Orthogenesis

[Valjean]

I'm not an expert by in the study of DNA or evolutionary processes or even biology as a general field.
Here's link that talks about mutations.
They talk abut neutral mutations, beneficial mutations, and harmful mutations.

In particular, it says that, "Many other mutations have no effect on the organism because they are repaired before protein synthesis occurs. Cells have multiple repair mechanisms to fix mutations in DNA."

Yes. This is a somewhat simplified but correct explanation of mutation.

So mutations in effect aren't really random because not all the mutations that could occur are permitted. That is a very good thing because random mutations would end up being destroying our bodies. The mutations that are allowed are those that fit into the design and the criteria of the design is not "survival of the fittest".

Now here you've completely jumped the rails. I don't see where you came up with this interpretation.

No mutation is "not permitted." The sequence of any section of DNA can mutate. There's nothing protecting any particular part of the chain. Some mutations are repaired, but beneficial mutations are as likely to be repaired as harmful ones. I don't know of any mechanism that prevents any particular type of mutation.
"Random" refers to the incidence and sites of mutations, not to their effects. They are random inasmuch as when and where they occur is unpredictable.

Why would random mutations destroy our bodies? How would that happen?
Harmful mutations tend to be eliminated. Beneficial ones tend to be retained. Neutral ones could go either way.

No mutations are "allowed." How did you get that from the article cited? And there is no design, and no "criteria." There's no plan. They are random.

Natural Selection is the process by which organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. I agree that natural selection does occur, but how exactly is it occurring in people today? Are people dying before they pass on their DNA? I don't think so. But if it's true that people are not actually prevented from passing their DNA because of death, then how is the selection process actually taking place?

Humans are an anomaly. The 'environment' we're adapting to is no longer a natural one. Mutations that would be harmful in other species do not impede our reproductive success. Diabetics, nearsighted people, weak or dimwitted people reproduce as successfully as anyone else, so there is no longer any selective process weeding out these otherwise harmful traits.
This isn't to say that humans aren't evolving by the same mechanisms driving the process in other organisms, it's just that different traits are being selected.

It's not happening the way that I was taught in school. Let's look at the example of the bright green beetles and the brown beetles. The birds come along and eat the bright green beetles and not the brown ones, so that results in more brown beetles and fewer green beetles. "Survival of the fittest" meant green beetles weren't reproducing. This is essentially how I was taught natural selection took place. The reality is that I was taught a model for evolution that was like trying to use a bulldozer to play Jenga!

But this mechanism is still operating. What gives you the impression it isn't? It's just that there's more to it than a single mechanism.

Go back to the 'beetles' site and go through the Evolution 101 part again. Review the major mechanisms like Natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow, and how other mechanisms like variation, sexual selection and differential reproduction play into it.
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

But it turns out that completely different mechanisms are actually involved in the process. Scientists still call it natural selection, but it isn't the same natural selection that I learned in school. We have "negative selection" and "cell repair" and a whole lot of other things going on that show evolution isn't quite so random.

Cell repair is more a physiological process than a direct mechanism of evolution. If by "negative selection" you mean simplification or elimination of previously acquired traits, this is just ordinary natural selection. Natural selection has no trajectory, it doesn't always increase complexity. It weeds out whatever impedes reproduction and selects for whatever promotes it.

But let's take a step back. The OP states:
I agree: orthogenetic evolution is an obsolete biological hypothesis.
But does it make sense to me (as opposed to the theory that we are a random accident)? Yes.
Why?

1. I always found it difficult to believe that organisms around me are changing randomly.

In fact, random mutations would devolve us.​

2. It turns out that there are mechanisms that prevent random changes to our DNA.

And I am unconvinced that scientists fully understand these changes.​

3. Any system that is sufficiently complex appears random.

i.e. the weather, pseudo-random number generators, card shuffling, die rolling, etc.​

Conclusion: I can't accept orthogenesis without informative articles to support it but I am also not confident that scientists fully understand anything in the physical world that they have decided is "random". Doesn't "random" really just mean that they don't know (can't predict) it?

I'm not understanding how you're defining "random."
There are random mechanisms that generate variation and non-random, selective mechanisms that sort out the variation.
The major mechanisms of evolution are pretty well established, but there are always more details to sort out and new discoveries opening up new areas of inquiry.

 

[Ponder This]

"Random" refers to the incidence and sites of mutations, not to their effects. They are random inasmuch as when and where they occur is unpredictable.

I agree. And this is the basic problem. "random accident" vs "organizing principle".
Scientists can't predict the mutations, so they see them as random.
That doesn't convince me. I need to know. And the reality is that I don't know. All I can do is guess.

I'm not a biologist, but when I read the information available and I start seeing these mechanisms pop up that control the "random" mutations, it makes sense to me. Why?

Why would random mutations destroy our bodies? How would that happen?

Let's say the cells didn't repair mutations. You might think that some mutations are good and others are bad, but basically everyone would start to suffer from these mutations constantly. It wouldn't be that those with good mutations survive and those with bad mutations die. It would be that everyone eventually gets a bad mutation and dies...
The fact that our bodies distinguish between potential mutations is really a big deal. Think about all the arguments we've seen in the forums that say that we cannot exist by pure chance...
Well it turns out, that it isn't just pure chance! Our bodies actually repair potentially damaging changes!

How did you get that from the article cited?

The "article" says, "Imagine making a random change in a complicated machine such as a car engine. The chance that the random change would improve the functioning of the car is very small. The change is far more likely to result in a car that does not run well or perhaps does not run at all."

But this mechanism is still operating. What gives you the impression it isn't? It's just that there's more to it than a single mechanism.

I agree the mechanism is operating, but I don't see how it is the principle mechanism by which we evolve.
It turns out, there's more to it than a single mechanism!

Natural selection has no trajectory, it doesn't always increase complexity. It weeds out whatever impedes reproduction and selects for whatever promotes it.

As I understand it the deleterious effects removed by negative selection aren't necessarily ones that impede reproduction. Rather reproduction is impeded to remove the deleterious effects from the gene pool. This is a subtle, but my conclusion remains unchanged. Negative selection was just another example of how there are multiple mechanisms at work under the blanket title of "natural selection". The more I read, the more there seems to be.

I'm not understanding how you're defining "random."

Every measurement has an error and those errors are often attributed to random chance. If a measurement is off by a thousandth of an inch, we say it is because the measurement tool wasn't accurate enough... We don't know what exactly caused the error, only that we can only insure the measurement to a certain degree of accuracy. We call it "human" error, but the same thing happens if we use a machine to measure. So it isn't exclusive to people.
But what I really want to know is when, where, why, how mutations occur. I don't like being told that they are "random" without any explanation being given about them. Are they random because we don't know? "Natural variation" doesn't really explain. The weather is random too, but we've come a long way in our understanding of it. Maybe random means "things we have no control over", but if that's the case, I want to know what those things we have no control over are. In the case of the weather, there's the idea that a butterfly flaps it's wings and then it turns into a storm somewhere else. Well, what's happening with mutations?
What does "random" mean?

The major mechanisms of evolution are pretty well established, but there are always more details to sort out and new discoveries opening up new areas of inquiry.

 

[Valjean]

I agree. And this is the basic problem. "random accident" vs "organizing principle".
Scientists can't predict the mutations, so they see them as random.
That doesn't convince me. I need to know. And the reality is that I don't know. All I can do is guess.

The mutations are random, and what don't you know?

I'm not a biologist, but when I read the information available and I start seeing these mechanisms pop up that control the "random" mutations, it makes sense to me. Why?

What are these mechanisms controlling mutations, and what 'random mutations' are we talking about?

Let's say the cells didn't repair mutations. You might think that some mutations are good and others are bad, but basically everyone would start to suffer from these mutations constantly. It wouldn't be that those with good mutations survive and those with bad mutations die. It would be that everyone eventually gets a bad mutation and dies...
The fact that our bodies distinguish between potential mutations is really a big deal. Think about all the arguments we've seen in the forums that say that we cannot exist by pure chance...
Well it turns out, that it isn't just pure chance! Our bodies actually repair potentially damaging changes!

I think you're confusing cellular, somatic mutations, which don't get passed to offspring, with phenotypical mutations in offspring, like variations in body type, &c.
You may also be conflating cellular repair -- healing -- with DNA repair, which happens in the genes within individual cells and isn't a driver of reproductive variation.
And yes, everyone does eventually get a bad mutation, like cancer, or an accumulation of mutations, ie: ageing, and dies.
I'm not sure what you mean by distinguishing between potential mutations. Clarify? And what makes you think we can't be here by pure chance?

The "article" says, "Imagine making a random change in a complicated machine such as a car engine. The chance that the random change would improve the functioning of the car is very small. The change is far more likely to result in a car that does not run well or perhaps does not run at all."

Not quite the same thing. The changes driving evolution are variations in offspring, not alterations within a single individual.

I agree the mechanism is operating, but I don't see how it is the principle mechanism by which we evolve.
It turns out, there's more to it than a single mechanism!

As I understand it the deleterious effects removed by negative selection aren't necessarily ones that impede reproduction. Rather reproduction is impeded to remove the deleterious effects from the gene pool. This is a subtle, but my conclusion remains unchanged. Negative selection was just another example of how there are multiple mechanisms at work under the blanket title of "natural selection". The more I read, the more there seems to be.

Now you're catching on

But what I really want to know is when, where, why, how mutations occur. I don't like being told that they are "random" without any explanation being given about them. Are they random because we don't know?

Just Google: Mutation - Wikipedia

"Natural variation" doesn't really explain.

What does natural variation have to do with mutation? When I hear natural variation I think phenotypic variation among offspring, not genetic mutation within cells.

What does "random" mean?

unpredictable, undirected, without pattern?

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree. And this is the basic problem. "random accident" vs "organizing principle".
Scientists can't predict the mutations, so they see them as random.

Actually nothing occurs in macro world as random accidents. The pattern of variability of mutations is based on fractals, and described in chaos theory. The organizing principle in evolution is Natural Law, and the evolved nature of DNA. Yes there are stop gap and control mechanisms in DNA that prevent mutations from becoming destructive as a species, but not as individuals, except for nuclear accidents, of course. There are also patterns of many mutations that are to some extent part of the evolved nature of DNA and actually used by some organisms to develop a competitive advantage in adaptation. Yes, nothing prevents individual mutations from taking place, and scientists can only predict patterns of mutations, but not the mutations themselves.

More to follow . . .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree. I think that if mutations were completely random, then living creatures would devolve over time. Of course, it's entirely possible that we just happen to be getting dealt Royal Flushes, but it isn't likely.

I have to question if the mutations of evolution are simply described as being random because the people studying them are unable to explain the results. This doesn't rule out the possibility that life arose from random chemical interactions. It simple acknowledges that long-term consistent evolution cannot likely be attributed to random processes.

If mutations are truly random, then they have to occur very infrequently, but adaptations to environment in species occurs relatively quickly. I think it means that we have more to learn about evolutionary processes.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue; purely random changes + survival of the fittest= devolution. Successively less fit generations
Deleterious changes would always vastly outnumber advantageous ones

And I think this is where some anthropocentric bias creeps in: Weeding out the beneficial mutations- as Valjean puts it, weeding and retaining plants is something we do because we have a future goal in mind.

The concept of accumulating slight advantages for some future pay off is so intuitive to us, it's very difficult to remove our forward thinking entirely.

But evolution, as the theory goes, has no way of saving loose change to take to the bank later. If a random mutation is not in and of itself a significant advantage, there is no mechanism to specifically retain it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think this gets to the heart of the issue; purely random changes + survival of the fittest= devolution. Successively less fit generations.

Mutations in DNA do not occur by 'purely random changes.'

Deleterious changes would always vastly outnumber advantageous ones.

False benign mutations out number deleterious changes. Deleterious mutations only impact the survival of the individuals and not the species. Mutations of DNA are not purely random. There is no such thing as pure randomness in the macro natural world.

And I think this is where some anthropocentric bias creeps in: Weeding out the beneficial mutations- as Valjean puts it, weeding and retaining plants is something we do because we have a future goal in mind.

The only thing in common with selective breeding of plants and animals is changes in DNA in selective breeding is purposeful with human goals, and natural evolution there is no such purpose. Anthropomorphic bias has nothing to do with the science of evolution,

The concept of accumulating slight advantages for some future pay off is so intuitive to us, it's very difficult to remove our forward thinking entirely.

Classic misrepresentation of the process of the science of evolution, There is no concept of an accumulation of slight advantages in the process of evolution.

But evolution, as the theory goes, has no way of saving loose change to take to the bank later. If a random mutation is not in and of itself a significant advantage, there is no mechanism to specifically retain it.

Classic ID nonsense, and again 'pure randomness' has no role in nature, nor the processes of the science of evolution.

Natural Laws of nature are the primary determining factor in the science of evolution and fractal math described as chaos theory describes the variability as in the occurance of mutations,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Classic ID nonsense, and again 'pure randomness' has no role in nature, nor the processes of the science of evolution.

You'd have to argue that claim with most of the scientific community as below..

this is from a link an evolutionist gave, might be you I don't remember..

Mutations


Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

(end quote)

But of course it's an entirely semantic argument about definitions of random which I get. But we both know what the theory proposes, that beneficial random mistakes are weeded out naturally from deleterious random mistakes, errors, flukes whatever term you prefer doesn't change the substance. The entire theory relies on pure blind luck producing every single design improvement from single cell to a human being- no way around this Shunya, though I understand why some try to

If you disagree with the substance here, then you agree with me, life does not develop by random chance, there are predetermined plans, designs, blueprints that are and must be followed, just like the development of physical reality that supports life in the first place.

 

[shunyadragon]

You'd have to argue that claim with most of the scientific community as below.

this is from a link an evolutionist gave, might be you I don't remember..

arguing one link developed for layman is not arguing with most of the scientific community.

Mutations

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

More complete: "Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life."

As I said, deleterious mutations effect the individuals and not the species. Your source confirms this.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

(end quote)

I disagree with the use of random here, but nonetheless no scientific source will describe it as 'pure randomness.' I will follow this up.

But of course it's an entirely semantic argument about definitions of random which I get. But we both know what the theory proposes, that beneficial random mistakes are weeded out naturally from deleterious random mistakes, errors, flukes whatever term you prefer doesn't change the substance. The entire theory relies on pure blind luck producing every single design improvement from single cell to a human being- no way around this Shunya, though I understand why some try to

As cited above in your own source, deleterious mutations effect the individuals, and of course, the individuals do not survive to effectively reproduce, and are weeded from the process. Try as you may there is no scientific evidence for your argument for Intelligent Design

If you disagree with the substance here, then you agree with me, life does not develop by random chance, there are predetermined plans, designs, blueprints that are and must be followed, just like the development of physical reality that supports life in the first place.

No I do not agree with your here. God is a Creator not an engineer. Your proposal for ID is not supported by the evidence, nor science.