Random mutations

I saw this science daily article, and I was wondering if anyone wanted to speculate on the implications.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/05/050518175350.htmquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This research raises fundamental questions about evolution. Biologists have often thought about evolution in the same way many think about death and taxes -- something inevitable. But Romesberg is a chemist, and he found himself asking not only how, but why evolution happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Are mutations as random as we thought? Maybe mutations are controlled by pre-programming. If so, how could we have evolved the program in the first place?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brought Romesberg to the conclusion that mutation is a programmed stress response -- a survival mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 01:24 AM

quote:

---

There will always be a background mutation rate.

---

Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm trying to figure out how this could happen in the first place.I mean, life would have to arise with the slowest possible mutation rate as a default rate, right? And it would have to evolve ways of initiating mutations in their own DNA...very very slowly, right? And it would have to evolve them without initiating them on its own, right? Wouldnt that take millions or even billions of years?It seems to me, as a mere member of the public, that its like waiting for a computer operating system to evolve on a blank hard-drive.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 01:48 AM

quote:

---

There are a number of proteins whose job it is to maintain accurate copies of genetic material since the processes of DNA replication are inherently proen to error.

---

I guess what Im getting at is this: these proteins whose job it is to maintain accurate copies of genetic material would have to slowly evolve through spontaneous mutations without the aid of any self-initiated mechanisms? Because the very mechanisms life uses to evolve arent there yet.It just seems as if the first organism wouldnt even have the basic tools it needs to even evolve in the first place.

Thank you Sylvas, Im learning a lot.

quote:

---

If, perchance, something changes to make the replication a bit more stable, that will tend to persist. So over time, the fidelity or accuracy of mutation has tended to increase.

---

Couple of basic questions. This process you decribe would have happened in the 'primordial soup', correct? Is it technically chemical evolution or organic evolution? Are we talking about the kind of organism created in the Miller-Urey experiment? Does natural selection play a role in selecting beneficial mutation at this point?

quote:

---

But under stress... that is, an organism finding itself in an environment for which it is not well adapted... there may be a benefit to having a slight increase in mutation rates.

---

Is this where natural selection kicks in? The organism which can speed up mutation survives to reproduce?

quote:

---

Many of those mechanisms are there as they are based on inherent chemical properties of genetic material.

---

Im just wondering where that genetic material came from in the first place. It had to have come from inorganic chemical responces, right?

quote:

---

As long as you have a system[...]

---

By system do you mean DNA? Does the mechanism give rise to the system, or does the system give rise to the mechanism? Where does Miller-Urey tie in to all this?This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 03:20 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 03:45 AM

As we know evolution is a 'blind' process. Could the discovery of preprogrammed mechanisms of variation be interpreted as evidence for ID?What is the relationship between the estimated length of time required for the evolutionary process and the estimated age of the earth? Would preprogrammed mechanisms force us to re-evalute the age of the earth?