Thoughts on random mutations...

[changed]

I just wrote a little freelance piece for Helium. would like to know what you think.

http://www.helium.com/items/1863972-the-underlying-problem-of-evolutionary-theories

Let me know if you find any typos in it, and I'll see if I can correct them. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS - This article generates revenue through advertising based on how many people read/like it. All of the proceeds from this article are being donated to TWB - Teachers Without Borders.

http://www.teacherswithoutborders.org/

By clicking

[Vance]

I have actually been thinking along similar lines. I am glad to see that you have fleshed these thoughts out.

Things can only appear to be random.

For something to be truly "scientific" it must be consistent and repeatable.

At least that is the way I see it.

[Uncle Dale]

I just wrote a little freelance piece for Helium. would like to know what you think.

http://www.helium.com/items/1863972-the-underlying-problem-of-evolutionary-theories

Let me know if you find any typos in it, and I'll see if I can correct them. Thanks!

Well, let's look at one of the initial premises:

"We know from experience that nothing happens randomly."

That may well be true, but there is such a thing as randomness.

There are even methods for generating incredibly long series of

random numbers. The concept, at least, is useful to Science.

Among the many other factors which scientists say enters into

plant/animal genetic mutations are the effects of radiation upon

DNA, RNA, etc. Either this is true or it is false. Either we

can experimentally apply random types, intensities, periods, etc.

of radiation upon living cells, or we cannot. Either something

similar happens in nature, or it does not.

Perhaps the degree and time-spans of interstellar gamma radiation

is not random. Perhaps a supernova in our general vicinity produces

a period of intensified cosmic ray bombardment. The direction from

which that source's radiation comes to us is not something random,

and, when averaged with all other nearby supernovae of the past

4 billion years, the mean direction may not be a random thing either.

So, perhaps there are even some non-random factors to be considered

in how cosmic ray bombardment affects living cells, in living organisms

which mutate and pass on genetic mutations to their offspring.

My neighbor has a cat with one folded ear -- whose mother had the

same one folded ear -- and whose offspring (he presumes) will have

the identical one folded ear. Perhaps this is just a random coincidence.

But, if nothing is random, then perhaps there is some reason for this

trait -- perhaps it had a beginning. If so, was that first folded

cat ear an ordered event within a certain set of events? Or could it

be viewed as a "random" mutation?

Is there some part of the above mentioned considerations that you

object to, or find illogical?

UD

.

[asbestosman]

Einstein famously said that God does not play dice with the universe as a way to reject quantum mechanics. The more we learn about the quantum world, the more it appears that Einstein was wrong. This may not be apparent on the level of Brownian motion, but it is apparent on the level of electrons, photons, and other sub atomic particles. For example, we have the double slit experiments. The problem with randomness of the quantum world is that tends to get lost in averages at the level we can easily see. This is why objects don't spontaneously move or change shape even though the individual atoms and sub-atomic particles do move (or rather exist in various probability fields/waves until measured--see the double-slit experiment).

[changed]

First, a big thank you to everyone who takes the time to read this

Well, let's look at one of the initial premises:

"We know from experience that nothing happens randomly."

That may well be true, but there is such a thing as randomness.

I would say that randomness does not exist, but we often use the term "random" to describe complex systems. Example, the gaussian distribution of velocities of the atoms in the air. Sure, they follow a Gaussian distribution, but their motions are not "random". We don't say "they just randomly move". We provide a more specific explanation - heat transfer, etc. etc. (temperature is essentially a measure of the KE of atoms.) So yes, scientists often use the word "random" but they do not often use it to explain why something happens. They use it for convenience - instead of rattling off the exact velocities of a billion atoms (and they each have exact velocities) we just say "they follow a random Gaussian distribution". People don't make theories saying "it just randomly happens" though...

Among the many other factors which scientists say enters into

plant/animal genetic mutations are the effects of radiation upon

DNA, RNA, etc.

I like your thoughts - yes, radiation is a cause, that is an explanation

Too bad radiation destroys information instead of creating it

Perhaps the degree and time-spans of interstellar gamma radiation

is not random.

you are right - it is not random. nothing is.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I would say that randomness does not exist

...

And so a table of one billion sequential random numbers does

not really display randomness -- and mathematicians are making a

big mistake when they believe that such numerical sets exist?

UD

[changed]

Einstein famously said that God does not play dice with the universe as a way to reject quantum mechanics. The more we learn about the quantum world, the more it appears that Einstein was wrong. This may not be apparent on the level of Brownian motion, but it is apparent on the level of electrons, photons, and other sub atomic particles. For example, we have the double slit experiments. The problem with randomness of the quantum world is that tends to get lost in averages at the level we can easily see. This is why objects don't spontaneously move or change shape even though the individual atoms and sub-atomic particles do move (or rather exist in various probability fields/waves until measured--see the double-slit experiment).

Here is a quote for you:

... As far as I can see, "randomness" in any fundamental sense is not even a meaningful concept. Indeed, to accept the usual notion of quantum randomness you would have to swallow the notion of "ordered randomness," since (for example) the distribution of values (e.g. in the wave equation) is not random. In other words, something "tells" the variable to be random, but also "tells" it to follow strict rules overall. Sheesh!

Do you know what a Dirac function is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function

If it adds together to a precise value, it ain't really random, now is it?

[changed]

And so a table of one billion sequential random numbers does

not really display randomness -- and mathematicians are making a

big mistake when they believe that such numerical sets exist?

UD

I've written computer programs which use random number generaters. The numbers don't come out of nowhere - there is a cause, they are created by something. I have created them myself

Nothing just randomly exists - everything is caused by something else.

RNG's are used by staticians to approximate real systems. approximate - is the key word here. The real system is not randomly generated.

Have ta run, I'll be back. Thanks again for your comments and thoughts!

[Uncle Dale]

...

they are created by something

...

That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the

relationships of one number to the next, and to the entire

set, and to any attempts at ordering that set by finding

repeating patterns or other non-random inter-relationships.

Let me put it this way:

If man cannot generate a lengthy set of truly random numbers,

are you saying that an Infinitely Capable Creator also could

not generate such a numerical sequence?

If so, then we have discovered a thing not within God's powers --

which seems to me a rather amazing discovery.

UD

[changed]

That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the

relationships of one number to the next, and to the entire

set, and to any attempts at ordering that set by finding

repeating patterns or other non-random inter-relationships.

Let me put it this way:

If man cannot generate a lengthy set of truly random numbers,

are you saying that an Infinitely Capable Creator also could

not generate such a numerical sequence?

If so, then we have discovered a thing not within God's powers --

which seems to me a rather amazing discovery.

UD

OK - one more comment.

Ahhhh the things that God can't do.

Can God make a rock larger than He can lift? but if He can't lift it then... but if He can't make it that big then...

Can God microwave a burrito to be hotter than He can eat?.....

LOL - We live in an orderly universe, law abiding, be thankful for law and order, imagine what it would be like if things just randomly moved around!

[asbestosman]

Here is a quote for you:

... As far as I can see, "randomness" in any fundamental sense is not even a meaningful concept. Indeed, to accept the usual notion of quantum randomness you would have to swallow the notion of "ordered randomness," since (for example) the distribution of values (e.g. in the wave equation) is not random. In other words, something "tells" the variable to be random, but also "tells" it to follow strict rules overall. Sheesh!

Ordered randomness? I take it, then, that the only thing which could be truly random would be a uniform distribution. I think it's important here to consider entropy. Uniform distributions do have maximum entropy, but that randomness actually does exist along a continuum from maximally random to not random at all. Entropy is a way to measure this. Furthermore, the fact that we can perform experiments where the wave equation will collapse in one of two ways (detector a or detector b) shows that we can modify this distribution of the wave equation back into one that has maximum entropy.

Do you know what a Dirac function is?

Yes, I graduated in electrical engineering from BYU and did quite well in my undergrad signal processing and differential equations classes.

If it adds together to a precise value, it ain't really random, now is it?

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you talking about the law of large numbers in statistics and how the normal (Gaussian) distribution approaches the delta function in the limit which normal distribution is the result of adding together the results of random events such as which slot an electron is detected as going through?

[asbestosman]

I've written computer programs which use random number generaters. The numbers don't come out of nowhere - there is a cause, they are created by something. I have created them myself

Nothing just randomly exists - everything is caused by something else.

RNG's are used by staticians to approximate real systems. approximate - is the key word here. The real system is not randomly generated.

Have ta run, I'll be back. Thanks again for your comments and thoughts!

I agree with you about random number generators since these are the result of deterministic algorithms (and different ones have different trade-offs in predictability). However, in the case of hardware-generated random numbers, I think these could be truly random.

[Ariarates]

A very accurate depiction of pre-Darwinian thinking. Presenting Brownian motion as essentially non-random is a pretty bold move too. But your greatest achievement with this piece, imo, is getting paid for it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

if things just randomly moved around!

Then do you suggest that the word "random" be removed from the dictionaries?

Is "random" an absurdity (such as the inside of a line)?

Or, is "random" an unreachable goal (such as finite mass traveling at the speed of light)?

Within the disciplines of probability, predictability, etc., can we

say that one numerical set is more "random" than another? Or, for

mathematical purposes, is "randomness" always equal to zero?

If I record the directionality of one hundred trillion cosmic rays

striking a very small object over a lengthy period of time, does

the tabulated display of that data bear any relationship to another

one hundred trillion sequential "random" numbers generated by

some machine?

Would the value/character of both number sets (in terms of randomness)

be the same, one to the other, as when both are compared to a

third one hundred trillion numbers, consisting of alternating

ones and twos?

UD

.

[semlogo]

I just wrote a little freelance piece for Helium. would like to know what you think.

http://www.helium.com/items/1863972-the-underlying-problem-of-evolutionary-theories

Let me know if you find any typos in it, and I'll see if I can correct them. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS - This article generates revenue through advertising based on how many people read/like it. All of the proceeds from this article are being donated to TWB - Teachers Without Borders.

http://www.teacherswithoutborders.org/

By clicking

[asbestosman]

Natural selection is not a random process, and therefore your objections to the randomness of evolution are moot.

Natural selection is not, but the theory of evolution also depends on mutations as a source of variation upon which natural selection operates. If these mutations are not random, then what (or Who) is the source? I see a point to his objections of randomness--I just think he's mistaken.

[Uncle Dale]

...

what (or Who) is the source?

...

One way to begin to answer that question would be to

trace our current situation backwards in time, as much

so as possible.

If the universe is expanding, then at the very least

trace that expansion backwards in a search for "sources."

Getting back to my neighbor's cat with the folded ear --

whose mother also has a folded ear. When the mother

again produces kittens, perhaps another folded ear cat

will appear, and there will be a male and female carrying

the same trait, which can be mated, for the production

of more folded ear cats.

Or, perhaps tracing the phenomenon backwards, forensically,

my neighbor can discover that both mother and daughter cat

merely had their ears damaged at a young age -- a coincidence.

But, the OP seems to be saying that there are no such things

as coincidences -- if coincidences are said to be random.

UD

.

[changed]

Natural selection is not, but the theory of evolution also depends on mutations as a source of variation upon which natural selection operates.

Natural selection is not a random process, and therefore your objections to the randomness of evolution are moot.

Here is an interesting article:

"Evolution is Not a Random Process"

http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/topiclist/article.cfm/evolution_is_not_a_random_process#articleCommentForm

[Vance]

Natural selection is not a random process, and therefore your objections to the randomness of evolution are moot.

It makes one wonder why you made this post.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/49492-for-id-supporters-do-events-with-low-probability-imply-a-designer/page__view__findpost__p__1208855625

[changed]

Presenting Brownian motion as essentially non-random is a pretty bold move too.

It's not random - see:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/brownian/brownian.html

The motion of the bouncing ball is created by the motions of the atoms upon which it sits. It does not randomly move. There is something else there that makes it move.

Action reaction, cause effect. Everything has a cause.

[asbestosman]

They have demonstrated that the changes we see are not random, but they have not shown that "natural selection" is the cause of the change. again, Before you can

[changed]

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/the-peppered-moth-is-turning-white-again/

"THE peppered moth is an inoffensive creature that drives creationists crazy. Most of these moths were originally light colored, but during the Industrial Revolution in England, when soot covered their habitats, the light colored moths were easy for predators to see, so they didn

[changed]

Natural selection directs the changes, but is not the source of them. As you mention, you need to have something to select from in the first place. That's where mutation comes into play. Could mutation work without anything being random? Yes. Is natural selection a sufficient explanation for "non-random unifying trends?" Proponents of Intelligent Design would say no--at least they would argue that it's sufficient to explain the full complexity of life even if it may be able to explain relatively minor differences such as beak shape and size among finches.

PS

I believe in natural selection to some extent. I mean God is all for punishing those who merit it, and rewarding those who merit it. There are actions / reaction, we act and figure out what works, and that is a good thing.

I guess it all comes down to an origins debate though. At what point does a rock decide to start growing fur because it gets cold in the wintertime? It doesn't. Some kind of intelligence has to be added to the rock before it can start evolving into someting better.

some would rather say "it just randomly happens" than admit there is some kind of intelligence / spirit / driving force behind it.

[asbestosman]

That's not natural selection. For it to be a selection, there would have been yellow moths, purple moths, green moths, blue moths, and then over time only the black ones survived. There were never any yellow moths. They all turned black together, no "selection" about it.

First off, it may be easier for a moth to switch between black and white than other colors (especially because human-visible colors are only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum). Secondly, if there were yellow moths, purple moths, etc., there would have been too few of them for anyone to notice since they'd be eaten much more quickly. For variation to be noticed, it needs to survive long enough.

[asbestosman]

I guess it all comes down to an origins debate though. At what point does a rock decide to start growing fur because it gets cold in the wintertime? It doesn't. Some kind of intelligence has to be added to the rock before it can start evolving into someting better.

Plants have no intelligence (neurons), but they seem to adapt to climates relatively well. Intelligence from a Designer may very well be required to explain the variety of life we observe, but the individual living thing need not be intelligent. It could be a vegetable. The problem with rocks is that they don't reproduce. Vegetables do.