It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Random Mutation... Science Fact or Science Fiction?
page: 1share:
While I agree that science has shown that mutation has taken place in species, it has yet to prove, that this mutation is a random one.
Let’s take a closer look at randomness...
When you look at the definition of random, it is hard to imagine that it has possibly been part of the process, connected to the development of all life on Earth.
Pseudorandomness
Many people mistake “randomness”, for pseudorandomness.
Random number definition
continued...
As you will be able to see as you read on and possible other material, producing pure random numbers, is an extremely difficult task, if indeed it is practically or theoretically possible, at all.
Math’s, Random numbers
www.maths.abdn.ac.uk
continued...
I’m no expert in understanding the mathematics involved in the above equations, but with phrases like, “nobody has ever given an entirely convincing definition of the term `random sequence' and “This turns out to be an inadequate definition of randomness”, I’m not convinced!
Infinity
Infinity is a concept that may or may not exist. Some leading mathematicians use infinity every day and think nothing of it. But there are other mathematicians who refuse to believe that infinity is real and do not use it in their work.
Randomness
Infinity and randomness are inextricable linked and many of the attempted equations to produce purely random numbers, rely heavily on the use of infinity, as in the mathematical equation above.
Summary:
1) “Pseudorandomness”, incorporates a designed mathematical formula, to produce a pattern of numbers, that appear to be random, but are not.
2) Infinity is a concept, not yet proven.
3) Without infinity, “Pure Randomness” does not exist.
4) “Pure Randomness” has yet to be accurately demonstrated mathematically.
Let’s take a closer look at randomness...
Dictionary definition of random:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard
When you look at the definition of random, it is hard to imagine that it has possibly been part of the process, connected to the development of all life on Earth.
Pseudorandomness
A pseudorandom process is a process that appears to be random but it is not. Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process.
Many people mistake “randomness”, for pseudorandomness.
Random number definition
Definition: Random numbers are numbers that occur in a sequence such that two conditions are met: (1) the values are uniformly distributed over a defined interval or set, and (2) it is impossible to predict future values based on past or present ones.
continued...
Sometimes the digits in the decimal expansions of irrational numbers are used in an attempt to obtain random numbers. Most whole numbers have irrational square roots, so entering a string of six or eight digits into a calculator and then hitting the square root button can provide a sequence of digits that seems random. Other algorithms have been devised that supposedly generate random numbers. The problem with these methods is that they violate condition (2) in the definition of randomness. The existence of any number-generation algorithm produces future values based on past and/or current ones. Digits or numbers generated in this manner are called pseudorandom.
Statisticians, mathematicians, and scientists have long searched for the ideal source of random numbers. One of the best methods is the sampling of electromagnetic noise. This noise, generated by the chaotic movements of electrons, holes, or other charge carriers in materials and in space, is thought to be as close to "totally random" as any observable phenomenon.
As you will be able to see as you read on and possible other material, producing pure random numbers, is an extremely difficult task, if indeed it is practically or theoretically possible, at all.
Math’s, Random numbers
www.maths.abdn.ac.uk
As far as I am aware, nobody has ever given an entirely convincing definition of the term `random sequence'. On the other hand, everybody has a common-sense idea of what it means. We say things like: `the sequence should have no pattern or structure'. More directly we might say that knowing x1,..., xn tells us nothing about xn + 1,....
continued...
Definition 5.2 A sequence [xk] on [0, 1) is n-distributed on [0, 1) if the sequence [pk] given by
pk = (xkn, xkn + 1,..., xkn + n - 1) [0, 1)n
is uniformly distributed on [0, 1)n.
We will require that a random sequence in [0, 1) be (infinity) -distributed on [0, 1), i.e. k-distributed for all k.
This turns out to be an inadequate definition of randomness, but it is good enough for all practical purposes. In particular, an -distributed sequence will pass all the standard statistical tests for randomness. (If you want to be thoroughly perverse you could argue that the fact that it passes all such test is itself evidence of a certain non-randomness!)
I’m no expert in understanding the mathematics involved in the above equations, but with phrases like, “nobody has ever given an entirely convincing definition of the term `random sequence' and “This turns out to be an inadequate definition of randomness”, I’m not convinced!
No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically.
Leonardo da Vinci
Infinity
Infinity (symbolically represented by ∞) is a concept in mathematics and philosophy that refers to a quantity without bound or end. People have developed various ideas throughout history about the nature of infinity.
Infinity is a concept that may or may not exist. Some leading mathematicians use infinity every day and think nothing of it. But there are other mathematicians who refuse to believe that infinity is real and do not use it in their work.
Randomness
In mathematics, there must be an infinite expansion of information for randomness to exist.
Infinity and randomness are inextricable linked and many of the attempted equations to produce purely random numbers, rely heavily on the use of infinity, as in the mathematical equation above.
Summary:
1) “Pseudorandomness”, incorporates a designed mathematical formula, to produce a pattern of numbers, that appear to be random, but are not.
2) Infinity is a concept, not yet proven.
3) Without infinity, “Pure Randomness” does not exist.
4) “Pure Randomness” has yet to be accurately demonstrated mathematically.
I don't do infinity.
Random is the term given because we are afraid of unknowns, and like to think we have an inkling of what's really going on.
Random is the term given because we are afraid of unknowns, and like to think we have an inkling of what's really going on.
reply to post by Joecroft
The appearance of design does not mean design. And indeed when you look at all the lineages that appear and go extinct, the ebb and flow of constantly altering forms of life begin to appear to behave in an unguided and purely reactionary way but that's because of natural selection, not mutation.
Numbers, not mutations. Biology isn't maths. Random mutations fulfil the first definition of random, not the mathematical one because evolution isn't arithmetic.
The only way numbers relate to evolution is in simulations, they do not dictate real life.
So you think that reality is obliged to conform to the limitations of our language?
None of that has anything to do with evolution and genetic mutations.
Mutations are "random" in the same sense that the pattern that forms in sand when you throw it across a table is random - you can't predict it nor would you bother & you know it all comes down to circumstance. Such a pattern doesn't conform to a desire outside of you throwing it across a table.
This is randomness in a practical sense, no one is suggesting that "random" mutations defies the law of causality.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Welfhard]
When you look at the definition of random, it is hard to imagine that it has possibly been part of the process, connected to the development of all life on Earth.
The appearance of design does not mean design. And indeed when you look at all the lineages that appear and go extinct, the ebb and flow of constantly altering forms of life begin to appear to behave in an unguided and purely reactionary way but that's because of natural selection, not mutation.
Definition: Random numbers are numbers that occur in a sequence....
Numbers, not mutations. Biology isn't maths. Random mutations fulfil the first definition of random, not the mathematical one because evolution isn't arithmetic.
The only way numbers relate to evolution is in simulations, they do not dictate real life.
I’m no expert in understanding the mathematics involved in the above equations, but with phrases like, “nobody has ever given an entirely convincing definition of the term `random sequence' and “This turns out to be an inadequate definition of randomness”, I’m not convinced!
So you think that reality is obliged to conform to the limitations of our language?
Summary:
1) “Pseudorandomness”, incorporates a designed mathematical formula, to produce a pattern of numbers, that appear to be random, but are not.
2) Infinity is a concept, not yet proven.
3) Without infinity, “Pure Randomness” does not exist.
4) “Pure Randomness” has yet to be accurately demonstrated mathematically.
None of that has anything to do with evolution and genetic mutations.
Mutations are "random" in the same sense that the pattern that forms in sand when you throw it across a table is random - you can't predict it nor would you bother & you know it all comes down to circumstance. Such a pattern doesn't conform to a desire outside of you throwing it across a table.
This is randomness in a practical sense, no one is suggesting that "random" mutations defies the law of causality.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Welfhard]
reply to post by Joecroft
The mutations are random (incorrectly-replicating DNA due to external factors, such as radiation, or simply mistakes (as the process is not perfect)), but they are selected against by the environment.
It seems this is only a mystery among those who don't understand evolution.
The mutations are random (incorrectly-replicating DNA due to external factors, such as radiation, or simply mistakes (as the process is not perfect)), but they are selected against by the environment.
It seems this is only a mystery among those who don't understand evolution.
reply to post by Welfhard
So I guess using the same logic, the appearance of randomness, does not mean it’s random.
Yes I agree that “natural selection”, is one of the main key mechanisms, for the theory evolution to work but mutation is an important element of the theory. Mutation has been proven by science, to be taking place but I don’t believe this mutation process, has been accurately defined.
Yes, but when we are dealing with large complexity of species, we are dealing with large numbers. We are also dealing with a myriad of genes, within each species.
If random mutations only fulfill the first definition of “random”, then by definition, they can only be termed “pseudorandom.” Furthermore, if you bring into the equation the word “random”, into any field of science, you are by default, bringing an aspect of arithmetic, into it.
Math’s is the universal language, all areas of science use mathematics to help understand concepts better and also to prove that a given theory works.
Yes, but those simulations are having a difficult time simulating life. The very fabric of our universe doesn’t add up mathematically in those simulations, hence the mystery of dark matter.
I think the limitations of our language are obliged to accept, that there are certain things in our known reality, that are beyond explanation, especially when it comes to proving that, “pure randomness”, exists.
It’s ok to search for answers but it is not ok to state that “random mutations” are a fact. Mutations are a fact, but stating that one of the interconnecting processes involved in evolution, that cause’s mutations to occur, is “random”, is not a fact and has yet to be clearly proved scientifically.
It does when the word “random” mutation is thrown into the equation.
Your random analogy of throwing the sand, is not “pure randomness”, because there is an exact number of possibilities in which the sand can land on the table, albeit an extremely large number but it is a finite number nonetheless. The only way it could be classed as “pure random” is if you threw an infinite amount of sand.
By throwing the sand you have in a sense, become the causality of it, and the out come of it, no matter how random it appears, is not completely random on it’s own, because it didn’t have a random beginning. There are also pre-existing factors, which dictate, that the sand, when thrown, will act in accordance with the laws of psychics. There is also a nature, character, personality and a will aspect to your analogy of throwing the sand.
The Law of Causality has been debated for centuries!
Causality
Cosmological argument
Infinity is a concept, that must exist for randomness to exist. Infinity has not yet been proven. If you believe in infinity, then that is fine but you must acknowledge that it is a belief based on some knowledge.
- JC
Originally posted by Welfhard
The appearance of design does not mean design.
So I guess using the same logic, the appearance of randomness, does not mean it’s random.
Originally posted by Welfhard
And indeed when you look at all the lineages that appear and go extinct, the ebb and flow of constantly altering forms of life begin to appear to behave in an unguided and purely reactionary way but that's because of natural selection, not mutation.
Yes I agree that “natural selection”, is one of the main key mechanisms, for the theory evolution to work but mutation is an important element of the theory. Mutation has been proven by science, to be taking place but I don’t believe this mutation process, has been accurately defined.
Originally posted by Welfhard
Numbers, not mutations. Biology isn't maths.
Yes, but when we are dealing with large complexity of species, we are dealing with large numbers. We are also dealing with a myriad of genes, within each species.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Random mutations fulfil the first definition of random, not the mathematical one because evolution isn't arithmetic.
If random mutations only fulfill the first definition of “random”, then by definition, they can only be termed “pseudorandom.” Furthermore, if you bring into the equation the word “random”, into any field of science, you are by default, bringing an aspect of arithmetic, into it.
Math’s is the universal language, all areas of science use mathematics to help understand concepts better and also to prove that a given theory works.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
The only way numbers relate to evolution is in simulations, they do not dictate real life.
Yes, but those simulations are having a difficult time simulating life. The very fabric of our universe doesn’t add up mathematically in those simulations, hence the mystery of dark matter.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
So you think that reality is obliged to conform to the limitations of our language?
I think the limitations of our language are obliged to accept, that there are certain things in our known reality, that are beyond explanation, especially when it comes to proving that, “pure randomness”, exists.
It’s ok to search for answers but it is not ok to state that “random mutations” are a fact. Mutations are a fact, but stating that one of the interconnecting processes involved in evolution, that cause’s mutations to occur, is “random”, is not a fact and has yet to be clearly proved scientifically.
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
Summary:
1) “Pseudorandomness”, incorporates a designed mathematical formula, to produce a pattern of numbers, that appear to be random, but are not.
2) Infinity is a concept, not yet proven.
3) Without infinity, “Pure Randomness” does not exist.
4) “Pure Randomness” has yet to be accurately demonstrated mathematically.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
None of that has anything to do with evolution and genetic mutations.
It does when the word “random” mutation is thrown into the equation.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Mutations are "random" in the same sense that the pattern that forms in sand when you throw it across a table is random - you can't predict it nor would you bother & you know it all comes down to circumstance. Such a pattern doesn't conform to a desire outside of you throwing it across a table.
Your random analogy of throwing the sand, is not “pure randomness”, because there is an exact number of possibilities in which the sand can land on the table, albeit an extremely large number but it is a finite number nonetheless. The only way it could be classed as “pure random” is if you threw an infinite amount of sand.
By throwing the sand you have in a sense, become the causality of it, and the out come of it, no matter how random it appears, is not completely random on it’s own, because it didn’t have a random beginning. There are also pre-existing factors, which dictate, that the sand, when thrown, will act in accordance with the laws of psychics. There is also a nature, character, personality and a will aspect to your analogy of throwing the sand.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
This is randomness in a practical sense, no one is suggesting that "random" mutations defies the law of causality.
The Law of Causality has been debated for centuries!
Causality
Cosmological argument
One of the classic arguments for the existence of God is known as the "Cosmological argument" or "First cause" argument. It works from the premise that every natural event is the effect of a cause. If this is so, then the events that caused today's events must have had causes themselves, which must have had causes, and so forth. If the chain never ends, then one must uphold the hypothesis of an "actual infinite", which is often regarded as problematic, see Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. If the chain does end, it must end with a non-natural or supernatural cause at the start of the natural world -- e.g. a creation by God.
Infinity is a concept, that must exist for randomness to exist. Infinity has not yet been proven. If you believe in infinity, then that is fine but you must acknowledge that it is a belief based on some knowledge.
- JC
Just to add to my OP…
Are mutations truly random
continued…
- JC
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Joecroft]
Are mutations truly random
Despite this non-random distribution, scientists believed for many years that these so-called mutational hotspots were the product of natural selection and other post-mutational processes, and that the mutations occurred at random. However, "in last two decades, the large amount of both genomic and polymorphic data has changed the way of thinking in the field," Dacheng Tian of Nanjing University in China, who did not participate in the work, wrote in an email to The Scientist. "[This] idea provides a self-increasing hypothesis, which may be useful to rethink the formation of such non-randomness."
continued…
Using SNP data from the HapMap website for human chromosome 1, Amos calculated the average size and density of existing mutational clusters. He then ran simulations under the assumption of either this new, non-random mechanism of mutation formation or that of randomly occurring mutations. He found that the non-random model more closely predicted the frequency and density of the mutational clusters on the chromosome……………………
…………"My theory is going to shake things up majorly," Amos said. "The concept of non-independent mutations simply wasn't thought of before -- this is completely new and it really changes how we think of DNA evolving."
- JC
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Joecroft]
reply to post by Joecroft
There also happens to be a limited number of possible mutations, albeit trillions upon trillions.
Doesn't work like that. The first cause doesn't have to obey for one reason. Without time, there is no causality.
"Random" mutations are blind and unwilled by anything and are in a particle sense random.
Random mutations fulfil the dictionary definition of random. Randomness in math may be theoretically impossible but that's a different definition or random (could even be said to be a different word) unique to mathematics. Biology has nothing to do with it.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Welfhard]
Your random analogy of throwing the sand, is not “pure randomness”, because there is an exact number of possibilities in which the sand can land on the table, albeit an extremely large number but it is a finite number nonetheless. The only way it could be classed as “pure random” is if you threw an infinite amount of sand.
There also happens to be a limited number of possible mutations, albeit trillions upon trillions.
Cosmological argument
Doesn't work like that. The first cause doesn't have to obey for one reason. Without time, there is no causality.
"Random" mutations are blind and unwilled by anything and are in a particle sense random.
Dictionary definition of random:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard
Random mutations fulfil the dictionary definition of random. Randomness in math may be theoretically impossible but that's a different definition or random (could even be said to be a different word) unique to mathematics. Biology has nothing to do with it.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Welfhard]
reply to post by Welfhard
So without time and no causality, how do you propose things got started?
The will of a particular species, is one factor that has an impact on its evolutionary development.
How can “Random” mutations be blind and unwilled by anything, considering that a species interacts with its environment and other species, which in turn has an effect on its evolution at a cellular level?
How many living things, do you know; don’t have an aim, are not guided in any way or in any particular direction and don’t make any conscious choices in any form, what so ever?
That’s not entirely correct, randomness i.e. the dictionary definition, is described as without aim or purpose etc. Random numbers also display this exact same characteristic i.e. the numbers have no pattern and therefore have no aim, design or purpose to them. So both definitions are closely connected.
- JC
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Joecroft]
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
The first cause doesn't have to obey for one reason. Without time, there is no causality.
So without time and no causality, how do you propose things got started?
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
"Random" mutations are blind and unwilled by anything and are in a particle sense random.
The will of a particular species, is one factor that has an impact on its evolutionary development.
How can “Random” mutations be blind and unwilled by anything, considering that a species interacts with its environment and other species, which in turn has an effect on its evolution at a cellular level?
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
Dictionary definition of random:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Random mutations fulfill the dictionary definition of random.
How many living things, do you know; don’t have an aim, are not guided in any way or in any particular direction and don’t make any conscious choices in any form, what so ever?
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Randomness in math may be theoretically impossible but that's a different definition or random (could even be said to be a different word) unique to mathematics. Biology has nothing to do with it.
That’s not entirely correct, randomness i.e. the dictionary definition, is described as without aim or purpose etc. Random numbers also display this exact same characteristic i.e. the numbers have no pattern and therefore have no aim, design or purpose to them. So both definitions are closely connected.
- JC
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Joecroft]
reply to post by Joecroft
How the hell should I know? There's no way to know what's beyond the bigbang.
Not really. AND even then there's no controlling the rate of mutation. The most will can influence is natural selection (ie. selective breeding) but mutations appear at a steady rate allowing new diversity.
Mutations occur pretty much regardless of any environment apart from ones with high radiation. Do you think either you or your mother had any intentional influence on the approximate 150 mutations that you carry? (that's the going rate for each new child)
But their mutations occur in spite of their aim. They have no control over the mutations that occur when they do.
But also have very different implications in mathematics as compared with biology.
I hate this thread. I hate arguing semantics as if it has any bearing on the real word when it doesn't'.
So without time and no causality, how do you propose things got started?
How the hell should I know? There's no way to know what's beyond the bigbang.
The will of a particular species, is one factor that has an impact on its evolutionary development.
Not really. AND even then there's no controlling the rate of mutation. The most will can influence is natural selection (ie. selective breeding) but mutations appear at a steady rate allowing new diversity.
How can “Random” mutations be blind and unwilled by anything, considering that a species interacts with its environment and other species, which in turn has an effect on its evolution at a cellular level?
Mutations occur pretty much regardless of any environment apart from ones with high radiation. Do you think either you or your mother had any intentional influence on the approximate 150 mutations that you carry? (that's the going rate for each new child)
How many living things, do you know; don’t have an aim, are not guided in any way or in any particular direction and don’t make any conscious choices in any form, what so ever?
But their mutations occur in spite of their aim. They have no control over the mutations that occur when they do.
So both definitions are closely connected.
But also have very different implications in mathematics as compared with biology.
I hate this thread. I hate arguing semantics as if it has any bearing on the real word when it doesn't'.
reply to post by Welfhard
Just for the record, you were the one, that brought causality into the debate.
Our whole discussion so far about “random mutation” has boiled down to you saying “How the hell should I know?”, I mean, at least if you believed in a causal loop/infinity, you would have some reason to accept “random mutation”, but even then, it couldn’t be said to be a fact.
If we look at the actual mutation process itself, they do appear to happen at a steady rate. If they are happening at a steady rate, can we really say that, that part of the process, is random?
No of course not. But the will of each individual species, does have a bearing on the mutations it carries, over a long period of time. It also has a bearing on the mutations that it doesn’t carry.
Yes but their aim is having an effect on their mutations. The fact that species have an aim, means you can’t say the whole process is completely random IMO.
Nothing seems to display the characteristics of the dictionary definition of “random” except perhaps, maybe, inanimate objects but not living things. Perhaps the dictionary definition of “random” needs to be changed or not applied to the area of mutation.
From my research so far, science is still trying to understand the area of mutation and this is an ongoing study, it is not completely understood. So to use the phrase “random mutation” is not completely correct because the exact processes connected to mutation, haven’t yet been clearly proven scientifically.
The fact that “pure randomness” hasn’t been proven mathematically is a big indicator, that it might not exist semantically either.
That’s exactly my point, the semantics haven’t been clearly defined. When you deal with semantics, it’s not exact, this is why all good science converges over into the field of mathematics.
When you take “randomness” further down the scale, you find, that you either have to accept what you accept, which is, and I quote “How the hell should I know?” or you believe in infinity.
Maybe you hate this thread because it is attempting to point out to you, that the preconceptions of your belief system, might not be true.
or
Maybe you hate this thread because your current logical constructs, lead you to a dead end.
- JC
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
How the hell should I know? There's no way to know what's beyond the bigbang.
Just for the record, you were the one, that brought causality into the debate.
Our whole discussion so far about “random mutation” has boiled down to you saying “How the hell should I know?”, I mean, at least if you believed in a causal loop/infinity, you would have some reason to accept “random mutation”, but even then, it couldn’t be said to be a fact.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
The most will can influence is natural selection (ie. selective breeding) but mutations appear at a steady rate allowing new diversity.
If we look at the actual mutation process itself, they do appear to happen at a steady rate. If they are happening at a steady rate, can we really say that, that part of the process, is random?
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Do you think either you or your mother had any intentional influence on the approximate 150 mutations that you carry? (that's the going rate for each new child)
No of course not. But the will of each individual species, does have a bearing on the mutations it carries, over a long period of time. It also has a bearing on the mutations that it doesn’t carry.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
But their mutations occur in spite of their aim. They have no control over the mutations that occur when they do.
Yes but their aim is having an effect on their mutations. The fact that species have an aim, means you can’t say the whole process is completely random IMO.
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
So both definitions are closely connected
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
But also have very different implications in mathematics as compared with biology.
Nothing seems to display the characteristics of the dictionary definition of “random” except perhaps, maybe, inanimate objects but not living things. Perhaps the dictionary definition of “random” needs to be changed or not applied to the area of mutation.
From my research so far, science is still trying to understand the area of mutation and this is an ongoing study, it is not completely understood. So to use the phrase “random mutation” is not completely correct because the exact processes connected to mutation, haven’t yet been clearly proven scientifically.
The fact that “pure randomness” hasn’t been proven mathematically is a big indicator, that it might not exist semantically either.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
I hate this thread. I hate arguing semantics as if it has any bearing on the real word when it doesn't'.
That’s exactly my point, the semantics haven’t been clearly defined. When you deal with semantics, it’s not exact, this is why all good science converges over into the field of mathematics.
When you take “randomness” further down the scale, you find, that you either have to accept what you accept, which is, and I quote “How the hell should I know?” or you believe in infinity.
Maybe you hate this thread because it is attempting to point out to you, that the preconceptions of your belief system, might not be true.
or
Maybe you hate this thread because your current logical constructs, lead you to a dead end.
- JC
reply to post by Joecroft
Well actually we were speaking about the cause of the big bang at this point, not mutations. The bigbang is as far removed from genetic mutations as the Amish from iPods.
Yes because they are unpredictable.
But that's got nothing to do with the cause of these mutations so is irrelevant. All your saying is that we organisms react in a not-random way to mutations, though that doesn't have any bearing on whether mutations are random or not (unless they've managed to wander into a radiated area of some nature).
Why not? This could be the ol' order from chaos thing. But anyway it's not true; the aim of animals doesn't have influence on the nature of the occurrence of mutations.
Well we're talking about biological systems. Biological systems always have a failure rate, every last one of them - it's part of the origin of diversity.
Even if the were, we'd still say mutations were random because random is a useful word to describe the unpredictable. We could know exactly how mutations occur but we'd still be unable to predict them because we would need to be aware of trillions of factors leading up to and causing the failure of a genetic system.
I hate this thread because it's a pointless debate about semantics and there isn't much more boring. I've been aware of the logical issues connected with the concept of a random number and I've known since I was a kid that there is no such thing as a true random number generator just like there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
But you seem to think that because of that we can't use the word random in an every-day-chaos-&-circumstances way that it has some bearing on the nature of biology. We use the word to describe a type of humour or events which are random in the same sense as mutations are random. That's why I hate this thread.
If you really dislike the use of random so much; here, try "circumstantial happenstance" instead.
[edit on 5-3-2010 by Welfhard]
Our whole discussion so far about “random mutation” has boiled down to you saying “How the hell should I know?”, I mean, at least if you believed in a causal loop/infinity, you would have some reason to accept “random mutation”, but even then, it couldn’t be said to be a fact.
Well actually we were speaking about the cause of the big bang at this point, not mutations. The bigbang is as far removed from genetic mutations as the Amish from iPods.
If we look at the actual mutation process itself, they do appear to happen at a steady rate. If they are happening at a steady rate, can we really say that, that part of the process, is random?
Yes because they are unpredictable.
No of course not. But the will of each individual species, does have a bearing on the mutations it carries, over a long period of time. It also has a bearing on the mutations that it doesn’t carry.
But that's got nothing to do with the cause of these mutations so is irrelevant. All your saying is that we organisms react in a not-random way to mutations, though that doesn't have any bearing on whether mutations are random or not (unless they've managed to wander into a radiated area of some nature).
The fact that species have an aim, means you can’t say the whole process is completely random IMO.
Why not? This could be the ol' order from chaos thing. But anyway it's not true; the aim of animals doesn't have influence on the nature of the occurrence of mutations.
From my research so far, science is still trying to understand the area of mutation and this is an ongoing study, it is not completely understood.
Well we're talking about biological systems. Biological systems always have a failure rate, every last one of them - it's part of the origin of diversity.
So to use the phrase “random mutation” is not completely correct because the exact processes connected to mutation, haven’t yet been clearly proven scientifically.
Even if the were, we'd still say mutations were random because random is a useful word to describe the unpredictable. We could know exactly how mutations occur but we'd still be unable to predict them because we would need to be aware of trillions of factors leading up to and causing the failure of a genetic system.
Maybe you hate this thread because it is attempting to point out to you, that the preconceptions of your belief system, might not be true.
or
Maybe you hate this thread because your current logical constructs, lead you to a dead end.
I hate this thread because it's a pointless debate about semantics and there isn't much more boring. I've been aware of the logical issues connected with the concept of a random number and I've known since I was a kid that there is no such thing as a true random number generator just like there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
But you seem to think that because of that we can't use the word random in an every-day-chaos-&-circumstances way that it has some bearing on the nature of biology. We use the word to describe a type of humour or events which are random in the same sense as mutations are random. That's why I hate this thread.
If you really dislike the use of random so much; here, try "circumstantial happenstance" instead.
[edit on 5-3-2010 by Welfhard]
reply to post by Welfhard
If the will plays a role in evolution, then it will automatically have an impact on future mutations.
Science doesn’t fully understand how mutations work, so any factor being considered that could affect it, is not irrelevant.
Because we don’t fully understand the effects, that the aims of a particular creature might have on it’s own evolution, we can’t say it’s random or non random because it‘s unknown.
There aim might have an influence, but we/you can’t state, that it’s untrue or true because according to scientists, the causes of “random mutations” are unknown.
Random may be a useful word to use but essentially what science is saying is, that it hasn’t yet worked out how it works.
It’s not so much about semantics it’s more about an incorrect usage of words. I don’t have a problem with the word random, when it’s used in an informal context or used in humor. It’s when it’s used in science to describe a process that no one fully understands, thats when I have a problem with it. It would be more intellectually honest for science to say “unknown mutations” or just simply leave it as “mutations.”
- JC
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
But that's got nothing to do with the cause of these mutations so is irrelevant. All your saying is that we organisms react in a not-random way to mutations, though that doesn't have any bearing on whether mutations are random or not (unless they've managed to wander into a radiated area of some nature).
If the will plays a role in evolution, then it will automatically have an impact on future mutations.
Science doesn’t fully understand how mutations work, so any factor being considered that could affect it, is not irrelevant.
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
The fact that species have an aim, means you can’t say the whole process is completely random IMO.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Why not?
Because we don’t fully understand the effects, that the aims of a particular creature might have on it’s own evolution, we can’t say it’s random or non random because it‘s unknown.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
This could be the ol' order from chaos thing. But anyway it's not true; the aim of animals doesn't have influence on the nature of the occurrence of mutations.
There aim might have an influence, but we/you can’t state, that it’s untrue or true because according to scientists, the causes of “random mutations” are unknown.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Even if the were, we'd still say mutations were random because random is a useful word to describe the unpredictable. We could know exactly how mutations occur but we'd still be unable to predict them because we would need to be aware of trillions of factors leading up to and causing the failure of a genetic system.
Random may be a useful word to use but essentially what science is saying is, that it hasn’t yet worked out how it works.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
I hate this thread because it's a pointless debate about semantics and there isn't much more boring.
But you seem to think that because of that we can't use the word random in an every-day-chaos-&-circumstances way that it has some bearing on the nature of biology. We use the word to describe a type of humour or events which are random in the same sense as mutations are random. That's why I hate this thread.
It’s not so much about semantics it’s more about an incorrect usage of words. I don’t have a problem with the word random, when it’s used in an informal context or used in humor. It’s when it’s used in science to describe a process that no one fully understands, thats when I have a problem with it. It would be more intellectually honest for science to say “unknown mutations” or just simply leave it as “mutations.”
- JC
reply to post by Joecroft
The future, but not their cause.
No it is irrelevant. Random mutations are called random because there's no way to know where in the genome they will appear or when. That's why they're random - how they affect and organism has nothing to do with it.
You're making an issue our of nothing. Mutations are cause by the same short comings as every biological system does. They're just errors caused by a failer for proteins to recode the letters. That's all.
I don't know where you're getting your information. They're called mutations because they're failures to code properly. There are even spellcheckers to try and get rid of them.
Not being able to predict something and not understanding are two totally different things.
No, it's semantics.
Science doesn't fully understand anything.
No random works. It tells us that mutations have simply occurred due to some combinations of circumstantial factors making them just chance. It also reminds us that the nature of mutation appearance behaves in a completely unguided way, and there is no reason to think any other way (apart from hypermutation of course).
You're making an issue out of nothing.
If the will plays a role in evolution, then it will automatically have an impact on future mutations.
The future, but not their cause.
Science doesn’t fully understand how mutations work, so any factor being considered that could affect it, is not irrelevant.
No it is irrelevant. Random mutations are called random because there's no way to know where in the genome they will appear or when. That's why they're random - how they affect and organism has nothing to do with it.
Because we don’t fully understand the effects, that the aims of a particular creature might have on it’s own evolution, we can’t say it’s random or non random because it‘s unknown.
You're making an issue our of nothing. Mutations are cause by the same short comings as every biological system does. They're just errors caused by a failer for proteins to recode the letters. That's all.
There aim might have an influence, but we/you can’t state, that it’s untrue or true because according to scientists, the causes of “random mutations” are unknown.
I don't know where you're getting your information. They're called mutations because they're failures to code properly. There are even spellcheckers to try and get rid of them.
Random may be a useful word to use but essentially what science is saying is, that it hasn’t yet worked out how it works.
Not being able to predict something and not understanding are two totally different things.
It’s not so much about semantics it’s more about an incorrect usage of words.
No, it's semantics.
It’s when it’s used in science to describe a process that no one fully understands
Science doesn't fully understand anything.
It would be more intellectually honest for science to say “unknown mutations” or just simply leave it as “mutations.”
No random works. It tells us that mutations have simply occurred due to some combinations of circumstantial factors making them just chance. It also reminds us that the nature of mutation appearance behaves in a completely unguided way, and there is no reason to think any other way (apart from hypermutation of course).
You're making an issue out of nothing.
reply to post by Welfhard
No, it is potentially relevant; we can’t say it’s irrelevant at this moment in time because science doesn’t know the exact causes of mutation. So anything that could help us understand mutation better, could be relevant. Including all factors, which could either, deny or confirm “random” mutations.
Yes I know there are errors taking place but as far as I am aware, science doesn’t know what’s causing the errors/failures.
What’s causing the copying errors in DNA?
Well, in the context of science; scientific experiments are often repeated many times. Once they get to the point where they can predict an experiments outcome, it is generally a good indication, that they have a better understanding of it.
No, it’s not just about semantics. Yes we did talk earlier about the similarities between the dictionary definition of random and the mathematical random, but there is also another issue being discussed.
Which is…
Because science doesn’t understand the causes of mutation, then IMO, they shouldn’t be inferring or assuming anything about the processes of mutation, regardless of what word they put in front of mutation or it’s meaning.
Sounds like a good title, for a new thread…lol
Getting back to semantics, which is a topic, I know you love lol. The apparent randomness that we see in mutations, could be an extremely large version of pseudorandomness, that we just haven’t figured out yet.
Do you think that’s a possibility?
- JC
[edit on 6-3-2010 by Joecroft]
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
Science doesn’t fully understand how mutations work, so any factor being considered that could affect it, is not irrelevant.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
No it is irrelevant. Random mutations are called random because there's no way to know where in the genome they will appear or when. That's why they're random - how they affect and organism has nothing to do with it.
No, it is potentially relevant; we can’t say it’s irrelevant at this moment in time because science doesn’t know the exact causes of mutation. So anything that could help us understand mutation better, could be relevant. Including all factors, which could either, deny or confirm “random” mutations.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Mutations are cause by the same short comings as every biological system does. They're just errors caused by a failer for proteins to recode the letters. That's all.
Yes I know there are errors taking place but as far as I am aware, science doesn’t know what’s causing the errors/failures.
What’s causing the copying errors in DNA?
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Not being able to predict something and not understanding are two totally different things.
Well, in the context of science; scientific experiments are often repeated many times. Once they get to the point where they can predict an experiments outcome, it is generally a good indication, that they have a better understanding of it.
Originally posted by Joecroft[/I]
It’s not so much about semantics it’s more about an incorrect usage of words.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
No, it's semantics.
No, it’s not just about semantics. Yes we did talk earlier about the similarities between the dictionary definition of random and the mathematical random, but there is also another issue being discussed.
Which is…
Because science doesn’t understand the causes of mutation, then IMO, they shouldn’t be inferring or assuming anything about the processes of mutation, regardless of what word they put in front of mutation or it’s meaning.
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
Science doesn't fully understand anything.
Sounds like a good title, for a new thread…lol
Originally posted by Welfhard[/I]
No random works. It tells us that mutations have simply occurred due to some combinations of circumstantial factors making them just chance.
Getting back to semantics, which is a topic, I know you love lol. The apparent randomness that we see in mutations, could be an extremely large version of pseudorandomness, that we just haven’t figured out yet.
Do you think that’s a possibility?
- JC
[edit on 6-3-2010 by Joecroft]
reply to post by Joecroft
Radiation, mutagenic chemicals and circumstantial failures due to imperfections in proteins.
We have every reason to think mutations are random and none to think otherwise.
You can understand in theory the role a specific factor will have in an outcome. But even then, any given interaction with many deciding factors is still too much to be predictable.
It is semantics because "random mutation" essentially means "unpredictable mutations." It's more universally understandable to say random, ie. the first definition of the word.
As any scientist knows, absolute explanations are the asymptote of science.
Due to the way in which we use the word random, pseudorandom mutations would still be called random. And no, not really. And even if there was, by the nature of psuedorandomness, it is an untestable hypothesis, making it an unattractive idea.
No, it is potentially relevant; we can’t say it’s irrelevant at this moment in time because science doesn’t know the exact causes of mutation.
Radiation, mutagenic chemicals and circumstantial failures due to imperfections in proteins.
We have every reason to think mutations are random and none to think otherwise.
Well, in the context of science; scientific experiments are often repeated many times. Once they get to the point where they can predict an experiments outcome, it is generally a good indication, that they have a better understanding of it.
You can understand in theory the role a specific factor will have in an outcome. But even then, any given interaction with many deciding factors is still too much to be predictable.
No, it’s not just about semantics.
It is semantics because "random mutation" essentially means "unpredictable mutations." It's more universally understandable to say random, ie. the first definition of the word.
Sounds like a good title, for a new thread…lol
As any scientist knows, absolute explanations are the asymptote of science.
Do you think that’s a possibility?
Due to the way in which we use the word random, pseudorandom mutations would still be called random. And no, not really. And even if there was, by the nature of psuedorandomness, it is an untestable hypothesis, making it an unattractive idea.
JoeCroft, if you're going to post nonsense, please post it with the appropriate BBcode so that it doesn't look like italic salad.
Thanks. And once again, to Welfhard for having the patience to read, decipher and rebut the aforesaid nonsense.
Thanks. And once again, to Welfhard for having the patience to read, decipher and rebut the aforesaid nonsense.
reply to post by Welfhard
Radiation is defined as a non-random cause of mutations.
I’m just posting the dictionary definitions of random and unpredictable for clarity…
Dictionary definition of random:
Definition of Unpredictable
Definition of Semantics
In parts of this discussion you have tried to dismiss what I’m talking about by saying, “it’s just boring semantics”, as if defining a theory more accurately was not important. As you can see from the above definition, semantics are important when trying to understand accurately, sentences within a given theory. i.e. (c)
Defining a process as “random” is different from defining it as “unpredictable”. There two different words, with two separate individual meanings. They both affect the meaning of the theory in different ways and therefore it’s overall understanding.
When science states mutations are “random”, it not only implies unpredictability but also that (among other things) the process is without aim. I personally don’t think science is in a position to make that call.
For example, imagine I showed you 3 cards and asked you to pick one. Now before you choose any of them, I could state that the one you choose, would be unpredictable, which to a certain extent, is true. If on the other hand if I say your choice is going to be random, then not only, am I saying it’s unpredictable but also that you had no aim in your choice. You might have had no aim, but we can’t state that as a fact.
There is nothing wrong with statement, “unpredictable mutations”, which I believe is the most accurate description of mutation, based on our current knowledge.
- JC
Originally posted by Welfhard
Radiation, mutagenic chemicals and circumstantial failures due to imperfections in proteins.
Radiation is defined as a non-random cause of mutations.
Originally posted by Welfhard
It is semantics because "random mutation" essentially means "unpredictable mutations." It's more universally understandable to say random, ie. the first definition of the word.
I’m just posting the dictionary definitions of random and unpredictable for clarity…
Dictionary definition of random:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard
Definition of Unpredictable
unpredictable [ˌʌnprɪˈdɪktəbəl]
adj
not capable of being predicted; changeable
unpredictability , unpredictableness n
unpredictably adv
Definition of Semantics
semantics [sɪˈmæntɪks]
n (functioning as singular)
1. (Linguistics) the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of meaning, changes in meaning, and the principles that govern the relationship between sentences or words and their meanings
2. (Philosophy / Logic) the study of the relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent
3. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic
a. the study of interpretations of a formal theory
b. the study of the relationship between the structure of a theory and its subject matter
c. (of a formal theory) the principles that determine the truth or falsehood of sentences within the theory, and the references of its terms
In parts of this discussion you have tried to dismiss what I’m talking about by saying, “it’s just boring semantics”, as if defining a theory more accurately was not important. As you can see from the above definition, semantics are important when trying to understand accurately, sentences within a given theory. i.e. (c)
Defining a process as “random” is different from defining it as “unpredictable”. There two different words, with two separate individual meanings. They both affect the meaning of the theory in different ways and therefore it’s overall understanding.
When science states mutations are “random”, it not only implies unpredictability but also that (among other things) the process is without aim. I personally don’t think science is in a position to make that call.
For example, imagine I showed you 3 cards and asked you to pick one. Now before you choose any of them, I could state that the one you choose, would be unpredictable, which to a certain extent, is true. If on the other hand if I say your choice is going to be random, then not only, am I saying it’s unpredictable but also that you had no aim in your choice. You might have had no aim, but we can’t state that as a fact.
There is nothing wrong with statement, “unpredictable mutations”, which I believe is the most accurate description of mutation, based on our current knowledge.
- JC
reply to post by Astyanax
I was wondering when you were going to show up…
I like italic salad lol
The word program I am using, keeps changing the small “i” into a big “I” which is affecting the BBcode…
It’s to do with the way the program is designed, rather than it being a random factor lol
Anyway, we are discussing whether the word “random” is an accurate description of mutations in science. I personally don’t think it is, so where’s the nonsense in that?
- JC
I was wondering when you were going to show up…
I like italic salad lol
The word program I am using, keeps changing the small “i” into a big “I” which is affecting the BBcode…
It’s to do with the way the program is designed, rather than it being a random factor lol
Anyway, we are discussing whether the word “random” is an accurate description of mutations in science. I personally don’t think it is, so where’s the nonsense in that?
- JC
reply to post by Joecroft
All I can say is that you're manufacturing an issue out of nothing. A discussion entirely immaterial to evolutionary theory and boring to boot.
All I can say is that you're manufacturing an issue out of nothing. A discussion entirely immaterial to evolutionary theory and boring to boot.
reply to post by Welfhard
If you think this discussion is immaterial to evolutionary theory, then you need to think again, because how we define words is important to how we understand the theory. How we understand evolution, should be portrayed as accurately as possible, within the theory itself.
Seeing as you think semantics is boring, when it’s clearly an important element in defining our understanding of the said theory, then perhaps you shouldn’t even be posting in this thread.
Also…
I’ve been thinking this through and I’m not really sure I want to discuss this any further, with someone who hates threads, I mean hate injustice, hate intellectual dishonesty, but for crying out loud, don’t hate a thread on the internet!
I think bearing in mind all of the above, I’d like to bring this conversation to an end…
Good luck with the rest of your stay on ATS…
JC
Originally posted by Welfhard
A discussion entirely immaterial to evolutionary theory and boring to boot.
If you think this discussion is immaterial to evolutionary theory, then you need to think again, because how we define words is important to how we understand the theory. How we understand evolution, should be portrayed as accurately as possible, within the theory itself.
Seeing as you think semantics is boring, when it’s clearly an important element in defining our understanding of the said theory, then perhaps you shouldn’t even be posting in this thread.
Also…
I’ve been thinking this through and I’m not really sure I want to discuss this any further, with someone who hates threads, I mean hate injustice, hate intellectual dishonesty, but for crying out loud, don’t hate a thread on the internet!
I think bearing in mind all of the above, I’d like to bring this conversation to an end…
Good luck with the rest of your stay on ATS…
JC
new topics
-
REAL ID now a reality
General Conspiracies: 41 minutes ago -
'I couldn't cope with Britain anymore': Kurdish man pays smuggler to return him to France
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
Former Hamas member goes OFF on ‘low grade’ lefty journalist
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago -
An Apple a Day
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago -
Oh, Have I got a Goody for You Guys!!!
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago -
Woman In Her 60s Stabbed To Death In London Street By Thief Who Tried To Steal Her Bag.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 9 hours ago -
"The Fool" - A short video featuring a harmonica-playing guy blasted by a UFO
Aliens and UFOs: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Oh, Have I got a Goody for You Guys!!!
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago, 16 flags -
Former Hamas member goes OFF on ‘low grade’ lefty journalist
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago, 10 flags -
Multipal Solar Storms Coming Our Way This Weekend
Fragile Earth: 17 hours ago, 10 flags -
Woman In Her 60s Stabbed To Death In London Street By Thief Who Tried To Steal Her Bag.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
Kirkpatrick vs Fugal - Skinwalker ranch briefing.
Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 3 flags -
Lemon-aid and lime-aid
General Chit Chat: 16 hours ago, 3 flags -
REAL ID now a reality
General Conspiracies: 41 minutes ago, 3 flags -
"The Fool" - A short video featuring a harmonica-playing guy blasted by a UFO
Aliens and UFOs: 11 hours ago, 2 flags -
'I couldn't cope with Britain anymore': Kurdish man pays smuggler to return him to France
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 2 flags -
An Apple a Day
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
The Impeachment Inquiry of U.S. President Joseph R. Biden - Charges and Developments.
Political Issues • 444 • : matafuchs -
REAL ID now a reality
General Conspiracies • 8 • : burritocat -
Pentagon UFO Hunter Reveals What He Knows About Aliens: Nothing
Aliens and UFOs • 18 • : introufo2 -
Bibi’s Dilemma
Middle East Issues • 123 • : namehere -
Kirkpatrick vs Fugal - Skinwalker ranch briefing.
Aliens and UFOs • 21 • : GENERAL EYES -
Judge Postpones Trump Classified Docs Trial INDEFINITELY
US Political Madness • 184 • : matafuchs -
Boy Scouts to be renamed next year
Other Current Events • 201 • : BedevereTheWise -
Oh, Have I got a Goody for You Guys!!!
General Conspiracies • 46 • : Encia22 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 920 • : Thoughtful3 -
'I couldn't cope with Britain anymore': Kurdish man pays smuggler to return him to France
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 3 • : burritocat