A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well of course, but the processes are 100% random.
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
And what processes would these be that are supposedly “100% random”?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
The processes that cause genetic mutations
I
itinerant1
Guest
Let’s see, mutations are not random changes, but the processes (or changes) that cause mutations are random.The processes that cause genetic mutations
R
rossum
Guest
The processes that cause mutations are not always random - such as some chemicals. The phrase “random mutation” is an abbreviation for “mutations that are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”.The processes that cause genetic mutations
rossum
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Ok this is starting to get very semantical. Processes like crossing over, random assortment of chromosomes, deletion etc are random.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
LOL well yes! Well when you want to play semantics. You see you pointed out, well you quoted someone who pointed out that genetic change is limited, and this is spot on. For example there is a limit to how much variation a one genetic change can cause. However this does not mean that the process that cause the change is not random. The fact you roll your eye shows you lack even a high school level understanding of the subject.Let’s see, mutations are not random changes, but the processes (or changes) that cause mutations are random.
When i roll a dice i can only get a number between one and six, however the number i roll is still (as far as chance is concerned) random.
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, there is no possible way to know that past mutations were random. Were you around to observe each and every one?
Ditto above response.
For example, is “selective breeding” a random process? I would say “no.” We DO see the results of selective breeding all the time. It’s a non-random process. Whereas you can only speculate about random processes having happened to produce specific effects.
It seems that “random” has many definitions. So I’ll try to elaborate on what it means to me.
Of course some chemicals cause specific (non-random) mutations. But it is not random when e.g. a lab technician purposely introduces chemical X into the process. On the other hand, it would be considered random if chemical X just happened to come along in the environment and interact in the same way. There’s a huge difference in the probability of that specific mutation happening when a lab tech does it, versus just waiting around for that same chemical to appear “at random.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Have you played the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge yet?
B
buffalo
Guest
No - you limited the number of choices to six by design.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
As ever you make dogmatic assumptions.
OK - try this out. The chances of intelligent life coming out of these random changes, and, for that matter, the chances of life occurring at all, are too mindbogglingly unlikely for any reasonable person to believe intelligent life would occur, evolutionarily, as a result of random chance
(and not to confuse you, I am arguing a God-exists-if-there-is-the slightest-element-of truth-in-Evolutionary-theory argument here. I’ll argue skepticism about evolution instead if the thread ever drifts back that way)
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
No. Well, unless he wants to…
God could presumably generate randomness more efficiently and truly than any computer. The decision to randomise is not random, but the event itself could have no predicated outcome - if so desired. Who’s splitting hairs now?
R
ricmat
Guest
That’s a pretty novel concept. You may, in fact, be the first to have ever come up with it. Perhaps you’re in line to be a Doctor of the Church
God doing something in which he doesn’t know the outcome has been condemned by Cardinal Schoenborn in his book Chance or Purpose. Here’s a link where I mentioned that some time ago.God could presumably generate randomness more efficiently and truly than any computer. The decision to randomise is not random, but the event itself could have no predicated outcome - if so desired. Who’s splitting hairs now?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well no, i wasn’t kent.
I guess god just started to make them look random since we have been able to observe them eh??? lol
B
buffalo
Guest
Evolution: like any other science it is predictable
Evolutionary biology rejoices in the diversity of life, but this comes at a cost: other than working in
the common framework of neo-Darwinian evolution, specialists in, for example, diatoms and mammals
have little to say to each other. Accordingly, their research tends to track the particularities and
peculiarities of a given group and seldom enquires whether there are any wider or deeper sets of
explanations. Here, I present evidence in support of the heterodox idea that evolution might look
to a general theory that does more than serve as a tautology (‘evolution explains evolution’). Specifically,
I argue that far from its myriad of products being fortuitous and accidental, evolution is
remarkably predictable. Thus, I urge a move away from the continuing obsession with Darwinian
mechanisms, which are entirely uncontroversial. Rather, I emphasize why we should seek explanations
for ubiquitous evolutionary convergence, as well as the emergence of complex integrated
systems. At present, evolutionary theory seems to be akin to nineteenth-century physics, blissfully
unaware of the imminent arrival of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Physics had its
Newton, biology its Darwin: evolutionary biology now awaits its Einstein.
more…
Evolutionary biology rejoices in the diversity of life, but this comes at a cost: other than working in
the common framework of neo-Darwinian evolution, specialists in, for example, diatoms and mammals
have little to say to each other. Accordingly, their research tends to track the particularities and
peculiarities of a given group and seldom enquires whether there are any wider or deeper sets of
explanations. Here, I present evidence in support of the heterodox idea that evolution might look
to a general theory that does more than serve as a tautology (‘evolution explains evolution’). Specifically,
I argue that far from its myriad of products being fortuitous and accidental, evolution is
remarkably predictable. Thus, I urge a move away from the continuing obsession with Darwinian
mechanisms, which are entirely uncontroversial. Rather, I emphasize why we should seek explanations
for ubiquitous evolutionary convergence, as well as the emergence of complex integrated
systems. At present, evolutionary theory seems to be akin to nineteenth-century physics, blissfully
unaware of the imminent arrival of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Physics had its
Newton, biology its Darwin: evolutionary biology now awaits its Einstein.
more…
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well not if you actually understand the science, just because mutations are random does not mean evolution is. I recommend a basic science class for you, you should not be too out your depth if you jump in the the 11 year olds.
R
ricmat
Guest
I was talking about the key mutations that lead to increasing information / complexity in DNA (thereby leading from simple life to complex life). Obviously every mutation does not lead in that direction, and you will agree with me that the vast majority of mutations lead in the opposite direction.Well no, i wasn’t kent.
I guess god just started to make them look random since we have been able to observe them eh??? lol
Of course you can see random mutations which destroy or disable. But have you observed any of those “random” mutations which lead to increasing information / complexity?
No, I thought not. Spiderman is not likely to appear anytime soon.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just curious - did you win the Dawkins Mutation Challenge?Well not if you actually understand the science, just because mutations are random does not mean evolution is. I recommend a basic science class for you, you should not be too out your depth if you jump in the the 11 year olds.
In addition it is now well understood that the super language of DNA fights against mutations (much like a parity bit works in electronics).
I
itinerant1
Guest
Okay, here’s the drift on random mutations.
I agree with Dobzhansky that “not even mutations are random changes, because what mutations can take place in a given gene is evidently decreed by the structure of that gene.”
We know that DNA does not get shuffled like a deck of cards, yet there are periodic random alterations at some point in the DNA molecule. Why do we call it random? We call it random because the fact that the alteration occurs, as well as its time and place of encounter, is not determined by the structure or design of the DNA molecule. It makes no difference whether the source of the alteration, such as a gamma ray, was determinate or indeterminate.
The randomness involved is totally circumscribed by design, and the organism’s structure limits the amount of mutation that can occur while still being able to survive and reproduce.
(I am following Fr. William Kramer’s explanation about randomness, and I believe I have recalled it correctly.)
I agree with Dobzhansky that “not even mutations are random changes, because what mutations can take place in a given gene is evidently decreed by the structure of that gene.”
We know that DNA does not get shuffled like a deck of cards, yet there are periodic random alterations at some point in the DNA molecule. Why do we call it random? We call it random because the fact that the alteration occurs, as well as its time and place of encounter, is not determined by the structure or design of the DNA molecule. It makes no difference whether the source of the alteration, such as a gamma ray, was determinate or indeterminate.
The randomness involved is totally circumscribed by design, and the organism’s structure limits the amount of mutation that can occur while still being able to survive and reproduce.
(I am following Fr. William Kramer’s explanation about randomness, and I believe I have recalled it correctly.)
F
Fran65
Guest
Sounds like a typical atheist’s statement to me.
What does ‘kent’ mean? They only definition I could find online was in Urban dictionary and it was obscene.
- Status