I took genetics when working on my anthropology degrees, plus I've had subscriptions with Scientific American for decades now. However, an expert, I am not. Patterns emerge, yes; but always predictable, no.
But why is it you always seem to want to argue with the assumption that you're always right? Maybe consider getting off your high horse.
It is not an assumption it is an academic background and study to know that the only thing truly random in terms of mutations is the timing of the individual 'random' event.
The question of randomness often comes up in dialogues involving evolution vs. creationism, and the nature and history of our physical existence. This directly relates to the flawed probabilities used Intelligent Design Creationist advocates.
My proposition is: The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic by Natural Laws, natural processes and nothing is truly 'random.' This does not mean we have a 'clock works' mechanistic Newtonian physical existence. What is observed in nature is the 'random' occurance of individual events, such as the 'random' occurrence of the 'timing' of individual events in mutations in genes, and the timing of events at the Quanta level of 'Quantum' events. Despite the 'randomness' of individual events, the pattern of the chain of events over time is predictable and 'not random.' This predictable pattern in nature is the basis of Methodological Naturalism where predictable hypothesis can be falsified as the basis of scientific knowledge.
What is observed in the nature of our physical existence is the observed predictable fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of chains of natural events when there are many variables of the system of events, such as in weather patterns and predictions.
Fractal patterns dominate nature for example: Not two Maple leaves are exactly alike, but all Maple leaves look like Maple leaves.
Complexity of variables influences the randomness of events. For example: The very simple geometry of small snowflakes may result in two snow flakes that are a like, but beyond the most simple snowflakes the variables of snowflake formation result in no two snowflakes look alike, but they all look like snowflakes
Example:
Source:
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text"
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text[/URL]]
Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (
1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”
© Copyright Original Source
In Quantum Mechanics:
Source:
Random definition"
Random definition[/URL]]
Randomness in QM means that the outcome of individual experiments cannot be predicted. Only the average outcome of many, many experiments can be predicted. There are some exceptions. For example, if 1000 identical particles are prepared in identical energy eigenstates, you can measure the energy of each particle, and you will get the same answer for all of them. But this is not true for all experiments. If instead of measuring energy, you can measure the position of each particle, you will find a different position for each particle.
© Copyright Original Source
The attempts to define mutations as random or non-random is equally problematic.
Randomness in genetic mutations:
Source:
Edge.org"
Edge.org[/URL]]
What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
© Copyright Original Source
There is a specific limited classes of mutations that are sometimes called 'non-random(?), but the 'timing' of the occurrence of these mutations is also 'random,' but the occurrence of these mutations is related to specific gene patterns such as the doubling of certain parts genes repeated predictably over time.
There are many layman common terminology misuse of random throughout including math misuse.
For example Random number generators are not truly random. Random number generators are logical predictive programs that choose numbers within specific parameters. Even though the choice of individual numbers cannot be specifically predicted the pattern of the numbers chosen is predictable to follow a fractal pattern over time.
Note: This thread does not deal with the human will issue of the degree and nature of human 'Free Will.' It does not conclude whether there is human 'Free Will' or not.
