Weird, off the wall, totally unfounded conjecture

[mschrank]

Scientists in general across a number of
disciplines use ‘random’ and ‘indeterminate’ interchangeably. Random
means there is no logic to the sequence, indeterminate means we can’t
know what the sequence is. Perhaps most of the problem Christians have
with Evolution is in its use of the word “random” with all its
ontological significance.

I was thinking, even though it’s silly since I am not educated enough
to make an educated conjecture, I do wonder if these so-called
‘random’ mutations are some kind of logical response to external
stimuli. I mean, if they did a study and looked at each mutation of
say a bacteria over a single generation (i.e., get 1000 bacterium, and look at the genetic code of their immediate offspring), would they find an equal
number of good, bad, and neutral mutations? If they did, then mutation
would truly be random. If they found more good than bad then you might
say there is some kind of ends-directed purpose to the mutations, like a response to existing conditions.

 

[kafka]

Hello mschrank! Those are interesting thoughts on evolution and mutation. As a scientist, we tend not to anthropomorphize mutations, that is to say label them as good, bad or neutral. There are many types of mutations that can perhaps be water down into non-lethal or lethal. The use of random in terms of mutation, simply means that at the molecular level an event occurred at a non-specific site in the genome to change the DNA. If this change occurred in a gene region or gene controlling region, it can manifest into a phenotype. The phenotype can be advantageous or disadvantageous to the organism, depending on environment and other biological factors. So, biological organisms do have a sort of ends-directed purpose built into their DNA. The purpose is to ensure the persistence of life, by selecting for mutations that surface non-specifically and are adaptable to the current environment. Also, mutations rates differ between organisms, so the bacteria example may not cover the diversity of genomes on earth.

Evolution is an immensely, wonderful subject to discuss. We are given the gift to learn about God through His creation and nothing is more satisfying than the discovery of even the smallest part of the creation. I should say that I am a molecular geneticist, so I see things from the molecular perspective.

pax et bonum
Ben

 

[mschrank]

Thank you for your reply Ben!

Would be there any way to scientifically determine in principle whether or not these non-lethal mutations were more abundant than lethal ones?

I would assume that if the mutations are being generated by blind chance, that there would be a equal number of the two?

I don’t know if it would be within the realm of the scientific method to determine whether the bacterium is actually ‘responding’ to its external environment?

Take for instance MRSA bacteria. It has developed the ‘resistant’ part because it’s developed a resistance to antibiotics. Is it possible that somehow, it ‘realizes’ (biochemically, not to say it has an intelligent will) that this stuff is killing it, and the bacterium which come in contact with the antibiotic but do not die (of course, the antibiotic doesn’t have a 100% success rate) develop these mutations in the offspring on purpose?

Of course like I said, it’s much easier to put this all down to chance and natural selection. Ockham’s razor and all that.

Still, it’d be interesting to study the mutations and see.

 

[steveandersen]

Thank you for your reply Ben!

Would be there any way to scientifically determine in principle whether or not these non-lethal mutations were more abundant than lethal ones?

I’m told that the average human has about 3 mutations
i.e gene sequences that are not present in either parent
Most of these are neutral

Whether or not mutations are “random” is another matter
They are not truly random as in anything can happen with equal probability
There are physical constraints on what can happen.

Big, major changes (which would seem to be more likely to be lethal) would seem to be less probable

I would assume that if the mutations are being generated by blind chance, that there would be a equal number of the two?

Why?

I don’t know if it would be within the realm of the scientific method to determine whether the bacterium is actually ‘responding’ to its external environment?

Why not?
It should be fairly easy to test: subject a population to a certain condition over several generations and then compare its reaction to those conditions to those of a control group.

Or do you mean something different by “responding”?

Take for instance MRSA bacteria. It has developed the ‘resistant’ part because it’s developed a resistance to antibiotics. Is it possible that somehow, it ‘realizes’ (biochemically, not to say it has an intelligent will) that this stuff is killing it, and the bacterium which come in contact with the antibiotic but do not die (of course, the antibiotic doesn’t have a 100% success rate) develop these mutations in the offspring on purpose?

Purpose?

God may have a purpose for MRSA but it doesn’t choose what to pass on.

If there was a rule that only dark haired children would be allowed to lived, then red headed parents wouldn’t be able to change their genes.

Of course like I said, it’s much easier to put this all down to chance and natural selection. Ockham’s razor and all that.

Still, it’d be interesting to study the mutations and see.

20 or 25 years ago there was a kit that school teachers could buy to give high school students a laboratory experiment on natural selection.

I don’t know if they still sell it

 

[mschrank]

Hmm, not really sure what you’re trying to tell me.

I’d imagine, that the adaptations would be very small… Not like parents intentionally avoiding the production of ginger children.

Maybe a better example is the giraffe neck. The giraffe wants to eat the high leaves, so it grows a longer neck over several generations to do so.

Like I said, it’s much easier to put it down to random mutation and natural selection. This is crazy, I admit. I’d just like to know who else has been thinking of it, and how it was debunked or decided against, if it’s been around before (most ideas thought up by amateurs were at some point).

 

[steveandersen]

Hmm, not really sure what you’re trying to tell me.

I’d imagine, that the adaptations would be very small… Not like parents intentionally avoiding the production of ginger children.

Most mutations are small and insignificant

I gave the red haired children example because it is probably closer to bacteria exposed to an antibiotic example that you were giving
That is a catastrophic event that clear delineates between those who have the correct combinations of genes and those who don’t.

Most selection processes are much subtler than that

Maybe a better example is the giraffe neck. The giraffe wants to eat the high leaves, so it grows a longer neck over several generations to do so.

A giraffe doesn’t grow a longer neck because of what it wants
Either it has a longer neck than the competition or it doesn’t

If it gets more food and is thus more successful breeding then its descendants with longer necked genes will dominate.

What’s the old joke?
Man #1 “Look a bear! Run!
Man #2 “Don’t be a fool. You can’t outrun a bear!”
Man #1 “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to out run you.”

Like I said, it’s much easier to put it down to random mutation and natural selection. This is crazy, I admit. I’d just like to know who else has been thinking of it, and how it was debunked or decided against, if it’s been around before (most ideas thought up by amateurs were at some point).

LaMarck used to speculate about the inheritance of acquired
But we’ve found it doesn’t work that way

 

[mschrank]

Lamarkianism, yes, that seems to be the guy who thought of it first.

Thanks for the direction. I’ll buy a book on it. Can you recommend a book refuting the idea?