Intelligent Design vs. BaseBall Bat

[Francois Tremblay]

I see the problem. You confuse random and 'truely random'. These are two different concepts.

No, you're making a meaningless distinction so you can still be right. Fact is, "mutations are random" is nonsense by any definition of "random".

Mutations are random, in that we are (for the most part) unable to predict their outcome.

A belief which is disproven by not only many scientific studies - which I already proposed to present, but no one has accepted yet - but basic scientific experimentation on mutations. Scientists routinely predict how the mutation rate will change in different contexts. Are you saying they're all wrong ? If so, then you're no different than Kent Hovind.

ETA: To clarify, 'random' things are things which we are unable to predict. 'Truely random' things are this that there is no possible way to predict (think quantum fluctuations as the best example of a possible 'truely random' thing).

Regardless of your meaningless distinction, mutations are neither.

When we say "mutations are random", we simply mean "we cannot predict mutations".

Which has been proven false, since studies of evolution are predicated upon predicting the change in rate of mutations in different contexts. We can even simulate the evolution of bacteria now (see for instance : http://www.whitaker.org/news/palsson2.html ). So we can certainly "predict mutations" any way you cut it. Your anti-evolution belief does not hold water.

 

[bruto]

No, you're making a meaningless distinction so you can still be right. Fact is, "mutations are random" is nonsense by any definition of "random".




A belief which is disproven by not only many scientific studies - which I already proposed to present, but no one has accepted yet - but basic scientific experimentation on mutations. Scientists routinely predict how the mutation rate will change in different contexts. Are you saying they're all wrong ? If so, then you're no different than Kent Hovind.




Regardless of your meaningless distinction, mutations are neither.




Which has been proven false, since studies of evolution are predicated upon predicting the change in rate of mutations in different contexts. We can even simulate the evolution of bacteria now (see for instance : http://www.whitaker.org/news/palsson2.html ). So we can certainly "predict mutations" any way you cut it. Your anti-evolution belief does not hold water.

Wait a second there. You say mutations are not random because we can predict the change in rate. Fine. But can we predict the time and type of specific, individual mutations? I think there are differences in how you define "random," and while I don't pretend to be an expert on mutations, I was under the impression that at this individual level, they are considered random, assuming that we are not manipulating them. Is this wrong? Are you saying that we can indeed look at a population of organisms and predict what specific mutations will occur, and when?

I'm reminded of a demonstration of randomness that I saw long ago at the IBM pavilion at the 1964 World's fair. A number of steel balls were dropped on a tree of pins, falling "randomly" to one side or another of each pin until the bottom. It was impossible to predict the path of any single ball, but you could bet your life on the overall distribution of a few hundred balls. Randomness can be very tidy, just as determinism can be very chaotic.

Maybe we would do well to hear what your definition of "random" is.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Impression that I get: Mutations are "random" in the way that die rolls are "random": You can calculate what number will come up on a die, but it requires you to have a lot of data that you can't easily capture.

Whether or not those quotes belong in the above paragraph is a debate for lexicographers.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Once again, the fact that we can't predict mutations precisely does not make them "random". As I said before, if they were "random" then there would be no way to predict anything about them, because no law would regulate them. But we already understand what creates mutations, as well as how the genome adapts its mutation rates under stress, and we can make predictions about them.

So I've asked you to name one "random" property about mutations, and so far no one has been able to do so, because it does not exist, and it's a myth propagated by vulgarisations which are not meant to be precise, but that everyone believes to be precise.

The "mutations are random" nonsense is a pet peeve of mine because it's fundamentally irrational and goes against everything scientists do in the laboratory. It betrays a basic ignorance of how evolution works in nature.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The odd "random" mutation, however described, does not make evolution "random".

 

[Taffer]

No, you're making a meaningless distinction so you can still be right. Fact is, "mutations are random" is nonsense by any definition of "random".

I'm really not. "Random" is something which we cannot predict the outcome of. "Truely random" is a mathematical model.

A belief which is disproven by not only many scientific studies - which I already proposed to present, but no one has accepted yet - but basic scientific experimentation on mutations. Scientists routinely predict how the mutation rate will change in different contexts. Are you saying they're all wrong ? If so, then you're no different than Kent Hovind.

Predicting the rate is no different from predicting the number of 6's rolled on a D6 over a large number of rolls.

Regardless of your meaningless distinction, mutations are neither.

Yes, they are. We cannot predict when an individual mutation event will happen, thus mutations are random. We can predict how the overall rate of mutation will change, because we understand most of the mechanisms involved, but this does not mean we can predict mutations. Rates of mutations is just the same as the probability of mutations.

Which has been proven false, since studies of evolution are predicated upon predicting the change in rate of mutations in different contexts. We can even simulate the evolution of bacteria now (see for instance : http://www.whitaker.org/news/palsson2.html ). So we can certainly "predict mutations" any way you cut it. Your anti-evolution belief does not hold water.

"Anti-evolution" belief? Well, I'm glad you pointed it out to me, before I went on to do my masters thesis in evolutionary genetics.

 

[Taffer]

Once again, the fact that we can't predict mutations precisely does not make them "random". As I said before, if they were "random" then there would be no way to predict anything about them, because no law would regulate them. But we already understand what creates mutations, as well as how the genome adapts its mutation rates under stress, and we can make predictions about them.

Again you are confusing 'random' with 'truely random'. One is simply our inability to predict (which we cannot, for mutations). One is more akin individual radiation events. Sure, we can predict the rate of radiation in a substance, but we cannot predict each individual time a particular for of radiation will be ejected from a nuclus.

So I've asked you to name one "random" property about mutations, and so far no one has been able to do so, because it does not exist, and it's a myth propagated by vulgarisations which are not meant to be precise, but that everyone believes to be precise.

Insults aside, I can name a random property of mutations. Look at a single basepair. Can you, with even low certainty, say exactly what type of mutation will occur and when exactly it will occur? Of course you can't. Rates of mutation is akin to the probability of any individual basepair mutating. For example, it is calculated (and I did this in my own experiment) that the average rate of mutation in bactera is (IIRC) 10^-8. This means that, for each basepair (ignoring mutation hotspots), there is a 1 in 10^-8 chance that it will mutate (given one replication cycle, for example). This is why they are random.

The "mutations are random" nonsense is a pet peeve of mine because it's fundamentally irrational and goes against everything scientists do in the laboratory. It betrays a basic ignorance of how evolution works in nature.

Are you saying I'm ignorant of how evolution works? If you do, I'd say my schooling has been pretty much useless then. I major in genetics, and we deal with rates of mutation on an almost daily basis. We cannot predict individual mutation events, just as we cannot predict individual dice rolls. We can predict the rates of mutation (and thus the probability), just as we can predict that 1/6 dice rolls (on average) will be a 5. This is what "random" means, mate.

And even if mutations were 'truely' random, how does this effect evolution in the slightest?

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Again you are confusing 'random' with 'truely random'.

Meaningless. Both mean the same thing : uncaused properties. And total unpredictability.

Insults aside, I can name a random property of mutations. Look at a single basepair. Can you, with even low certainty, say exactly what type of mutation will occur and when exactly it will occur? Of course you can't.

I asked for a property that is random. You have not named a property. What property in this scenario is random ?

 

[Taffer]

Meaningless. Both mean the same thing : uncaused properties. And total unpredictability.

Well, mathematicians would argue you are wrong. So would I. There is a difference between "random", which means something we cannot predict (not this does not equate to "uncause"), and "truely random", which means something that, not only can we not predict it, but it is impossible to predict. You are simply wrong, here.

I asked for a property that is random. You have not named a property. What property in this scenario is random ?

When, where and what type a mutation will be.

 

[m0nngis]

Hey Francois, I have a question. Is Richard Dawkins an "anti-evolution[ist]" "no different than Kent Hovind"?

Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.

That's from The Blind Watchmaker.

It might behoove you to not be so obstinate. Just an observation. Carry on.

 

[bruto]

Interestingly, it seems very difficult to find a good, consistent definition of the word "random." Most of the scientific books I've seen, including dictionaries, use it without defining it. Mathematicians use this word to describe results in distribution without any metaphysical implications, and perhaps this is where the problem lies. I suspect that François is making the case for deterministic chaos, wherein inherently unpredictable results do not imply a lack of attributable causation. This is a wonderful idea, well researched, written about in abundance, and makes a lot of sense. I imagine that chaos applies to mutations as it does to many things. "Chance" may no longer be considered a factor, even though from the practical, day to day standpoint we can see little difference between chance and chaos. The term "random" if construed as causeless or indifferent to cause, seems to have become obsolete, at least above the subatomic level. However, I believe that when such results as mutations are studied numerically, the term "random" is still the applicable term, if what one is describing is a process which we cannot predict at the particular level but which follows a predictable rule of distribution overall. There really are two senses of the word.

Unless you can find a better word to describe individually unpredictable results whose distribution is predictable, I think "random" will have to do.

 

[delphi_ote]

Hey Francois, I have a question. Is Richard Dawkins an "anti-evolution[ist]" "no different than Kent Hovind"?

That's from The Blind Watchmaker.

It might behoove you to not be so obstinate. Just an observation. Carry on.

Random from a certain point of view. Mutations take place according to the deterministic laws of biochemistry. If we simulated accurately each chemical reaction, we wouldn't see mutations as random at all.

When we are viewing a large sample of mutations without measuring all of these effects, we assume p(mutation|selection pressure on mutation)=p(mutation). We can then consider mutation a random variable and estimate it with a statistics.

 

[m0nngis]

Random from a certain point of view. Mutations take place according to the deterministic laws of biochemistry. If we simulated accurately each chemical reaction, we wouldn't see mutations as random at all.

Indeedio. I just think that Frankieboy ought to speak in a little less absolute way, and perhaps not call those who disagree with him for anti-evolutionists and compare them to Dr. Dino.

A little searching around TalkOrigins and looking at some biology books confirm that evolutionary biologists use the term "random mutation", so having that as a pet peeve and berating people for saying it is a little weird in my book.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

When, where and what type a mutation will be.

That's not random. We already know what causes mutations and how the rate of mutation changes. Sorry, you lose.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Hey Francois, I have a question. Is Richard Dawkins an "anti-evolution[ist]" "no different than Kent Hovind"?

That's from The Blind Watchmaker.

It might behoove you to not be so obstinate. Just an observation. Carry on.

As I said before, if you had read my posts, you are confusing vulgarisation and strict scientific fact. Dawkins no more believes that mutations are random than a scientist in the lab manipulating mutation rates does. He says they are random in order to compare them with natural selection, but Dawkins is well-aware that mutations have measurable properties. It's absolutely ridiculous to state otherwise.

What possible agenda could you people have in maintaining the belief that mutations are random ? I'll never understand this damn message board. Does this have to do with a weird quirk of skepticism ? If so, get off it.

 

[Bronze Dog]

From where I'm standing: They aren't arguing that mutations fit your strict definition of random. They're arguing that it fits a more casual definition of "random." They're just trying to define casual "random" for you.

 

[bruto]

As I said before, if you had read my posts, you are confusing vulgarisation and strict scientific fact. Dawkins no more believes that mutations are random than a scientist in the lab manipulating mutation rates does. He says they are random in order to compare them with natural selection, but Dawkins is well-aware that mutations have measurable properties. It's absolutely ridiculous to state otherwise.

What possible agenda could you people have in maintaining the belief that mutations are random ? I'll never understand this damn message board. Does this have to do with a weird quirk of skepticism ? If so, get off it.

You keep saying people aren't reading your posts. Are you reading ours? I'm not sure anyone here is arguinig that mutations are strictly "random," if you define that term as meaning without cause.

You still haven't come up with a better term for the statistical use of the term, which means not predictable at the individual level, but with a predictable distribution. The statistical sense of the word ignores the physical or metaphysical issue, and addresses the manner in which series of events can be predicted and measured. I don't think that's just a "vulgarization." It really isn't that uncommon for a word to have more than one meaning or sense, depending on where and how it is used. Unless you have reason to believe that this usage is actually an error on the part of those who are using it here (i.e. statistics has a proper word for this concept and "random" is not that word), then it seems your argument here is the equivalent of insisting that we cannot say the sun rises in the east because it's the earth that moves.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Casual random ? Does it wear jeans and a t-shirt ?

 

[bruto]

Casual random ? Does it wear jeans and a t-shirt ?

So if you have a proper, suit wearing word for "unpredictable at the individual level but predictable as to distribution" what is it? What is the applicable word for the statistical aspect of, say, flipping a coin, which is undoubtedly an event which could be retroactively reduced to a series of definite causes, right down to that proverbial butterfly in South America, but which, for all intents and purposes occurs in a manner which cannot be predicted from flip to flip, yet whose distribution can be reliably predicted over the long term. For that distribution the term "random" is conventional. Are you saying that this use of the term is incorrect because there is a preferable or more accurate word, are you saying that for the concept I am speaking of there is or should be no word at all, or are you disallowing the possibility that a word that means one thing in the context of physics cannot ever be used correctly in another context to mean anything else?

 

[delphi_ote]

What possible agenda could you people have in maintaining the belief that mutations are random ? I'll never understand this damn message board.

You probably don't understand because you can't hear us all the way up on that high horse of yours. Maybe you should come down so we can have a normal conversation.

Any non-deterministic event can be considered random from the perspective of statistics. As the statistical definition is the definition most frequently used in science, I think that is the most suitable definition for this conversation. If you are confused by this, do some reading. You could start here:

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

Mutations can be considered deterministic or non-deterministic depending on the proposed experiment. Let me be clear: in the most strict of definitions MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM. They are also not random.

The agenda on this board is to accuracy and education, chief. What is your agenda (aside from promoting your own personal definition of 'random' at all costs?)