wish to call it god,spirit,jehova or any other name "it is". I choose to call it God creator and has the profound ability to create infinite process of perfection greater than simple humans ability to understand

[RonH]

Amy,

Why did you post this?

I've read it it a few times and I can't figure it out.

RonH

[Amy]

Then I recommend reading the first two sentences one more time!

[scbrownlhrm]

FWIW:

Randomness is a peculiar concept and merits some tedious work. It can be hard to pin down the actual meaning which any of us are trying to convey to one another without some effort to understand one another. Perry Marshall’s “Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design” is a good example of getting some precision into that work. In the Kindle version one can search “random” and the hits do all the work for you. Also, “Appendix 1: All About Randomness” adds even more.