Why is natural selection not random?

**~~darryl~~** · 06-01-12, 12:10 PM

Been reading What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and they both seem to be saying natural selection is random and not directed like most scientists believe it to be.

Can anyone explain why natural selection is not random?

**kx000** · 06-01-12, 01:26 PM

Yes. It is semi-random because random things happen that can kill man A, or cause a chain of events which lead to the death of man A. Ex. Old man drives his car through your front door squishing A. However, it is not totally random because I am me, I am driving this car. Plus, I can plan the extinction of all man kind.

**spidergoat** · 06-01-12, 01:34 PM

Because differential survival and reproduction rates depend to a great degree on the fitness of the individual.

**origin** · 06-01-12, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by darryl

Been reading What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and they both seem to be saying natural selection is random and not directed like most scientists believe it to be.

Can anyone explain why natural selection is not random?

I am not sure what you are trying to say so lets use an example.

Lets assume the world begins to cool and enters an ice age over time. The animals that survive the cooling will be the ones that are best adapted. There is random variation in every species, the random variation in, say body hair will favor the animals that have the thickess hair during a cooling period. They will reproduce and the trait of warm fur will become the norm.

This is just a cheesy little example that hopefully will point out how a random variation can lead to an animal adapted for a particular climate.

Since you are reading a book named "What Darwin Got Wrong", you may not really be interested though.

**kx000** · 06-01-12, 01:53 PM

If you leave it to the chef he will give you a random dish, if you know the ingredients you can cook what ever you want.

**rpenner** · 06-01-12, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by darryl

Been reading What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and they both seem to be saying natural selection is random and not directed like most scientists believe it to be.

Perhaps you need to quote the relevant passage.

In re: Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini:

Originally Posted by Douglas J. Futuyma

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini show little familiarity with the vast literature on genetic variation, experimental analyses of natural selection, or other topics on which they philosophically expound. They are blithely agnostic about the causes of evolution and apparently uninterested in fostering any program of research. Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren't, and it isn't.

Douglas J. Futuyma, "Two Critics Without a Clue", Science 328: 5979, pp. 692-69 (7 May 2010)

**Aqueous Id** · 06-02-12, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by darryl

Been reading What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and they both seem to be saying natural selection is random and not directed like most scientists believe it to be.

Can anyone explain why natural selection is not random?

Yes I can.

Can you define "natural selection" and "random" and "directed"?

**Kumar** · 06-02-12, 02:32 AM

Can't it be this way?

Natural Selection: selection based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.

**Aqueous Id** · 06-02-12, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Kumar

Can't it be this way?

Natural Selection: selection based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.

No that would be called human selection, or choice.
Natural selection does not derive from humans, but from nature.
Which is why it's called "natural".

**Emil** · 06-02-12, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by darryl

Can anyone explain why natural selection is not random?

If there is random then there is no causal determinism.

**Aqueous Id** · 06-02-12, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by darryl

Been reading What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

You have chosen two authors who are not even biologists and whose work is discredited.

Originally Posted by Jerry Fodor

The crucial test is whether one’s pet theory can distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of adaptationism I’ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes along.

Originally Posted by darryl

and they both seem to be saying natural selection is random and not directed like most scientists believe it to be.

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes this book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection" and "as biologically uninformed as it is strident." while In a review in Science Douglas J. Futuyma concluded:

Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren't, and it isn't.

Adam Rutherford, editor of Nature writing in The Guardian also reviewed it negatively.

Originally Posted by darryl

Can anyone explain why natural selection is not random?

Natural selection is what it is. Can you explain what it is? In other words, natural selection is not at dispute here, just a misunderstanding over the value of your authors' work.

**wellwisher** · 06-02-12, 09:34 AM

Natural selection is not random because it is based on fitness in the context of environmental conditions. This, more often than not, implies logical choices based on given external parameters. For example, if the weather remained cold, selection would go to those who are fit in the cold not those who are fit in the hot weather. This is semi-predictable. Random would flip a coin with the result of 50/50 extinction. Survival requires more than a coin toss. You don't randomly rub two fish together to make a fire.

The DNA generates randomness in terms of new genes. This assures that there is enough variety of attributes so there is a better fit for the direction needed by natural selection.

What is left out of this analysis is the entropic force. In the case of osmosis, random events at the molecular level, based on entropy and the second law, leads to a directed force at the macro-level. Life, by being expressed in the liquid state of water, makes use of this template with the randomness within the DNA, leading to a sense of direction in the macro-state of natural selection.

There is also reverse osmosis, where we can use negative entropic force to create order out of randomness; salt to pure water. If you needed specific genes on the DNA, theoretically, you can leverage the negative entropic force in a directed way to create order out of genetic randomness.

**kx000** · 06-02-12, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Emil

If there is random then there is no causal determinism.

Why not?

**Aqueous Id** · 06-02-12, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by wellwisher

Natural selection is not random because it is based on fitness in the context of environmental conditions.

Fitness and environment are always predictable? The outcome is always predictable?

Fish are adapted to water. If I set up a tank of water and put a live fish in it, does this mean it will live with 100% certainty? That the randomness goes away?

**Emil** · 06-02-12, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Knowledge91

Why not?

Randomness:

We see random behaviour all around us, weather for example seems completely random, human behaviour is another example. But is this behaviour truly random? The answer is a big NO. Every physical phenomenon around us is at best unpredictable ie. human beings are unable to predict it (due to a large no. of factors,accuracy,etc.). However, just because we are unable to predict an event does not mean that it would not follow a predefined path. All events are a direct consequence of a another event or a set of events.Thus no event is truly random or spontaneous,ie. it could be influenced by a multitude of other events or maybe all other events in the universe but it didn't just happen without any cause. Also see articles on Causality (physics), Deterministic system (philosophy)

Determinism- a direct consequence of a non-random world

As seen above there are no truly random events in the universe. Thus every event can be traced back to another event (or a set of events). Each of the older events are themselves a consequence of prior events.Thus every event can be traced back to the state of the universe at its beginning ie. the Big Bang. Thus, we can conclude that all events after the big bang are simply following a predetermined path.

**~~darryl~~** · 06-02-12, 03:29 PM

Natural selection is what it is. Can you explain what it is?

So far I have come across atleast 12 different definitions of what natural selection is, different websites/books seem to be saying different things. It would help if you could define it, then we can discuss if it is random or not.

**Grumpy** · 06-02-12, 04:18 PM

darryl

There are different answers because they are answers at different levels of comprehension.

For example, NS is basically survival to reproduce. This means the traits you have are good enough for you to survive long enough to reproduce your form of life in the environment you find yourself in.

On the next level of detail it means that in the competition for resources you are able to spread the genes you have into the population of creatures similar enough to you to reproduce.(populations evolve, not individuals).

On the genetic level it is the increase of allels among the genome.

Of course, all of these pertain to the "winners" in the competition of life, the losers are no longer around. All of these "select" for better fit to the environment by the simple process of killing those that do not fit.

We are all an extremely lucky tribe of apes trying to describe reality with a language evolved to tell each other where the ripe fruit is. It is often difficult to do so with any accuracy or understanding.

Grumpy

**Emil** · 06-02-12, 05:06 PM

Perhaps better understand natural selection, first would need to understand artificial selection.

Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits. The term was utilized by Charles Darwin in contrast to natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability (“Darwinian fitness”). As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

http://bioap.wikispaces.com/ch22+collaboration :

Artificial selection is the intentional breeding of certain organisms to produce the desired traits/characteristics. This can lead to different species being created, while others die off. For example, farmers often interbreed multiple populations of one crop to produce that crop with the characteristics that they want.

**Emil** · 06-02-12, 05:07 PM

Natural selection is the the result of “survival of the fittest.” “Fittest” actually has little to do with physical or mental fitness and completely to do with fitting into an environment. Organisms that are more “fit” survive, reproduce, and perpetuate the genes that made them survive in the first place. Those organisms that are not “fit” die, along with the traits that were no help to them.

So artificial and natural selection is well understood and experienced.
The question is why within a species or races, individuals are not exactly the same. What is the mechanism and why these differences occur?

**Kumar** · 06-02-12, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id

No that would be called human selection, or choice.
Natural selection does not derive from humans, but from nature.
Which is why it's called "natural".

Inharent sense can be there in all live beings. That may suggest directed selection.