Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

Speaking as a mathematician, I have to disagree."Random" need not imply that all outcomes are equi-probable.

Each roll is random. Each mutation is random.Dice rolls are therefore random; mutations are therefore random. Your definition of "random", if you even have one, is staggeringly at odds with mathematics and common sense.

This is a strong statement of Gould's. I think it is becoming apparent that on the grand scale he was wrong. Even on rather detailed scales there is reason to think it is wrong.The claim is, however, not unfounded. It is not very strongly supported though. It is made without adequate knowledge of the details and an experimental sample of just one history. It is supported by reasoning from the degrees of freedom that life has open to it. The amount of "contingency" (a fav word of Gould's) involved. This is enough to suggest that an exact replay isn't very tenable as an idea. While we can make accurate predictions about the nature of our 1,000 dice rolls and the next 1,000 will be similar we can be dammed sure that the two patterns of numbers will not be the same.Howver, that is probably enough for the topic at hand. We've established some idea of what the "random" in the topic title might mean. That is: there are constrained not perfectly predictable changes that can occur in the genome.The evidence suggesting that it is at least partially wrong is the reoccurance of many patterns in living organisms. But would this be true if we rewond history and started way back? Some say yes, some say no. We need more samples.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-15-2006 12:08 AM

nosey, frankly as far as providing definitions of random for evolution claims, I think evos don't agree on what random actually means. I think some claim that if we rewound history and started, presumably, with the first life form, that everything would turn out different. I think plenty of other evos would have a problem with that idea of randomness.Imo, the assertion by evos of randomness is more akin to a loosely defined faith statement designed to undermine any belief that evolution could be planned or directed. That is certainly the view of many prominent evos, as the thread on the Charlie Rose interview showed.But the truth is "randomness" is always limited. It is only true within a certain context. The individual role of the dice is random in the sense you can only tell it will produce one of several choices, but the pattern produced by rolling the dice many times is not random since there are limited choices.So if mutations are like rolling the dice, then they are not really random as far as producing results. Of course, it's a bit more complicated than rolling the dice, but it still comes around to specific causes producing a specific predictable pattern, and imo, is fundamentally at odds with the whole strain of Darwinism. In fact, evolution is thus demonstrably a guided process, if macroevolution is true. It is guided by the properties of DNA, the chemistry and even QM according to some. Unless one can show that the origins of the universe is totally random, and does not have an Intelligent Cause, then the logical conclusion is that any sane evolutionary model is a form of Intelligent Design.

Well, at best we can say it is an unproven claim, and imo a highly dubious claim, and so the claim of random mutations, so critical to evolutionary theory, is vague and unproven (layman's term).

nwr, can you explain what is meant by "random mutations" in the context of evolutionary theory?Are you saying that the general pattern of mutations is highly predictable but just random per individual occurence, as with rolling of dice, or something larger?

Indeed. When it comes to DNA though the analogy gets complicated. We would need to have a die that when rolled would change its dimensions subtly.In a sense you are saying, that if an event has a frequency it cannot be random. In the die case we are talking a frequency of 1/6 for each possibility. That would mean very little is random, radioactive decay isn't random. Given that DNA replication takes place at the molecular level, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum effects come into play. Indeed, radioactive decay can cause mutations. If you think we could rewind time and all things would happen in the same way down to the quantum events...then yes, life would follow the same road of course.The alternative is that random events are still random and life might proceed differently. I think the 'claim' evos are making when they say this is more in context of 'evolutionary direction' and 'unrolling'.I think what evos are saying is that we are unable to predict what mutation will happen when. The order that the mutations happen in can be important. Thus, we cannot predict what will happen even if we can guess at the frequencies of certain mutations.

The first part of your post i've already agreed with in noting that there are differences of opinions on it. The differences are not, in my opinion, black and white however.You then try another rant (and you were doing pretty well for a bit there) based, again, on your lack of knowledge. The only logical conclusion is that we don't know if we go back to the most original origin (the determination of the laws of nature). That is NOT an "evolutionary" model. The evolutionary model we are talking about is the possibility of the existing DNA and processes to cause and increase in SC.Once those intial conditions are in place (however they got there) there is enough room for unpredictability to allow imperfect replicators to explore a constrained space of possible genomes. I think we can now return to the main theme of the thread.

I think we all agree on what "random" means, because we've all had basic statistics classes. Not sure what your problem is. It's hard to believe that a person could graduate high school in the United States and not have a familiarity with basic probability. No, it's actually not. Just because you roll one dice a thousand times and you get close to a pattern, doesn't mean that the dice were guided. Each roll was random. Rolling dice is random, by definition.Mutations are random because each mutation is random. The fact that you can develop a statistical pattern in some cases doesn't mean they're not random. Seriously, Rand. This is textbook stuff. You're way out of the mainstream about what "random" means.

I think the significance in ToE of the claim of random mutations is to assert that it is an unguided process; that life is not designed, and that is indeed what some prominent evos have stated.But it's wrong. Just because there is a random factor, perhaps and maybe not, that doesn't mean that the overall process is unguided. Keep in mind I am not saying that I think mutations can even create macroevolution, but just getting into the claim of random mutations in general.The truth is there is no reason to not think that the pattern is highly specified. Sure, rewind history, and there may be some differences, but I bet the pattern would be very similar, if ToE is true, and so claiming that evolution is an unguided process is just plain wrong. It is guided by embedded principles and properties within the universe and so whoever and whatever created and established those principles and properties is responsible for the process, and if it is reasonable, and I think it is, that an Intelligent Cause is logically responsible, it is also logical to consider that such an Intelligence knew and created the pattern ahead of time. To thus mock ID, as evos do, is nonsensical since if one looks at ToE closely, it shows an ID process, if true.Of course, I have problems with evolutionary models as I don't think they match the facts.

Actually, dice rolling is a guided process. Dice don't roll by themselves generally.

It sure is. I think I made that clear.Evolutionary theory will manage to run fine with your definition of "random" mutations too. Since I think you're very close to what the actual case has been understood to be for a long time. It has certainly be made clear to me in the limited reading I've done.You're argument seems to be only with the idea of random as being utterly accidental. By saying something that is constained as to outcome and statistically predictable you haven't made any progress. The actual outcome can still be one of a reasonably large number. It may be in fact an utterly collosal number out of a number collosally more collosal. It is enormously constrained with a tiny chance of occuring but it is but one of a huge number of things which could have occured.Let's agree that nothing is random but that somethings are not, in detail, predictable and have you tell us what that has to do with the prohibition of SC increasing. It is time to return to the topic instead of you trying to rewrite the definition of well understood terms.

I'm not a biologist, so I am probably the wrong person to ask. As I understand it, this simply means that there is no observed direction to the mutations.

I think you are now in very, very close agreement with Jar now.However, someone establishing the constraints (picking a 6 sided or 8 sided die) is constraining the process not guiding it. Once one or the other die is picked the outcomes have been "guided" to be rather different indeed. But the guider picking the cube or octahedron has no further ability to predict the outcome.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002725.htmlListen to what these 2 prominent evos say. I am paraphrasing below, not exact quote."The acheivement of Darwin....was to present the idea of evolution by random genetic change that was sorted out by natural selection by the environment, hence by autonomy ....as an autonomous...and independent of any outside force, that life arose as an uncontrolled and undesigned process."