Mutations

Actually, NosyNed, I think the more important word that needs to be defined is what is meant by "random."Is there something that can happen all on its own without any consciousness involved? Or, is everything forced by an intelligence?You see, our biotechnology is sophisticated enough that we can create specific "mutations" in genes. I dare say that nobody would call these "random." They were deliberately plotted out and carried out by people intent upon it happening.How does one determine if something is "random"? When I take a coin and flip it, does it fall "randomly" or is there some consciousness involved in making it land the way it does?And if I were to take a handful of change and toss it on the ground and then take an identical handful of change and deliberately place each coin in the exact same pattern, by what criteria would you tell the two apart? And if you couldn't, why would a conclusion of them both being the product of "design" be more logical than a conclusion of "random"?And to muddy the waters even more, there is some evidence that environmental pressures can be so great and so highly specific that only certain specific mutations can survive. Even though no consciousness is involved in this (assuming that we agree that there are things that happen on their own), can the mutations really be called "random"? If the only result that can win is a 1, is it really a "random" result that all the dice we see in the next generation are 1s?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rayne resonds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, we're not here to play semantics with eachothers points.

---

But that's just it: The semantics are important.We cannot have a discussion unless we agree on terms. Have you read the threads here? We have people who claim that "no new information can ever be created in the genome."And yet, they will agree that you can duplicate a gene and then mutate that gene. They claim that duplicating a gene is not an "increase of information" (all the while refusing to define what they mean by "information") since it's the exact same thing as what you already have, not "new."That is, going from "a" to "aa" is not an "increase" since the second a is exactly the same as the first a.They then claim that mutating a gene isn't an "increase of information" since all it does is change the information you have, not an "increase."That is, going from "aa" to "ab" is not an "increase" because "aa" is just as long as "ab."But don't you see how ludicrous that is? What on earth do they think an "increase of information" is and how could duplication following by mutation not be exactly that?How is going from "a" to "ab" not an "increase of information"? Even if we were to agree that going from "a" to "aa" is not it and going from "aa" to "ab" is not it, surely the two of them together is exactly it.That's why it is important. You brought up "random" and the tone of your post indicated that you were about to engage in a game of gotcha. I simply asked you to be crystal clear about your terms.

quote:

---

All I want is an answer to my question, and as is plainly shown, you don't know it.

---

Incorrect.What I plainly showed was that your question needs to be clarified.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what I mean by "random".

---

It does when you bring it up. It's your argument. Therefore, you are the one that has to define your terms. If you don't care what "random" means, then simply talk about "mutation."Your other post seems to indicate some incredulity about the amount of mutation. You did say, after all: What is the point of this if not to eventually come around and say that the amount of mutation needed is so great that it couldn't have been random but had to be guided?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rayne responds to me:

quote:

---

This thread had the sole purpose of answering the single question: How much of evoloution is based off mutations?

---

Incorrect. It started with this question: Those are not the same questions.

quote:

---

Do you not realize that I registered with this site today?

---

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying you didn't bother to read the group to get an idea of what the tone of the posts are like, what threads have been discussed, who the people are who tend to hang out here, etc. before posting?

quote:

---

I could not have the time to go through the site reading what everyone has to say on the multitude of subjects.

---

Why not? Nobody forced you to post before reading the group for a while. Do you make a habit of jumping into other people's conversations without at first listening to what they're talking about?

quote:

---

My use of "random" was purely to add to the sentence.

---

But that words means something. If you didn't mean it, why did you use it?

quote:

---

But, to answer your question on the definition of "random", it would have to be this: without previous plan or prior concious thought. So no, todays biotechnological mutations would not be considered "random" in this context.

---

Then to answer your original question: Pretty much all of it. There are other aspects involved in evolution such as genetic drift, recombination, etc., but it's random mutation that is then acted upon by selection that is a major drive.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!