The Evidence for Random Mutations

[sealchan]

In fact, quite a lot of science depends on randomness.

The kinetic theory of matter (basically how the behaviour of matter can be interpreted as due to molecules in random motion) relies on it. I think the point, though, is that it is never just randomness. That would indeed be chaos. However the molecules obey certain physical laws and it is this that results in predictable thermodynamic properties of bulk matter, arising from random behaviour.

The same goes for evolution by mutation. People sometimes get all hung up on the "randomness" bit, because it seems so counterintuitive, but don't perhaps pay enough attention to the natural selection bit. All the randomness does is allow for change. For that change to be beneficial to the descendants of the organism - and thus get handed down, it is the natural selection that does the heavy lifting.

I'd be careful about saying that anything relies on randomness. It is, perhaps, a matter of our human convenience that we describe a very complex, even incalculable physical system as random as a convenience since it works in many cases.

But we know that there are non-linear systems and we know that there are complex adaptive systems and these may make fundamental "use" of the order hidden by the intellectual laziness (an overstatement to be sure) of calling some process random.

I suspect that much of what we call random is going to be seen in the future as a sort of dismissal of a layer of order we are gradually developing the tools for grappling with.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Natural is what DNA does without any outside intervention. These are the mutations that naturally occur in the same way that water naturally condenses into clouds and falls to Earth.



How is the bias towards transitions over transversions and the bias towards mutations at CpG sites "uncannily computer like"? I really don't understand what you are saying here.

My computer defrags it's own hard drive without intervention.

Automated function in no way suggests automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well.

it also integrates software and hardware, it has areas of memory that are designed to be rewritten more readily than others as your example. I'm not seeing where any of this matches any known process that we know to be purely naturalistic

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In fact, quite a lot of science depends on randomness.

The kinetic theory of matter (basically how the behaviour of matter can be interpreted as due to molecules in random motion) relies on it. I think the point, though, is that it is never just randomness. That would indeed be chaos. However the molecules obey certain physical laws and it is this that results in predictable thermodynamic properties of bulk matter, arising from random behaviour.

The same goes for evolution by mutation. People sometimes get all hung up on the "randomness" bit, because it seems so counterintuitive, but don't perhaps pay enough attention to the natural selection bit. All the randomness does is allow for change. For that change to be beneficial to the descendants of the organism - and thus get handed down, it is the natural selection that does the heavy lifting.

Because the 'randomness' bit is the problematic bit

Natural selection goes entirely without saying. That significantly superior designs tend to outperform inferior ones..... that's not really a theory, more of an unambiguous truism. It's why we have more Ford Mustangs than Ford Pintos on the road.

The real question is how those significantly superior designs arrive, that's the heavy lifting- not why they merely survive threafter. ToE relies on 100% pure blind chance to cover the heavy lifting on new designs, that's inadequate.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My computer defrags it's own hard drive without intervention.

Automated function in no way suggests automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well.

it also integrates software and hardware, it has areas of memory that are designed to be rewritten more readily than others as your example. I'm not seeing where any of this matches any known process that we know to be purely naturalistic

What does this have to do with the topic?

The observed mechanisms that produce mutations right here and right now have a bias towards transitions and CpG mutations. The observed differences between species are biased towards transitions and CpG mutations. Scientists interpret this as evidence for the observed mechanisms of mutation being responsible for the differences between species. If you disagree, please show why this interpretation is wrong.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Because the 'randomness' bit is the problematic bit

Then you are going to have a problem with reality because in reality mutations are entirely consistent with being random with respect to fitness. This was shown in two classic experiments:

Luria–Delbrück experiment - Wikipedia

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/bbabfj.pdf

ToE relies on 100% pure blind chance to cover the heavy lifting on new designs, that's inadequate.

Reality demonstrates otherwise, as shown by the evidence supplied in this thread.

 

[David T]

In fact, quite a lot of science depends on randomness.

The kinetic theory of matter (basically how the behaviour of matter can be interpreted as due to molecules in random motion) relies on it. I think the point, though, is that it is never just randomness. That would indeed be chaos. However the molecules obey certain physical laws and it is this that results in predictable thermodynamic properties of bulk matter, arising from random behaviour.

The same goes for evolution by mutation. People sometimes get all hung up on the "randomness" bit, because it seems so counterintuitive, but don't perhaps pay enough attention to the natural selection bit. All the randomness does is allow for change. For that change to be beneficial to the descendants of the organism - and thus get handed down, it is the natural selection that does the heavy lifting.

Ok I am.talking to someone clueless about dynamical.systems It's neurology that's fine.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ok I am.talking to someone clueless about dynamical.systems It's neurology that's fine.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does this have to do with the topic?

The observed mechanisms that produce mutations right here and right now have a bias towards transitions and CpG mutations. The observed differences between species are biased towards transitions and CpG mutations. Scientists interpret this as evidence for the observed mechanisms of mutation being responsible for the differences between species. If you disagree, please show why this interpretation is wrong.

And the difference in code accounts for the difference in software, similar applications share similar code, no disagreement there

But I am interested in whether the functional code is written by intelligent agency or pure chance. We only know of one verified cause. Chance is not impossible, but extraordinary claims...

 

[David T]

A man counts fish as they migrate each year. After 50 years he takes the numbers to a mathematician and asks what is the pattern to these numbers. The mathematician looks and says they are random. The scientist writes his paper that random determines the number of fish that swim up the river. All his fellow expert fish counters agree.

That's exactly how well you understand nature. Not at all.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But I am interested in whether the functional code is written by intelligent agency or pure chance. We only know of one verified cause. Chance is not impossible, but extraordinary claims...

Then you should be interested in the material that I have presented in this thread since that is exactly what I have been demonstrating. The observed biological processes that produce chance mutations do so with a bias towards transitions and substitution of cytosines with thymines when they are next to guanines. These are due to the basic chemical structure of nucleotides, the physical properties of the proteins that copy DNA, and the physical properties of proteins that methylate DNA.

These same mutational biases are seen when we compare the genomes between species which means that the observed and very real biological processes that produce chance mutations are responsible for the differences between species.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A man counts fish as they migrate each year. After 50 years he takes the numbers to a mathematician and asks what is the pattern to these numbers. The mathematician looks and says they are random.

Based on what modeling?

 

[exchemist]

I'd be careful about saying that anything relies on randomness. It is, perhaps, a matter of our human convenience that we describe a very complex, even incalculable physical system as random as a convenience since it works in many cases.

But we know that there are non-linear systems and we know that there are complex adaptive systems and these may make fundamental "use" of the order hidden by the intellectual laziness (an overstatement to be sure) of calling some process random.

I suspect that much of what we call random is going to be seen in the future as a sort of dismissal of a layer of order we are gradually developing the tools for grappling with.

Well OK I'm just reciting the current model from science. One day I suppose someone may show that what we now think random isn't. Science is never finished...

 

[exchemist]

Because the 'randomness' bit is the problematic bit

Natural selection goes entirely without saying. That significantly superior designs tend to outperform inferior ones..... that's not really a theory, more of an unambiguous truism. It's why we have more Ford Mustangs than Ford Pintos on the road.

The real question is how those significantly superior designs arrive, that's the heavy lifting- not why they merely survive threafter. ToE relies on 100% pure blind chance to cover the heavy lifting on new designs, that's inadequate.

Random change is just as likely to be disadvantageous as advantageous. But if advantageous change results in more copies of it being made, then you have an engine for amplifying the advantage.

 

[james blunt]

Random change is just as likely to be disadvantageous as advantageous. But if advantageous change results in more copies of it being made, then you have an engine for amplifying the advantage.

P

= ∞

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

P

= ∞

 

[james blunt]

Didn't account for twins or triplets then?

p+q = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or so on. consider other species also

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Didn't account for twins or triplets then?

p+q = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or so on. consider other species also

The equation is applied to an entire population. Deviations from a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is considered to be evidence of selection for a beneficial or against a deleterious allele. The H-W equilibrium and other equations within population genetics form the basis for modeling evolution.

Population genetics - Wikipedia

 

[David T]

Based on what modeling?

I prefer zbrush with keyshot for "modelling" I actually didn't create this "model" is very accurate though That's the cool.thing about "models" .

 

[David T]

In fact, quite a lot of science depends on randomness.

The kinetic theory of matter (basically how the behaviour of matter can be interpreted as due to molecules in random motion) relies on it. I think the point, though, is that it is never just randomness. That would indeed be chaos. However the molecules obey certain physical laws and it is this that results in predictable thermodynamic properties of bulk matter, arising from random behaviour.

The same goes for evolution by mutation. People sometimes get all hung up on the "randomness" bit, because it seems so counterintuitive, but don't perhaps pay enough attention to the natural selection bit. All the randomness does is allow for change. For that change to be beneficial to the descendants of the organism - and thus get handed down, it is the natural selection that does the heavy lifting.

A fish counter counts fish each year as they swim up river. After 50 years he takes the numbers to a mathematician and asks what is the pattern the mathematician says it's random. He then writes a paper fish migration is random. His peers agree based on the numbers. Geek and literally that's what "random"in application to nature is. A self statement I don't know but I know everything.

Here is a fish model for ya random nonsense. But then again random.Is intelligent designs doppelganger twin in religious drag. And Look how dumb they are!!!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I prefer zbrush with keyshot for "modelling" I actually didn't create this "model" is very accurate though That's the cool.thing about "models" .

So you don't even understand how mathematicians use models to determine if something is random? Do you think a mathematician just looks at a map of fish and pronounces it random or non-random?

Ever heard of a Gaussian distribution?

Normal distribution - Wikipedia