What does it mean to have Random Mutations?

Unfortunately many biologists can't explain the randomness factor in genetics because they don't understand statistics that well.

As if saying "it's a random process" wraps it up nicely somehow. What is a random process?
Well, if you write a program that does a random walk through an array of arbitrary dimensions, it's something like that.
Statistics and probability are behind the so-called random effect. Although specific mutations can be acquired "totally randomly" - like from cosmic rays - the process of adapting or rejecting genetic variants is not random. Not even slightly random - the chemistry involved is very directed and "purposeful".

Of course, we are free to simply say this is metaphorical, chemistry isn't really purposeful. Then neither is [the chemistry of] evolution, in fact there is no purpose or direction at all - we just think there is because evolution gave us brains that think in, well, directed ways, but of course this can't possibly be related to chemistry being "purposeful"...

Maybe we're a metaphor of our own making, and so is everything else we think "exists", but that's not very illuminating or non-tautological is it?
 
noodler said:
Unfortunately many biologists can't explain the randomness factor in genetics because they don't understand statistics that well.

As if saying "it's a random process" wraps it up nicely somehow. What is a random process?
Well, if you write a program that does a random walk through an array of arbitrary dimensions, it's something like that.
Statistics and probability are behind the so-called random effect. Although specific mutations can be acquired "totally randomly" - like from cosmic rays -
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "totally random"?

the process of adapting or rejecting genetic variants is not random. Not even slightly random - the chemistry involved is very directed and "purposeful".
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
Nice response baftan-

As I understand then there is no real such thing as "random" mutation, we only call it random because we don't know enough about it to explain it. Wouldn't "uncertain" be a better word to describe this situation then? Do you follow the deterministic view as presented in the Chaos Theory?

Peace be unto you ;)
Click to expand...

there isn't any such thing as " random " mutation

genetic mutations are from the environment in which the living being is in
 
noodler said:
Unfortunately many biologists can't explain the randomness factor in genetics because they don't understand statistics that well.

As if saying "it's a random process" wraps it up nicely somehow. What is a random process?
Well, if you write a program that does a random walk through an array of arbitrary dimensions, it's something like that.
Statistics and probability are behind the so-called random effect. Although specific mutations can be acquired "totally randomly" - like from cosmic rays - the process of adapting or rejecting genetic variants is not random. Not even slightly random - the chemistry involved is very directed and "purposeful".

Of course, we are free to simply say this is metaphorical, chemistry isn't really purposeful. Then neither is [the chemistry of] evolution, in fact there is no purpose or direction at all - we just think there is because evolution gave us brains that think in, well, directed ways, but of course this can't possibly be related to chemistry being "purposeful"...

Maybe we're a metaphor of our own making, and so is everything else we think "exists", but that's not very illuminating or non-tautological is it?
Click to expand...

very wrong
 
“ Originally Posted by noodler
Unfortunately many biologists can't explain the randomness factor in genetics because they don't understand statistics that well.
Click to expand...

but some do though

As if saying "it's a random process" wraps it up nicely somehow. What is a random process?
Well, if you write a program that does a random walk through an array of arbitrary dimensions, it's something like that.
Statistics and probability are behind the so-called random effect. Although specific mutations can be acquired "totally randomly" - like from cosmic rays - the process of adapting or rejecting genetic variants is not random. Not even slightly random - the chemistry involved is very directed and "purposeful".

Of course, we are free to simply say this is metaphorical, chemistry isn't really purposeful. Then neither is [the chemistry of] evolution, in fact there is no purpose or direction at all - we just think there is because evolution gave us brains that think in, well, directed ways, but of course this can't possibly be related to chemistry being "purposeful"...

Maybe we're a metaphor of our own making, and so is everything else we think "exists", but that's not very illuminating or non-tautological is it?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected , I see what your saying better , and I agree
 
786 said:
Does random (mutation, genetic drift, etc..) in this context means that it just happened to have happened (chance) this way, and that it wasn't purposefully caused?
Click to expand...

786 said:
It is not "my" way. The real defined method in science is the "mathematical" random (which is also obscure) but no one understands science in this regards, random is chance that is how we understand, certainly that is how Richard Dawkins and anyone or scientist that claims that Evolution has a "component of chance" is defining it. One has to wonder what is the component of chance since all the mechanisms that lead to Evolution are Random and that the randomness is selected by Natural Selection (not random)- it means the component of chance are the mechanisms that involve randomness. So it is the intrinsic definition, which you can call implied definition, of random=chance that everyone (even Dawkins who understands Evolution much better than me) utilizes.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you are attempting to create semantic loopholes and leap through them by crossing science with deeper philosophical questions. The answer to your question is; yes, random mutation happens by chance and is not purposefully caused. The mechanisms of mutation are not predictable and are thus random. They are most certainly not "purposefully caused" by any detectable mechanism.

Your second query is philosophical rather than scientific; the nature of the universe and whether or not it is ultimately deterministic, indeterministic, or directed does not fit within the scope of the initial question and is thus irrelevant.

As to the philosophical question, what we know so far seems to indicate that the universe is probabilistic rather than strictly deterministic and that many things are effectively random (their causes being incalculable) even if they are not strictly random. As to the ultimate nature of reality... no one knows.

~Raithere
 
Well if anyone is interested, there has been research showing all mutations are NOT random as previously thought (and still part of the theory :bugeye: ). They call these "adaptive mutations" which I would call "self-directed" because it is the cells own response and not because of something like comic rays or other mutagens.

Here is a research showing this, if anyone is interested:

Adaptive Amplification and Point Mutation Are Independent Mechanisms: Evidence for Various Stress-Inducible Mutation Mechanisms

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Most mutations are unpredictible, but it has been known that genes are protected or encouraged towards mutation by the mechanisms of redundency and error correction.
 
spidergoat said:
Most mutations are unpredictible, but it has been known that genes are protected or encouraged towards mutation by the mechanisms of redundency and error correction.
Click to expand...

Actually the mutations in the paper are NOT about redundancy or "error correction" but mutants are specifically created by the organism to survive.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
That is interesting, but if it exists, it is also the result of evolution.

May your genitals shrivel up like dried apples ;)
 
spidergoat said:
That is interesting, but if it exists, it is also the result of evolution.
Click to expand...

It may be the result of evolution but that is besides the point. I am only discussing random mutations not that evolution is right or wrong. The theory of evolution should eliminate the word 'random' and replace it with something that is more scientific, especially with current research such as this showing that all mutations are not random.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
It's very technical, but it seems that in times of stress, a cell might create mutagenic chemicals. The mutation itself is not directed but random, and the result of these chemicals. That is my amateur interpretation.
 
spidergoat said:
It's very technical, but it seems that in times of stress, a cell might create mutagenic chemicals. The mutation itself is not directed but random, and the result of these chemicals. That is my amateur interpretation.
Click to expand...

It is directed- the mutation is caused for a purposeful reason, not that it "just happened".

Peace be unto you ;)
 
The mutagenic compounds are released, but I don't see where an actual mutation is directed. Again, my reading of that abstract may be incorrect.

Two general models for the adaptive point mutation mechanism in this system are currently at odds...

1. In “hypermutation models,” the observed high frequency of Lac+ point mutants is proposed to result from transient hypermutation as part of a stress response, one consequence of which is acceleration of genetic change (and so potentially of evolution)...This view is compatible with Darwinism, which allows for changing rates of generation of heritable variations...

2. In an alternative model, called “amplification–mutagenesis,” amplification is an intermediate in the formation of Lac+ point mutants...This adheres to conservative neo-Darwinist ideas of constant and gradual evolutionary change
Click to expand...

Neither of which are inconsistent with evolution. All that is implied is that in times of stress, a cell can deliberately encourage mutation, which would be to it's advantage, because if it's doing badly, a change might do better.
 
spidergoat said:
The mutagenic compounds are released, but I don't see where an actual mutation is directed. Again, my reading of that abstract may be incorrect.



Neither of which are inconsistent with evolution. All that is implied is that in times of stress, a cell can deliberately encourage mutation, which would be to it's advantage, because if it's doing badly, a change might do better.
Click to expand...

I never said it was against evolution. The way scientists understand random- this doesn't fit the bill.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
It has always been known that even if mutation is random, there are circumstances that can increase it. In this case, it's stress, but it's still random.
 
spidergoat said:
It has always been known that even if mutation is random, there are circumstances that can increase it. In this case, it's stress, but it's still random.
Click to expand...

Increase it in a way so that its beneficial? The percentage of beneficial mutations increases dramatically- this is what we see if you read many papers related to the subject- so the trend isn't what you call "random".

I understand where you are coming from but in the scientific world this is not the same kind of "random" as is normally thought of.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
They are still random in that the effects are unpredictible. The benefit seems to be that if you find yourself in harsh conditions, you can either die or take a chance on evolutionary change, which could be beneficial or not. If the cell is likely to die anyway, why not take a chance on change? It is not at all clear that the study you cite reports that the mutations were always beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top