|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are mutations truly random or are they guided? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Of course, your entire post is a straw man. waste of time getting involved then, huh? The way I understand it, mutations are the engine and natural selection is the steering wheel. Without mutations, where would NS go? Although NS and RM are interrelated, this thread is about mutations. I don't have to discuss both topics in one thread.
So, it leads me to wonder why you started this thread. Since you are aware of natural selection, I doubt that you are either ignorant or genuinely seeking out knowledge. What's the alternative? Only the gods and you know. apparently you have been able to discern my motives and can see through my veiled attempt to convert you to my religion. lol Defendez-vous bien!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
No, but you could have worded your OP a lot better. Try to understand it from my view. We get a hundred or so ignorant creationists a month declaring that evolution = 100% random. Hell, even our long time (years) resident creationists still insist that evolution = 100% random. The way I understand it, mutations are the engine and natural selection is the steering wheel. Without mutations, where would NS go? Although NS and RM are interrelated, this thread is about mutations. I don't have to discuss both topics in one thread. After reading your other posts, I understand now that you are not like that. My apology for jumping the gun.
apparently you have been able to discern my motives and can see through my veiled attempt to convert you to my religion.
I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm actually psychic. The proof of this is the fact that I'm never wrong...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4532 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
But looking at the list of serendipitus discoveries
quote: was there anyone besides me who wanted to see the results of an experiment combining LSD, Silly Putty and Viagra? Sorry, I'll go to my room now. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4830 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Already tried that experiment.
Have long since moved on to Helium, Viagra and microwave ovens myself. -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is probably closer to what I am thinking. (I wonder why you put it in such a small font size?) Because it's a footnote. That's obviously not how most evolution works.
For example, a plant would not need to respond to novel food sources, but they would need to respond to climate changes, altitude changes and the like. So a general mechanism would not be necessary, but a specific mechanism would allow the organism to respond appropriately to changes in environment. But when we investigate such mechanisms they don't involve organisms doing genetic engineering on their germ cells. When I'm exposed to the sun, I tan, I don't change the DNA in my sperm to ensure that I have black children.
I do realize that there are mutations that are random, being caused by errors in replication. I noted the error rate that seems to be accepted - 1 error in 1 billion nucleotide replications. As you noted, most are not particularly useful. Then add into it that the mutation must happen in the germ cells and then be the lucky germ to be fertilized (or involved in fertilization) and the odds are beyond my liking. Would it be too much to ask that an argument from incredulity directed against a quantitative proposition should involve some actual math? It turns out that the rate of mutation does account for the rate of evolution. I can show you some figures if you like.
I think your comment about being simpler to imagine fails to recognize the incredible complexity of cellular processes. Nothing that goes on within the cell is simple. Nothing about the cell is simple to imagine. The fact that a cell is a fairly complex thing doesn't imply that it can perform intelligent acts of genetic engineering any more than it implies that it can write operettas. We know, after all, what the various bits of the cell do. They don't do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4830 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
herebedragons writes: I do realize that there are mutations that are random, being caused by errors in replication. I noted the error rate that seems to be accepted - 1 error in 1 billion nucleotide replications. As you noted, most are not particularly useful. Then add into it that the mutation must happen in the germ cells and then be the lucky germ to be fertilized (or involved in fertilization) and the odds are beyond my liking. And yet, statistically you should possess more than a hundred mutations (most which have little to no effect) that your parents didn't have. Add to that every other member of your generation and their mutations which also become part of the gene pool. I fail to see why the "odds" are not to your liking. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4532 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
See, this is why I love science. The things you learn.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stagamancer Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 174 From: Oregon Joined: |
there is a difference between accidently discovering something while looking for something else and relying on mistakes for advancements.
Yes, but if that's all you have, that's all you can do. Individual cells do not possess the capacity for invention, they have no creative ability, so they rely on chance.
How does the individual cell know how to do any of the cellular functions it carries out?
It doesn't "know". The processes of the cell occur spontaneously. All of the reactions that happen in the cell are either thermodynamically favorable (exergonic) or are fueled by an outside source of energy. Either way, they occur simply as a consortium of biochemical reactions without any conscious thought. Cognitive function is an emergent property of groups of cells. It cannot exist within a single cell.
Do you understand the extreme complexity of cellular processes?
I have a pretty good understanding, I am currently working towards my PhD in biology.
If we consider the amount of knowledge a cell does have, why can we not conceive that it also has the knowledge to make changes to itself in order to survive?
Because, as I said, individual cells do not have knowledge, much less the creative capacity to guess at what they'll need. What you're implying is that a single cell has the ability not only to recognize that it needs to adapt, but has the knowledge of how a change in nucleotide sequence will alter the function of a protein. We can't even make those predictions. However, as I alluded to in my previous post, it is possible for mutations to occur nonrandomly, in a sense. For example,
quote: Source As you can see in the text I've highlighted, cells can have control over where or when they increase mutation rates, but they still rely on the random chance that the mutations that happen are beneficial. So to sum up: cells cannot influence the kind of adaptation that a mutation presents, they can only sometimes influence the location in the genome or the rate at which they occur. We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? -Dan Ariely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3651 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Do you or do you not agree that mutation invariably happens? If you do not, please explain why and give us examples. If you do agree, then I don't understand what the argument is here. Neither you, nor anyone else, can give any examples of positive random mutations cropping up spontaneously in animal populations, such that would develop into new, functioning systems or organs. For a theory that depends ENTIRELY on a continuation of these type of developments happening in every animal population, your non-existence of actual examples of them is remarkable to say the least. Care to list just a half dozen or so examples of such beneficial random mutations in modern mammals so that we can all be so assured of your certainty of such events? There must be millions of them after all, when you think of all the complex systems in nature that have been formed, so that should be so very easy to highlight (billions actually).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Stagamancer writes: However, as I alluded to in my previous post, it is possible for mutations to occur nonrandomly, in a sense. For example, Yes. Here's a review paper on the subject. Like the paper you quote, it's ten years old, so this shouldn't be news to most EvC regulars. Organisms can react to stress in a way which has proven successful for their ancestors, and has therefore been selected for. This can increase variation in specific areas of the genome which are more likely to produce something useful in relation to the cause of the stress in the environment than other areas. It has obvious advantages over a general increase in mutation rate that's spread randomly over the whole genome, as it doesn't increase detrimental mutation rates in irrelevant areas. The paper, HERE, discusses some possible mechanisms in relation to starvation induced stress. A kind of apparent Lamarckian effect can be the result, because a positive adaption in relation to a new environmental factor can be speeded up. The answer to the question in the O.P. title, "Are mutations truly random or are they guided" is that some mutations are partially guided by a combination of environmental factors and the history of the species involved (whether or not it has inherited the tendency to react positively to a specific kind of stress). The initial ancestral tendency would, however, have been a random variation. The end result is an example of evolvability itself ( or adaptability if you like) having been selected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The mutation(s) which allow tanning and light skin, rather than heavily pigmented skin.
Oh, and you forgot to say, "Amen!" after your post. I say this because you are presenting religious dogma, not scientific information. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3651 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
The initial ancestral tendency would, however, have been a random variation. The end result is an example of evolvability itself ( or adaptability if you like) having been selected for. Once again, like so many of the assertions in the ToE we just have to take evolutionists word for it that this is how it happened, because of course you can't prove this assertion any more than all of the other ones. It must have been random at one time, and then got selected for, and that is how it became non-random.....and so just believe us... So even when we have examples of evolution being 'guided" by the individual, your theory is so flexible it can simply say, "well, yea, the evolution is guided NOW, but...." It should be renamed, The Incredible, Mutating, Adapting, Twisting, and Re-conforming Theory of Evolution of Whatever We Need it to Say That We Don't Have to Prove Theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Bolder-dash,
Given that we don't know everything and never will, there will always be questions for which we have few or no answers. Concerning examples of positive mutations in mammals, I'd be surprised if we know of very many. Mammals have very long generation times and very complex morphologies and functions, and mapping genes to morphology and function is a lengthy process. Random mutations are far more likely to be deleterious than advantageous. Their deleterious nature can be very extreme, even fatal, while their advantageous nature can be only subtlety incremental, and this is because large changes are bound to be bad. But as Dr Adequate alluded earlier, population genetics tells us that mutation rates are consistent with evolutionary processes. This was all worked out in the 1920's, and it resulted in what is referred to as the Modern Synthesis, or the synthetic theory of evolution, which is the merging of genetics with the theory of evolution. Prior to the work of the population geneticists it was considered possible that genetics would not prove consistent with evolution, thereby bringing Darwinian evolution into question, but the research revealed that they reinforced each other. Your concerns that mutation rates are not consistent with evolution was addressed nearly a century ago. Advantageous mutations are easier to identify in organisms that have a very short generation time. Some bacteria reproduce as often as every 20 minutes, but identifying advantageous mutations is still very difficult, because the advantage is usually very subtle. Identifying bacteria that look identical to all the other billions of bacteria but that reproduce 1% or 2% more successfully or that survive 1% or 2% more successfully is very difficult. That's why experiments often involve drastic environmental changes, because positive mutations can be identified simply by looking at bacteria that didn't die. --Percy PS - Problems with moderation should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Once again, like so many of the assertions in the ToE we just have to take evolutionists word for it that this is how it happened, because of course you can't prove this assertion any more than all of the other ones. It must have been random at one time, and then got selected for, and that is how it became non-random.....and so just believe us... So even when we have examples of evolution being 'guided" by the individual, your theory is so flexible it can simply say, "well, yea, the evolution is guided NOW, but...." It should be renamed, The Incredible, Mutating, Adapting, Twisting, and Re-conforming Theory of Evolution of Whatever We Need it to Say That We Don't Have to Prove Theory. Amen. Now, if you don't mind, some of us are trying to discuss biology. We are aware of your halfwitted religious dogma, and if we were ever in danger of forgetting it, we could ask you to remind us of it. In the meantime could I point out that in the real world it is not a deficiency of a theory that it incorporates processes that are known for certain to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Neither you, nor anyone else, can give any examples of positive random mutations cropping up spontaneously in animal populations, such that would develop into new, functioning systems or organs. All those that have in fact produced new systems or organs. Unless you think they were produced by magic ... oh, but wait, you do. Well, if you're going to hide from reality behind magical explanations, I don't see what one could say that will make you face the facts. Go play with your imaginary friend.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024