Hey, Cal or Susu or anyone else who is awesome, can you answer something for me?

Why do people say random mutation? We now that there are many things that can directly cause mutation, which suggests rather strongly that in fact, there is nothing random about it, it may be the result of an extremely complex set of variables, and it may even be a set of variables about which we haven't discovered the effects of, but random seems completely wrong when used to describe what causes mutations.

Wouldn't "Pseudo-random" be more appropriate? Or even "Undefined-cause mutation"? Random is just complete bollocks. I don't even know that there even IS such a thing as "random". I know at the quanum mechanical level things are said to be, but those may well just be the result of us visualizing a multiple-dimensional process in a 4-dimensional frame. But I digress. Could I please get Cali or Susu to address this for me? I could be wrong, but I'd like to know in what way if I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen

Wikipedia wrote:Examples
Ionizing radiation, for example X-rays, gamma rays and alpha particles
Ultraviolet, electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light but longer than x-rays
Base analog, which can substitute for DNA bases and cause copying errors
Deaminating agents such as nitrous acid
Intercalating agents such as ethidium bromide
Alkylating agents such as ethylnitrosourea
Transposon, a section of DNA that undergoes autonomous fragment relocation/multiplication
Alkaloid plants, such as those from Vinca species
Bromine and some compounds that contain bromine in their chemical structure
Sodium azide, an azide salt that is a common reagent in organic synthesis and a component in many car airbag systems
Psoralen combined with ultraviolet radiation causes DNA cross-linking and hence chromosome breakage
Benzene, an industrial solvent and precursor in the production of drugs, plastics, synthetic rubber and dyes

As decidedly un-awesome as I am, I think random is the best word for these mutations. Random means lacking an overall structure or pattern. Generally when taking about evolutionary theory, we like to avoid using 'random' as there are selective pressures and patterns that create specific outcomes that mean evolution is not best represented as a random process. With these mutations, we are talking about them as events that don't have an overall pattern in terms of their incidence. They are just down to dumb luck.

'Well, I can't claim to be awesome, but I may be able to help. Random' in this context means 'statistically independent'. In other words, any given mutation is as probable as any other (in the context of the initial conditions of the system, the system being a stochastic one). It doesn't mean 'uncaused' or 'without mechanism', as cretinists apply the word.

It can also be applied in a description of a system in which there are many possible changes in state, all of which feature some degree of statistical indepence. In the case of mutations, the genome has many possible mutations, many locations in which mutations can occur, and several mechanisms by which mutations can occur. Thus, it is not possible (given our current understanding) to make categorical predictions about the future state of the system. This can also be described as randomness.

Random is a difficult word, not least because it is open to equivocation in this manner. It's still the best word we have to describe it, given the above applications of the word. It's one of those words that has to be clearly defined at the outset. When scientists use such words, of course, they understand what is meant in the given context. Much like many other words that have very specific definitions (or a selection of very specific definitions, dependent on very specific context), their vernacular definitions are applied differently.

I suspect that a lot of these problems arise simply from conversational use of language. When we speak conversationally, we cast around for synonyms in order to keep our conversation fresh and interesting. However; words that we treat conversationally as synonymous aren't necessarily directly synonymous, as most words that are closely related have very specific definitions. The way we use the words in conversation doesn't necessarily reflect that.

hackenslash wrote:'Well, I can't claim to be awesome, but I may be able to help. Random' in this context means 'statistically independent'. In other words, any given mutation is as probable as any other (in the context of the initial conditions of the system, the system being a stochastic one). It doesn't mean 'uncaused' or 'without mechanism', as cretinists apply the word.

It can also be applied in a description of a system in which there are many possible changes in state, all of which feature some degree of statistical indepence. In the case of mutations, the genome has many possible mutations, many locations in which mutations can occur, and several mechanisms by which mutations can occur. Thus, it is not possible (given our current understanding) to make categorical predictions about the future state of the system. This can also be described as randomness.

Random is a difficult word, not least because it is open to equivocation in this manner. It's still the best word we have to describe it, given the above applications of the word. It's one of those words that has to be clearly defined at the outset. When scientists use such words, of course, they understand what is meant in the given context. Much like many other words that have very specific definitions (or a selection of very specific definitions, dependent on very specific context), their vernacular definitions are applied differently.

I suspect that a lot of these problems arise simply from conversational use of language. When we speak conversationally, we cast around for synonyms in order to keep our conversation fresh and interesting. However; words that we treat conversationally as synonymous aren't necessarily directly synonymous, as most words that are closely related have very specific definitions. The way we use the words in conversation doesn't necessarily reflect that.

RE: the italicized part, that's what I was getting at. It just seems dishonest to me that we call it random, knowing that there is a reason behind it, just one that we don't yet know. There was a time we didn't know the cause of valcanoes or rain, would then it be accurate if we described them as random until the mechanism were discovered and well defined? If so, then I guess I had a big misunderstand of the word itself but I appreciate the response and hope you reply again quickly, hack.

If it were the case then that the mechanism be well defined before no longer calling it random, then there could well come a day when randomness no longer exists. If it is independant of our understanding of the process, then I suggest no such things exists already.

num1cubfn wrote:RE: the italicized part, that's what I was getting at. It just seems dishonest to me that we call it random, knowing that there is a reason behind it, just one that we don't yet know.

That's because, properly applied, 'random' doesn't actually mean 'without cause or reason'. It means one of the two (related) things I mentioned.

There was a time we didn't know the cause of valcanoes or rain, would then it be accurate if we described them as random until the mechanism were discovered and well defined?

We still describe them as random, and rightly so. Bear in mind that we still don't know when a volcano will erupt, or precisely what effects an eruption will have. Bear in mind that when Mount St Helens erupted, there were researchers watching the whole thing unfold, with all sorts of measuring devices, and they were still taken by surprise. Earthquakes are siimilar. Tectonic activity is reasonably well understood, in terms of the mechanisms behind it, yet the Haiti earthquake was not predicted, nor did we actually have any means to predict it, and that's a situation in which the variables are actually quite small by comparison.

Equally, we can only predict the weather for about three days or so, and then only imperfectly. Anybody remember Michael Fish? The fact is that we can't make categorical predictions about either, because the variables are numerous and not completely understood at this time. Frankly, I'll be surprised if we ever reach the state in which we can predict the weather with a high degree of certainty. Chaos theory applies there, given the absolutely vast number of interacting agents (particles in the atmosphere).

Edited to address your edit:

If it were the case then that the mechanism be well defined before no longer calling it random, then there could well come a day when randomness no longer exists. If it is independant of our understanding of the process, then I suggest no such things exists already.

I doubt that, as mentioned above with regard to the weather. Most of the issue with trying to predict the future state of the genome is that mutations are (largely) a product of the fact that the copying process is imperfect. Thus, it's quite probably impossible to make any categorical predictions about the future state of even one allele, let alone the full set of alleles that makes up the genome (bear in mind that there isn't 'one human genome', but 6.7 billion different human genomes). Not only that, but 'junk DNA' must be taken into account. We call it junk, but is it? The 'natural selection' portion of the evolutionary process can only be stated properly with regard to specific environments. It is often overlooked that the genome is actually part of the environment, so that genes influence genes. Until the understanding of the genome is far more completely understood than it is at present, it's difficult to predict whether we will have full mastery of it, but I have my doubts.

hackenslash wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:RE: the italicized part, that's what I was getting at. It just seems dishonest to me that we call it random, knowing that there is a reason behind it, just one that we don't yet know.

That's because, properly applied, 'random' doesn't actually mean 'without cause or reason'. It means one of the two (related) things I mentioned.

There was a time we didn't know the cause of valcanoes or rain, would then it be accurate if we described them as random until the mechanism were discovered and well defined?

We still describe them as random, and rightly so. Bear in mind that we still don't know when a volcano will erupt, or precisely what effects an eruption will have. Bear in mind that when Mount St Helens erupted, there were researchers watching the whole thing unfold, with all sorts of measuring devices, and they were still taken by surprise. Earthquakes are siimilar. Tectonic activity is reasonably well understood, in terms of the mechanisms behind it, yet the Haiti earthquake was not predicted, nor did we actually have any means to predict it, and that's a situation in which the variables are actually quite small by comparison.

Equally, we can only predict the weather for about three days or so, and then only imperfectly. Anybody remember Michael Fish? The fact is that we can't make categorical predictions about either, because the variables are numerous and not completely understood at this time. Frankly, I'll be surprised if we ever reach the state in which we can predict the weather with a high degree of certainty. Chaos theory applies there, given the absolutely vast number of interacting agents (particles in the atmosphere).

Yeah, it might just be ignorant stubborness on my part, but I have issue with Chaos theory as well. I concur that WE could never know everything at one time, but something the size of the universe could. (I think we should get to work on building it).

Sorry, I meant to do a quick edit to address your edit, but it got longer as I thought about it.

num1cubfn wrote:Yeah, it might just be ignorant stubborness on my part, but I have issue with Chaos theory as well. I concur that WE could never know everything at one time, but something the size of the universe could. (I think we should get to work on building it).

Ooh, I have real problems with that. How can the universe know anything?

I know that Sagan said, in one of his more poetic moments, that we are a way for the universe to know itself. However; I don't think for a second he meant that in any more than a poetic sense, such as Einstein's use of 'god'.

I have a sneaking suspicion that such a degree of predictive understanding is actually beyond us. It may be that AI will provide some solutions to this problem eventually.

hackenslash wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:Yeah, it might just be ignorant stubborness on my part, but I have issue with Chaos theory as well. I concur that WE could never know everything at one time, but something the size of the universe could. (I think we should get to work on building it).

Ooh, I have real problems with that. How can the universe know anything?

I know that Sagan said, in one of his more poetic moments, that we are a way for the universe to know itself. However; I don't think for a second he meant that in any more than a poetic sense, such as Einstein's use of 'god'.

I have a sneaking suspicion that such a degree of predictive understanding is actually beyond us. It may be that AI will provide some solutions to this problem eventually.

I meant a machine that utilized every single atom. It was a joke that I guess I didn't explain very well, becuase once it were built there would be noone to use it. I liked the paradox in my head but didn't spell it out very well.

Also, it would have to have a method of self assembly to do the last part AND would have to have a feature that caused the assembly part of it to convert back to data collection after assembly were complete.

Edit: I guess I still didn't explain it well because the whole point of the joke was that my ignorant stubbornness about chaos theory was shown to be just that from the joke, because any system of capable of knowing everything would have to contain everything to store all the data, and would therefore be unable to provide information to anyone since all atoms would be encompassed by the machine.

I'm sorry maybe none of it makes sense, but it was funny in my head.

Time I reposted this ...

[9] The infamous "chance" and "random" canards (now with "nothing" side salad).

Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. Usually taking the form of "scientists think life arose by chance", or variants thereof such as "you believe life was an accident". This is, not to put too fine a point upon it, bullshit.

What scientists actually postulate, and they postulate this with respect to every observable phenomenon in the universe, is that well defined and testable mechanisms are responsible. Mechanisms that are amenable to empirical test and understanding, and in many cases, amenable to the development of a quantitative theory. Two such quantitative theories, namely general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places. As an aside, when someone can point to an instance of mythology producing something this useful, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice, and not before.

Likewise, erecting statements such as "random mutation can't produce X", where X is some complex feature of multicellular eukaryote organisms, will also invite much scorn, derision and contempt. First of all, drop the specious apologetic bullshit that "random" means "without rhyme or reason", because it doesn't. In rigorous scientific parlance, "random", with respect to mutations, means "we have insufficient information about the actual process that took place at the requisite time". This is because scientists have known for decades, once again, that mutations arise from well defined natural processes, and indeed, any decent textbook on the subject should list several of these, given that the Wikipedia page on mutations covers the topic in considerable depth. Go here, scroll down to the text "Induced mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:", and read on from that point. When you have done this, and you have learned that scientists have classified a number of well defined chemical reactions leading to mutations, you will be in a position to understand why the critical thinkers here regard the creationist use of "random" to mean "duh, it just happened" with particularly withering disdain. When scientists speak of "random" mutations, what they really mean is "one of these processes took place, but we don't have the detailed observational data to determine which of these processes took place, when it took place, and at what point it took place, in this particular instance. Though of course, anyone with a decent background in research genetics can back-track to an ancestral state for the gene in question. Indeed, as several scientific papers in the literature testify eloquently, resurrecting ancient genes is now a routine part of genetics research.

Then, of course, we have that other brand of nonsense that creationists love to erect, which also fits into this section, namely the fatuous "you believe nothing created the universe" canard, and assorted corollary examples of palsied asininity based upon the same cretinous notion. Which is amply addressed by the above, namely that scientists postulate that well defined and testable natural mechanisms, operating upon the appropriate entities, were responsible for real world observational phenomena. In what fantasy parallel universe does "well defined and testable natural mechanisms, operating upon the appropriate entities" equal "nothing"? If you think that those two are synonyms, then again, you are in serious need of education, and you are in no position to lecture those of us who bothered to acquire one.

Random does not mean anything can happen; even in quantum mechanics, permanent violations of the conservation of energy cannot occur. Something being random just means that it has no definitive aim or purpose, not sent or guided in a particular direction.

Calilasseia wrote:Time I reposted this ...

[9] The infamous "chance" and "random" canards (now with "nothing" side salad).

Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. Usually taking the form of "scientists think life arose by chance", or variants thereof such as "you believe life was an accident". This is, not to put too fine a point upon it, bullshit.

Actually chance is the only way life could have arisen without any intelligent intervention. To say it is just a matter of chemistry is absolute garbage.

What scientists actually postulate, and they postulate this with respect to every observable phenomenon in the universe, is that well defined and testable mechanisms are responsible. Mechanisms that are amenable to empirical test and understanding, and in many cases, amenable to the development of a quantitative theory. Two such quantitative theories, namely general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places. As an aside, when someone can point to an instance of mythology producing something this useful, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice, and not before.

Without random mutations, whose spontaneous occurence cannot be predicted or tested, evolutionary theory is dead in the water.

Likewise, erecting statements such as "random mutation can't produce X", where X is some complex feature of multicellular eukaryote organisms, will also invite much scorn, derision and contempt. First of all, drop the specious apologetic bullshit that "random" means "without rhyme or reason", because it doesn't. In rigorous scientific parlance, "random", with respect to mutations, means "we have insufficient information about the actual process that took place at the requisite time". This is because scientists have known for decades, once again, that mutations arise from well defined natural processes, and indeed, any decent textbook on the subject should list several of these, given that the Wikipedia page on mutations covers the topic in considerable depth. Go here, scroll down to the text "Induced mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:", and read on from that point. When you have done this, and you have learned that scientists have classified a number of well defined chemical reactions leading to mutations, you will be in a position to understand why the critical thinkers here regard the creationist use of "random" to mean "duh, it just happened" with particularly withering disdain. When scientists speak of "random" mutations, what they really mean is "one of these processes took place, but we don't have the detailed observational data to determine which of these processes took place, when it took place, and at what point it took place, in this particular instance. Though of course, anyone with a decent background in research genetics can back-track to an ancestral state for the gene in question. Indeed, as several scientific papers in the literature testify eloquently, resurrecting ancient genes is now a routine part of genetics research.

Evolution by random mutations is flawed because however much these mutations "selected for", there is no coordination or synchronization involved. They don't occur with any regularity or order to build on each other in a meaningful way. Natural selection would require related changes to be able to do anything useful with them.

Calilasseia wrote:
[...]Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. [...]

Prediction.

Atheistoclast wrote:Actually chance is the only way life could have arisen without any intelligent intervention

Verification.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
[...]Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. [...]

Prediction.

Atheistoclast wrote:Actually chance is the only way life could have arisen without any intelligent intervention

Verification.

Science... it works, bitches!

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
[...]Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. [...]

Prediction.

Atheistoclast wrote:Actually chance is the only way life could have arisen without any intelligent intervention

Verification.

Where is your mechanism for the origination of life?

You don't have one.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
[...]Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. [...]

Prediction.

Atheistoclast wrote:Actually chance is the only way life could have arisen without any intelligent intervention

Verification.

Where is your mechanism for the origination of life?

You don't have one.

Where's yours?

Seriously, where's your scientific, evidence-based, falsifiable theory about the origination of life?

From the discussion I've had with creationsists (too many, to be honest) they will usually insist on defining 'random' as of being 'pure chance' in order to make the claim that if something happened 'randomly' than it could never have happened, and as such, some processes must be guided.

The fallacy at work here is the failure to recognize or understand that some events and processes can be both random and inevitable, a concept which tends to escape creationists entirely.

Strictly, the fallacy at work here is the fallacy of equivocation, as the cretinist is equivocating between two meaning of the word 'random', the rigorous and the vernacular. It's among the favourite cretinist fallacies, as you are no doubt aware.

hackenslash wrote:Strictly, the fallacy at work here is the fallacy of equivocation, as the cretinist is equivocating between two meaning of the word 'random', the rigorous and the vernacular. It's among the favourite cretinist fallacies, as you are no doubt aware.

As they do with 'theory'

Atheistoclast wrote:
Evolution by random mutations is flawed because however much these mutations "selected for", there is no coordination or synchronization involved. They don't occur with any regularity or order to build on each other in a meaningful way. Natural selection would require related changes to be able to do anything useful with them.

What kind of 'coordination or synchronization' do you envisage, other than the 'coordination and synchronization' of selection?
Mutations don't have to be 'regular' or 'ordered' (I don't understand fully some of the terms you use, hence the quotes). They just have to occur and then selection takes over.
Natural selection would not require 'related' changes (whatever they are) to do anything useful with them.
All it takes is a mutation: if that mutation increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing and passing on the mutation, it does.
If it doesn't, it doesn't.