Thoughts on random mutations...

[semlogo]

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

What is there to rebut?

[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 source of mutations is no mystery.

"Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication."

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

[asbestosman]

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?

The results are consistently random. The law is that observations of an electron's position will be random not matter how hard we try to remove that randomness--no matter how hard we try to look for hidden variables. I'm not a physicist and I'm not qualified to know much about these QM experiments or why the results point to randomness. What I do know is that the more I looked into the layman's version of it through books by folks like Stephen Hawking, or books on QM from the library that everything points to it being truly random. The debate you are having with me about ignorance not being a proof of randomness has already been had by these scientists (and I agree that ignorance is not proof of randomness). They have performed many experiments to find a deterministic basis for QM, but in the end these skeptical scientists themselves have come to believe that the quantum world is random. I wish I could point out a good reference for you on it, but it's been a while so I can't. The best I can do is hope some physicist on the board will come in and lend a hand--or correct me about QM being random. I believe Zeta-flux and Tarski are both qualified for physics although I would be surprised if there aren't any others.

[asbestosman]

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

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

We can indeed--with some caveats. This is something entropy can be used to measure at least when we make certain assumptions. It is very difficult to determine whether a set is random or not. For example, if I give you the sequence 2, 4, 3, 1 you may think it looks fairly random--until i tell you that I made it by starting with the number 2, then for each successive number I multiplied it by 2 and took the remainder after dividing by 5. Generally we look for things such as distribution of numbers, and predictability based on the previous numbers in the sequence and hope that's good enough.

Entropy and randomness are simply mathematical ideas. They need not exist in reality. for example, mathematicians can describe what properties a 20-dimensional hyper-cube would have including number of corners, edges, faces, etc. However, such a hyper-cube need not actually exist in the universe. I can also use mathematics to describe the properties of objects in 1.5 dimensions or 20.5 dimensions (fractals) even if the particular fractal I describe does not exist in our universe. Similarly mathematicians could describe properties of random sequences even if the entire universe were deterministic.

[Vance]

The results are appear to be consistently random. The law as we currently understand it is that observations of an electron's position will appear to be random not matter how hard we try to remove that randomness--no matter how hard we try to look for hidden variables.

There, fixed it for you.

So basically, you are saying that I am wrong because we don't know enough to prove it.

Isn't ignorance bliss?

I'm not a physicist and I'm not qualified to know much about these QM experiments or why the results point to randomness.

Apparently, even those "who know" don't know either.

No worries, science books and sometimes theories soon become out dated.

Why, recently I read an article about the observation the "impossible". At least, it was of what scientists agreed was impossible, until they saw it with their own eye.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

[asbestosman]

So basically, you are saying that I am wrong because we don't know enough to prove it.

Isn't ignorance bliss?

No. I'm saying that scientists changed their mind about QM and randomness because of their observations. I'm not necessarily even saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you might wish to become familiar with QM and why scientists changed their minds about it. Of course they could be wrong. However, until you look at what they've discovered and why they changed their minds, then you too are arguing from a position of ignorance even if your conclusion is correct.

[handys003]

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

.

The examples you give still have outside influences that develop an outcome. It is still not random. It's like using Black Jack as an example. The odds are determined based on how many decks are used at table such as 1 or at some casinos 8 deck shoes. How many players are at one table How much money is being gambled. the players experience or card counting. Also other outside influences that are held to minimum at the game etc.... Even though consider a game of chance the odds can be turned to the players advantage instead of the house. Black Jack therefore is not random even by mathematical odds.

[asbestosman]

Vance,

I've looked a bit further, and it appears that there is still some dispute among scientists. There is no actual proof either way about whether QM is ultimately deterministic or ultimately random. One popular interpretation is the Copenhagen interpretation which believes in a fundamental randomness, but there are other possibilities such as the Bohmian interpretation which believes in hidden variables. Noteworthy, however, is that the hidden variables cannot be local hidden variables thanks to Bell's Theorom. The experimental results supporting Bell's theorem are a reason that many scientists believe QM points to ultimate randomness even though there is still some room for ultimate determinism.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Black Jack therefore is not random even by mathematical odds.

OK -- is there such a thing as coincidence then?

Was it merely a coincidence that both mother cat and

daughter cat have folded-down right ears?

If there is no such thing as coincidence, randomness,

spontaneity, unpredictability, etc., then I'm open to

suggestions that the Devil has been manipulating the

shapes of feline aural organs.

UD

[Cold Steel]

Snowflakes do not just randomly form. Water crystallizes at a precise pressure and temperature. The size that a snowflake will grow to is determined by nucleation kinetics. The beautiful crystalline structures which appear are created when covalent bonds join polar molecules to one another.

By observing a snow flake, one can conclude:

1) the patterns are entirely random

2) that the patterns are so intricate that they must have been created

3) that they show that complex patterns can occur wholly in nature, without intelligence

They are said to be so random that no two are exactly alike, but I don't believe that for an instant. There are so many flakes!

My problem is that mutations do not seem to improve any complex life forms, but detract from them (like cancer). A "creationist" TV crew interviewed Richard Dawkins and asked him, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" The question

, who later wrote a lengthy response saying that he had been "ambushed." He went on to define "information" in its various applications, but in the end didn't seem to have any examples. There are other attempts to answer the question, even by

.

There doesn't seem to be any examples where significant information is added to the genome that improves those examples or would cause them to take a step forward in the evolutionary process. I think Dawkins gave a good answer on the above website, but it certainly could have been explained in more basic terms at the time the question was asked. His later response reminded me of Dr. Charles Anthon's response to the Martin Harris visit. Despite the flurry of words after the fact, Anthon seems to me to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 29. Both his response, and Dawkin's, smack of someone who got caught off guard and, in the aftermath, is vainly trying to regain control of the situation.

Despite what atheists say, there is a leap of faith they must make, just as we religionists must make a leap of faith. There's no point in denying it. The Earth is at the precise distance from the Sun to sustain life. Any closer and it would be too hot, and any further and it would be too hot. The moon is of just the correct size to stabilize the Earth, and is of the precise distance and speed needed to do the job. Hugh Nibley once quoted an ancient document that declared, "Everything is a system in the midst of like systems." This simple statement is true whether you're an astrophysicist or a microbiologist. Solar systems are systems in the midst of like systems; so are galaxies and perhaps even the Universe. Atoms also are systems in the midst of like systems. But how did the ancients know such things? How are matter and energy combined to create the amazing order that exists in the heavens. Who determined those laws of physics, if anyone? If there is no God -- no organizing force -- shouldn't the cosmos be just empty space? As soon as matter and energy enter the equation, then even atheists have to leap. Dawkins and Hitchens, when asked about this, immediately try to pin down the precise deity responsible for this. Is it Zeus? Odin? Jehovah? The objective answer is, who knows? It's one thing to take an "I don't know!" approach. That I can understand. But atheism is a religion whose adherents claim to know things they cannot know, such as, is there a God? How can they know that any more than a Baptist, Jew or an Olympian worshiper?

Evolution itself requires order. But is the order random chance or is there a Creator lurking within? Unfortunately, atheists have developed an "in your face" attitude that many religionists, such as myself, find arrogant and self serving. A little more humility on both sides would be helpful.

.

[changed]

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

The only way to observe something is to beam it with a photon or other wave/particle, which moves what you are trying to look at. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not state that movements are random, but instead states that we are unable to see it because by looking at it, we change it. Everything has a specific velocity, mass, position etc. etc. we are just unable to see it because we change it by looking at it. If you can figure out a way to look at it without touching it with anything, you will be able to see it with certainty.

This is the "Hollywood" version:

what they don't tell you is that by looking at it, you are touching and changing it. the electron is not moving randomly, we can't see it because we don't have a way to look at it without touching it. Observe it = touch it, and you change it.

The marbles at the start - if you give them a large enough charge, they will form wave patterns too. Charge fields are waves. The e-'s aren't traveling through nothing, they are bobbing around on waves / charge fields. Other e-'s are not the only things that interefere - the e-'s are bobbing around on waves in the air, they aren't just bouncing into eachother. A single e- acting like a wave = it is bobbing around on a wave. The wave is there with or without other e-'s.

Shoot a bullet out of a gun, can you hit the bullseye each time? Now pretend the bullet is an e- that is charged and doesn't travel in a straight line - how does it leave the gun? what does it do when it comes close to the potentials of the materials the "slits" are made up of? charged particles interact with everything around them, you can't send it through a slit, or shoot it, or see it without messing with it. It's not random though, we can calculate the fields, V=iR, use e-'s for electricity etc. etc. we can calculate/use this stuff because it is not random, it follows patterns / laws.

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.

Thank you ERay. Yes, from what tiny, teensy little bit everyone knows about it. The more "randomly" moving particles you add up, the more precise the Dirac function becomes. The "randomness" has boundaries.

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

see the little animation. Random Gaussian distribution becomes a single value without any spread.

I have written MD (molecular dynamics) simulations. We describe things in terms of "random velocity distributions" etc. etc. we use the word "random" but it is not random. The little particles bounce around in accord with the potentials we assign them. Each particle moves in a calculated way (calculated - it's a computer simulation ). When we want to talk about what all of the particles are doing on a macroscopic scale, we talk about "distributions". There is a distribution of KE / PE etc. etc. Using probabilities / statistics / distributions does not mean that the particles are moving randomly. It's just a way to look at the big macroscopic picture.

The macroscopic picture is a result of what is happening on the microscopic level. Macroscopic is ordered and predictable because the microscopic level is ordered and predictable.

Example, I put together a model for shock wave propagation through particulate materials. So you have the big/macro pict - how fast the shock wave travels through the desert sand... (yes, it was for bombs ) then you have the micro pict which is time between individual collisions between two grains of sand, distance traveled between collisions, time for a collision to happen, distance traveled while particles are in a collision. You can figure out the velocity of a shock wave through billions of particles of sand by merely understanding what happens between a few grains of sand. The macro is related to the micro. Macro is ordered, and micro is ordered too. Repeating fractal kind of a thing. What happens on one level happens on other levels too.

[handys003]

OK -- is there such a thing as coincidence then?

Was it merely a coincidence that both mother cat and

daughter cat have folded-down right ears?

If there is no such thing as coincidence, randomness,

spontaneity, unpredictability, etc., then I'm open to

suggestions that the Devil has been manipulating the

shapes of feline aural organs.

UD

Sorry UD forgot about this thread.

No such thing as coincidences either. Everything has an influence. Even as the cat example you gave. It's not coincidental they have the same ears. It was influenced based on any number of factors. The mathematical odds of genetic writing as an example.

Everything is influenced. Since we both live on a Volcano let's use that. 200 years ago the premise of being unpredictable, and being random would have been the norm in science. Now it is more predictable based on a set of influences. Measured on data collected. Mauna Loa is not random any more. It is predicted to erupt like Mt. St. Helen's on predetermined factors such as summit swelling, frequencies of Eq's, and the ph levels increasing in the water, the type of magma collected and tested for chemicals present, etc...

I recently gave the increase in population of jellyfish in another thread. Is it coincidence they suddenly appear in mass? It was first unexplainable a random chance, but now due to human studyhas found influence both in fishing, and in affecting the environment (water temperature, pollution). It is not random in growth numbers.

Everything has a cause and effect. Whether it is here on earth or farther out in the Universe. Many things science attributes to random chance is based as a "cop out" for not being to explain why it does what it does. There is no such thing as a random chance of a Gamma ray outburst form deep space. It is only a matter of time. It has an influence based on what triggers it, and the mathematical odds of where it goes is based on it's proximity, gravity, and time and how far it goes.

[changed]

God knows everything = determinism = it's not random.

(agency is concerned with who controls it, you can have agency in a deterministic universe. I know what will be on TV tonight, but that does not mean I caused it... God knows, but He does not cause, therefore we have agency)

[thesometimesaint]

changed;

I like that explanation.

[thesometimesaint]

Here is something I just read that make my head swim:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=faster-than-light-electric-currents-2010-06-18

[asbestosman]

It's not random though, we can calculate the fields, V=iR, use e-'s for electricity etc. etc. we can calculate/use this stuff because it is not random, it follows patterns / laws.

...

The more "randomly" moving particles you add up, the more precise the Dirac function becomes. The "randomness" has boundaries.

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

see the little animation. Random Gaussian distribution becomes a single value without any spread.

These things are not evidence that QM is deterministic. You could be right about it being deterministic, but Dirac delta function isn't evidence of that, and neither is the fact that the observations have some patterns and can therefore be calculated.

You may also be correct about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle since the universe could truly be deterministic. Science hasn't been able to prove it either way. The one thing science has done which is interesting is experiments based on Bell's Theorem showing what constraints a deterministic universe would have to operate under to be consistent with the experimental results.

Using probabilities / statistics / distributions does not mean that the particles are moving randomly. It's just a way to look at the big macroscopic picture.

I agree with you there.

The macroscopic picture is a result of what is happening on the microscopic level. Macroscopic is ordered and predictable because the microscopic level is ordered and predictable.

That is not necessarily true, and the reason why that's not necessarily true is provided in your own mention of the Gaussian distribution and the Dirac Delta function. Lots of random things added together will average out to something deterministic. That does not mean the underlying thing is deterministic (but does not mean it's random either).

Example, I put together a model for shock wave propagation through particulate materials. So you have the big/macro pict - how fast the shock wave travels through the desert sand... (yes, it was for bombs ) then you have the micro pict which is time between individual collisions between two grains of sand, distance traveled between collisions, time for a collision to happen, distance traveled while particles are in a collision. You can figure out the velocity of a shock wave through billions of particles of sand by merely understanding what happens between a few grains of sand. The macro is related to the micro. Macro is ordered, and micro is ordered too. Repeating fractal kind of a thing. What happens on one level happens on other levels too.1

I can agree that the level of grains of sand is deterministic and that understanding it is sufficient to understand the macro level of shock wave propagation through sand. However, you can't generalize from grains of sand to everything unless you assume what you're trying to establish--that everything is deterministic. If some things are random, then the level above could still be deterministic thanks to the Gaussian becoming a Dirac delta function at a higher level.