Thoughts on random mutations...

[changed]

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.

[changed]

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.

It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[11][12][13]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

I have a friend who is barren, cannot reproduce. Is she a rock?

life comes from something more than just the ability to reproduce.

[asbestosman]

I have a friend who is barren, cannot reproduce. Is she a rock?

life comes from something more than just the ability to reproduce.

True, but reproduction is one of the key elements for evolution. That doesn't mean that those who can't reproduce cease to live. It simply means that they won't have offspring and hence their DNA will not directly influence future generations. There is a huge difference between saying that some humans or some living things cannot reproduce and saying that no rocks can reproduce.

[asbestosman]

[tictac]

http://sensuouscurmu...ng-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

[semlogo]

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.

The mutations themselves are random enough.

[semlogo]

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

You'll note that I said natural selection was not a random process. Mutations are pretty random.

[Vance]

Mutations are pretty random.

Really?

So the chemical changes (reactions) that cause "mutations" don't follow the laws of chemistry, but are just random?

That doesn't sound like science to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Simple chemical reactions may or may not cause mutations in individual, and mutations in the individual may or may not develop into mutations in a species.

[semlogo]

Really?

So the chemical changes (reactions) that cause "mutations" don't follow the laws of chemistry, but are just random?

That doesn't sound like science to me.

That's not what I said.

[Vance]

Vance:

Simple chemical reactions may or may not cause mutations in individual, and mutations in the individual may or may not develop into mutations in a species.

So, what, other than the change of the molecular (chemical) structure, causes "mutations"?

[Mordecai]

I think that based on our observation of microevolution, unpredictable and seemingly unguided mutations exist. Then again, given the universe's limited "probabilistic resources," and given the fact that there is simply not enough time indicated in the fossil record for selective pressures to act, obviously guided "mutations" also exist (I suppose it's more accurate to call it an infusion of information). That is also based on observation. The issue of whether something is actually random isn't the issue. I don't find that question relevant. The question that is relevant to those steeped in this debate is, can the superficially "random" mutations in microevolution explain the origin of species.

[pe]

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.

I don't know a lot about biology but I thought this comment was very though provoking (which is why I made this account) but I have a couple of questions. Plants change according to the climate but it seems that they can't change in completely different climates then when they were at. An example of this are the big red wood trees in California. They can only grow in places that are very humid (or so I remember) but when placed in a dry climate they die because they get water from the leaves and not the ground. One of my questions is that if there have been any kind of studies which show a plant like the the big red wood trees being slowly transformed over a period of time through small changes in the climate until it can be in a dry climate?

Now, it appears to me that animals don't really change at all to be able to survive in a different climate. Its almost like there is a very small area in which an animal could change but past that point it doesn't. What I mean by that is how when polar bears are in a zoo in, let's say Arizona, it might not grow as much hair then when it was in a cold climate but it doesn't really loss most of it's hair or fat or change colors to fit the hot climate. So my other question is that if animals and plants change according to their environment wouldn't that mean that animals in the zoo would change over time? Has there been any evidence of changing zoo animals?

I hope you all can understand what I am saying. Please correct me if I am wrong because I am willing to learn:pirate:.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

In the absolutist sense of the word EVERY single physical object is a bunch of chemicals, and ALL living organisms are complex chemical reactions(changes). However it is misstating the science that all such changes results in mutations.

[ERayR]

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).

From what tiny, teensy little bit I have read or heard is that they the electrons are not really moving randomly but that they are only moving randomly within thier own boundries. So I would say it is not truley random but rather controled randomness. I don't know if this makes sense or only exposes the limits to my knowledge.

[Vance]

Vance:

In the absolutist sense of the word EVERY single physical object is a bunch of chemicals, and ALL living organisms are complex chemical reactions(changes). However it is misstating the science that all such changes results in mutations.

That is not what I said.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Then I apologize for misreading your statement. Maybe I could get a better sense if you restated it in different words.

[asbestosman]

From what tiny, teensy little bit I have read or heard is that they the electrons are not really moving randomly but that they are only moving randomly within thier own boundries. So I would say it is not truley random but rather controled randomness. I don't know if this makes sense or only exposes the limits to my knowledge.

You and Changed appear to be saying the same thing. I reject the notion of controlled randomness because we can modify the environment in such a way that observations have a 50-50 chance of being one or the other. Again, I would like to mention the concept of entropy which is one way to measure randomness and is more precise than the notion of controlled randomness. I also recommend that you two look at Mordecai's comments.

[Vance]

Vance:

Then I apologize for misreading your statement. Maybe I could get a better sense if you restated it in different words.

My position is that whatever causes mutations, must abide by the laws of nature and is therefore NOT random.

There is no "random", but only the appearance of random. A die when rolled MUST abide by the laws of nature. To us it only appears to be random. But if a die has the same initial conditions and has the same input (forces) applied to it, the results will ALWAYS be the same. PERIOD!!! Just because we as humans aren't in total control over the initial conditions nor the input forces and therefore are unable to control the results, doesn't mean the results are random. They only appear to be random to us.

IF an experiment is NOT repeatable, then either the "scientist" doesn't understand the issues or the "scientist" isn't in control of all the variables. Either way it isn't real "science".

[semlogo]

My position is that whatever causes mutations, must abide by the laws of nature and is therefore NOT random.

There is no "random", but only the appearance of random. A die when rolled MUST abide by the laws of nature. To us it only appears to be random. But if a die has the same initial conditions and has the same input (forces) applied to it, the results will ALWAYS be the same. PERIOD!!! Just because we as humans aren't in total control over the initial conditions nor the input forces and therefore are unable to control the results, doesn't mean the results are random. They only appear to be random to us.

IF an experiment is NOT repeatable, then either the "scientist" doesn't understand the issues or the "scientist" isn't in control of all the variables. Either way it isn't real "science".

You should publish this startling discovery in a scientific journal.

[Vance]

You should publish this startling discovery in a scientific journal.

In other words, you don't have a rebuttal.

[asbestosman]

A die when rolled MUST abide by the laws of nature. To us it only appears to be random. But if a die has the same initial conditions and has the same input (forces) applied to it, the results will ALWAYS be the same. PERIOD!!! Just because we as humans aren't in total control over the initial conditions nor the input forces and therefore are unable to control the results, doesn't mean the results are random. They only appear to be random to us.

I agree with you about dice, but electrons behave differently. For a while, many scientists such as Einstein and others believed that the random nature of quantum mechanics showed a deficiency in the theory. However, the more we learn about the quantum world, the more it appears that things truly are random. Why can't we know the position and velocity of an electron with certainty? Electrons exist both as waves and as particles. The wave does not collapse until it is observed. It's counter-intuitive, but experiments bear this out.

[asbestosman]

[quote name='pe

[thesometimesaint]

asbestosman:

Add in that the atoms themselves appear to disappear and appear just as suddenly. TTBOMK the scientists working on the theory don't know why as of yet. But it does put a whole new wrinkle on what we define as reality.

[Vance]

I agree with you about dice, but electrons behave differently.

They don't follow the laws of nature?

For a while, many scientists such as Einstein and others believed that the random nature of quantum mechanics showed a deficiency in the theory. However, the more we learn about the quantum world, the more it appears that things truly are random.

So, in our ignorance, we are confident that what appears to be random is indeed random and not law abiding. I see.

What can't we know the position and velocity of an electron with certainty?

And therefore it is random?

Electrons exist both as waves and as particles. The wave does not collapse until it is observed (sounds consistent to me). It's counter-intuitive, but experiments bear this out.

And do these experiments also bear out that the results are consistent and therefore abide by law? Or are the results random and therefore inconsistent?