Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

What is 'Random Mutation' ??

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» What is 'Random Mutation' ??

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

We are told by genetic 'science', that life exists because of 'random' mutation, and viruses and their ilk come into being because of 'random' mutation.

Now, if by random, they mean 'complex order which appears random' as per chaos theory, then its not random, but complex order.

And if they mean truly 100% unpredictable in every respect, then how come life and viruses are so uniform? Surely if it were true random, elephants would be giving birth to pot plants, whales and nuclear warheads. (See the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and the improbability drive)

And, how can any ordered theory discover true randomness? Science, after all, explains events in terms of ordered principle.

The phrase 'the principle of randomness' is meaningless because a principle is precisely the absence of randomness.

The roll of a dice is complex order with the appearance of randomness : its not true random. A randomizer in a computer is the same : Not true random.

It seems to me that what passes for science nowdays is little more than blatant contradiction with a white coat for effect.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

It seems to me that what passes for science nowdays is little more than blatant contradiction with a white coat for effect.

How is this not a incredibly vulgar non sequitur?

You cannot openly admit that you don't understand the concept and then use the concept to blast modern science.

I am also no expert on the subject (I am sure Aedes will explain this), but I think mutation is not random in that is uncaused and truly random, but that it does not directly oppose the environmental or other factor that caused it.

In other words, UV rays would not cause organisms to mutate in ways to exploit the rays, rather they would simply cause organisms to mutate more often in ways unrelated to the rays.

The variation this causes gives the appearance of a directed evolution, when in fact it was random.

@Mr Fight the Power,

It seems to me the improbability drive is a form of randomness which disregards probability. Mutation obviously has probabilities of certain mutations, and no.... randomness as an absolute is not really possible, reaching that is like reaching for an asymptote. The mutations derive their propensities via natural selection. (correct me if I'm wrong)

However, natural selection and random mutation is just not enough. I am guessing the mutations must have to be directed somehow? But I have no idea, but would love to know too.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

It seems to me that what passes for science nowdays is little more than blatant contradiction with a white coat for effect.

The rest of your post was sort of on the money - but I don't see why there is a need for such a perjorative sign off.

Most scientists who write popular science works know that using qualifiers such as "this is a process with a bewildering amount of very different results which is governed by so many factors that anyone without a very sophisticated grasp of probabilities and chaos would think it entirely random" turns laymen off, so they tend to use words like "random" instead.

There are such things as word counts as well, which means qualifiers tend not to show up in magazine articles and so on.

If you are interested in why mutation can be a subject of varying probabilities and chaos and so on there are a huge number of books on the subject.

For example I am trying to read "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Steven Jay Gould at the moment.

One of the upcoming chapters is called:

"Ontogenetically Channelled Allometric Constraint as a Primary Basis of Expressed Evolutionary Variation: The Full Geographic and Morphological Range of Cerion uva."

Which I am not looking forward to, because the book is very boring. I might prefer it if he said:

"Certain factors influencing the appearance of certain snails."

But I suppose then people like you would say he was uttering nothing other than blatant contradiction with a white coat for effect?

@Poseidon,

Dave, I seem to be thanking you a lot recently. Not much more I can add. There's a huge gulf between how science is presented within the scientific community and without. We have no-one to blame but ourselves, I suppose, but it does say something that OP rather prematurely launches into anti-scientific BS on the back of what is, essentially, a language issue.

@Poseidon,

nothing I have said is anti-science,
I take the premises of science and show that they lead to a contradiction.

Random mutation is not Random mutation,

but,

Ordered change.

What I clearly say, is that the word 'science' has been so obscured by contradiction, and speculation, that it is undermining true science : repeatable experiment which is explained in clear logical non-contradictory terms.

If something is blue in color, it makes no sense to call it yellow.
If something is ordered, then it makes no sense to call it random.

Yes it is a partly a language issue. But if what passes for science calls 'order' randomness, then it makes sense to get the language correct first before proceding further.

The various personal attacks and insults speak of trying to distract from the issue at hand.

@Poseidon,

This program can help you understand the whole evolution thing:

Main Page - WikiManual

Now, my two cents:

Evolution is called randow because there is a miriad of ways in wich a species can adapt to the enviroement, and it will not always follow the easier or more efficient path: For example, we humans still have a "memento" of our tail in our bones, though I dont really remember how it is or how its called. But it has nearly no significancy on how well a certain human is sucefull at breeding, so there is very little tendence for it to disaparear or grow back into a tail.

Mutations do are randow, and though off course an elephants giving birth to a pot plant would be too big a jump, it can very well give birth to some hideous elephant-like beast that may survive, or not.

Lifeforms are so uniform because the birth of a new species doesnt means the old ones are extinct, hence a easy to track chain of evolution is formed. There are also limits to how much lifeforms can be different in certain areas, for example, all lifeforms on this universe are probally made of matter Smile

@Poseidon,

How about this for smart, ( i mean smart insects), i just watched a programme where japnese bees use a certain method in attacking a hornet scouting their hive: they entice it in, even wait for it too atack then jump on it and roast it alive by sheer numbers smothering it because the bee has a body temperature that can go 2 degrees higher than the hornet, after it's dead they then proceed to rid the hive of the scouts scent that it used to mark the hive for other hornets. That's evolulion, it took them thousands of years to develop this defence system against hornets who just shred hives to pieces when they attack and kill 30,000 bees in 3 hours.

@Poseidon,

Mutations are not completely random. Some are more probable than others. Evolution is not random either -- some genotypes are more likely to survive to the subsequent generation than others.

People colloquially use the word random sometimes to refer to the absence of conscious guidance. But that's not actual randomness.

Holiday20310401;55129 wrote:

The mutations derive their propensities via natural selection. (correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as I know this is not correct. There are other factors that determine likelihood of mutation. A-T base pairs are more likely to mutate than G-C base pairs, because A-T base pairs have only 2 hydrogen bonds (compared with 3 for G-C). Thymine in particular is likely to result in mutations in the face of UV exposure (thymine dimers). Telomeric DNA is more susceptible to mutation than centromeric DNA. And the fidelity of an organism's DNA transcriptase also determines the likelihood of errors. Etc. There are structural and chemical things that determine likelihood of mutation.

Holiday20310401;55129 wrote:

However, natural selection and random mutation is just not enough. I am guessing the mutations must have to be directed somehow?

Natural selection is only one of several processes by which a given genotype becomes more or less frequent in a population. But it's only directed by circumstance, not by teleology.

@Poseidon,

Mutations are pretty much thought to be random from what I know of the process. Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random--whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Of course there are other mechanism of evolution such as natural selection and genetic drift that also work together with random variation generated by mutation. Poseidon is making an error by simplifying evolution down to only a single component, and then judging the science based on this wrong break down. There is much more to evolution that random mutation.

@Poseidon,

Theatetus, to be clear mutations are not goal directed by any advantageous evolutionary consequence (i.e. they are not teleological).

But they are not random either. Irrespective of their effect on phenotype (i.e. whether they're advantageous or not), not all mutations are equally likely. They are therefore not random.

Therefore, the history of evolution cannot be called completely random when there was a set of probabilities in both 1) mutation and 2) the development of external (selective) conditions, like atmospheric O2 and dry land and the cooling of the earth.

Poseidon;55264 wrote:

I take the premises of science and show that they lead to a contradiction.

Random mutation is not Random mutation

How is it that you can seize upon some semantic trivia and call that the "premises of science"?

Where are the stone tablets of science that say "mutation is random"?

It's not even questioned in science that mutations don't correspond to true randomness. Scientists may use "random" or any other word in a colloquial sense. But that doesn't codify that use as "the premises of science".

@Aedes,

So how did centromeres come about then? Was it that there was the propensity for them to exist?

@Poseidon,

What do centromeres have to do with evolution other than being a key component of DNA?

@Poseidon,

Centromeres don't exist in bacterial DNA, nor do histone proteins... These are much more recent developments. Bacterial DNA is much different than ours, even though we share many genes with them. Bacterial DNA is circular, so there is no such thing as a telomere either. DNA-dependent DNA polymerases begin reading DNA at certain recognition sites, though, so there may be asymmetry in the mutation potential based on the sequence of replication.

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

How about this for smart, ( i mean smart insects), i just watched a programme where japnese bees use a certain method in attacking a hornet scouting their hive: they entice it in, even wait for it too atack then jump on it and roast it alive by sheer numbers smothering it because the bee has a body temperature that can go 2 degrees higher than the hornet, after it's dead they then proceed to rid the hive of the scouts scent that it used to mark the hive for other hornets. That's evolulion, it took them thousands of years to develop this defence system against hornets who just shred hives to pieces when they attack and kill 30,000 bees in 3 hours.

There is a specie of ant that only has warrior ants (wich are incapable of feeding thenselves alone because their jaws are too big). This specie kidnaps eggs and larvae from other ant species and take then to their nest, so that then they grow up think think they are in their own nest and start working and feeding the warriors. Just like the spartans? Smile

Aedes wrote:

Mutations are not completely random. Some are more probable than others. Evolution is not random either -- some genotypes are more likely to survive to the subsequent generation than others.

People colloquially use the word random sometimes to refer to the absence of conscious guidance. But that's not actual randomness.

Well I suppose its just an inprecision of language then. Words are always creating trouble arent they? Smile

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

We are told by genetic 'science', that life exists because of 'random' mutation, and viruses and their ilk come into being because of 'random' mutation.

Now, if by random, they mean 'complex order which appears random' as per chaos theory, then its not random, but complex order.

And if they mean truly 100% unpredictable in every respect, then how come life and viruses are so uniform? Surely if it were true random, elephants would be giving birth to pot plants, whales and nuclear warheads. (See the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and the improbability drive)

And, how can any ordered theory discover true randomness? Science, after all, explains events in terms of ordered principle.

The phrase 'the principle of randomness' is meaningless because a principle is precisely the absence of randomness.

The roll of a dice is complex order with the appearance of randomness : its not true random. A randomizer in a computer is the same : Not true random.

It seems to me that what passes for science nowdays is little more than blatant contradiction with a white coat for effect.

Vira does mutate, thats why you see multiresistent vira in countries shamelessly useing widespectred penecelin.

Sperm and egg will make new random coding of DNA.

Even applying chaos theory, the algorithm for randomness in nature isn't very random.

You can always identify a sort of tree from it's siluette, even tho it's randomly made. Things will only form from a limited random algoritm.
Only by mutation the limited randomness can be broken to new algoritms.

@HexHammer,

Uhmm, to answer the actualy question Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I know it might be heretically to link to Wikipedia which is unrelyable, but this article does give a good insight to what random mutation is.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

And if they mean truly 100% unpredictable in every respect, then how come life and viruses are so uniform? Surely if it were true random, elephants would be giving birth to pot plants, whales and nuclear warheads. (See the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and the improbability drive)

Just wanted to throw this in: If we only perceive the universe in which we dwell then does not randomness become natural?

@Caleb,

Caleb wrote:

Just wanted to throw this in: If we only perceive the universe in which we dwell then does not randomness become natural?

Natural in what sense?

@manored,

Natural to our perception. I'm saying that if everything was random we would not know any kind of stability. Therefore, what is "stable" to us could be random.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» What is 'Random Mutation' ??

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

What is 'Random Mutation' ??

Quick Links

My Account

able2know