Randomness

[bluetrinity]

I rarely post in this forum but maybe someone here can help me understand. Evolution, if I understand it correctly (if not please explain it to me) is based on two things: random mutations and natural selection. I just don't understand the concept of randomness. What does that mean? Isn't randomness and faith on two opposite sides of the same coin? Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in the opposite?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What fundamentally does the word "random" in random mutations mean?

It means that you can not predict where and how the mutations occur. Analogously to our inability to predict which atom in a nuclear reactor will fission next.

What other meanings could the word "random" have in this context?
inability to prescribe exact cause and effect to these mutations?
ok. it happens, there is a DNA mutation, was it caused by something? yes, it is our inability to precisely describe what caused it that makes the word "random" also useful in this context.

what other shades of meaning can this word "random" have in the context of TofE's "random mutations"?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Random in scientific terms is just a process for which no predictive model can be built.

Cosmic rays have been flying around since the BB, but there is no way to predict where and when they will hit since the early conditions of the universe are unknown, and even if they were there is no current way to model the universe to a fine enough grain to track a cosmic ray.

So random may not be random at all, we just cannot yet tell the difference.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I rarely post in this forum but maybe someone here can help me understand. Evolution, if I understand it correctly (if not please explain it to me) is based on two things: random mutations and natural selection.

There are lots of details but in general I’d agree with this.

I just don't understand the concept of randomness. What does that mean?

It just means there is no discernable pattern, reason, or purpose to the mutations (generally speaking).

Isn't randomness and faith on two opposite sides of the same coin?

I don’t understand why you would say this. I think randomness and faith are on two separate coins altogether… on separate currency… in separate countries.

Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in the opposite?

Why? We can observe randomness.

 

[Loudmouth]

I rarely post in this forum but maybe someone here can help me understand. Evolution, if I understand it correctly (if not please explain it to me) is based on two things: random mutations and natural selection. I just don't understand the concept of randomness. What does that mean? Isn't randomness and faith on two opposite sides of the same coin? Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in the opposite?

As rmwilliamsII says, we can not predict which mutations will happen next. There is also another type of randomness in mutations. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. That is, the mechanisms that cause mutations are not influenced by what is beneficial in a given environment just like a pair of dice are not influenced by the bets laid down on a craps table. The famous experiment that first demonstrated this was the Luria-Delbruck experiment. In this experiment they demonstrated that beneficial mutations came about before exposure to challenge. More specifically, mutations in bacteria that conferred resistance to bacterial viruses occurred before the bacteria were ever exposed to the actual viruses.

At the same time, "random mutations" does not mean every mutation has the same chance of occuring. There are mutational hotspots in all genomes where mutations occur more often than the overall average. Also, some types of mutations are more common than others, such as point mutations being more common than single nucleotide substitutions or deletions.

Geneticists understand all of these factors which is why they often shorten the phrase down to just "random mutations". A better way to phrase it is "random mutations with respect to fitness", as this better reflects the actual evidence.

 

[bluetrinity]

So then randomness doesn't really exist, if I understand you all correctly. What we call random is merely our inability to understand fully the process. Which means, I suppose, that, if we understood it properly we might find out that they are not random at all. In fact, it must mean that or you explain away the explanation.

 

[JohnR7]

What does that mean?

It means error or mistake. Evo would have us believe that a copy error in the DNA is the driving force of life and the source of all change. We know now that variation is not due to mutations.

This idea is not only absurd, but with the discovery of the Hox Genes, it has been falsified. Life does not mutate, it radiates on a axis according to what some call the golden ratio, others call the divine proportions.

Not only is the whole organism proportional to itself, but each part is proportional.

 

[JohnR7]

So then randomness doesn't really exist

Nothing is random, If you throw dice the same way, you will get the same results.
You get different results because no matter how hard you try, you can not throw them the same way every time.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

So then randomness doesn't really exist, if I understand you all correctly. What we call random is merely our inability to understand fully the process. Which means, I suppose, that, if we understood it properly we might find out that they are not random at all. In fact, it must mean that or you explain away the explanation.

From a metaphysical standpoint one can argue determinism such that there is no such thing as random, but this is not the sense that is meant in evolutionary biology, all that is meant there is that relative to the theory one cannot calculate in advance what mutations will occur.

This leaves plenty of room for philosophers to argue over how random is random, just as you can argue over how random is a roll of dice, but for practical purposes, it is random without philosophy.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So then randomness doesn't really exist, if I understand you all correctly. What we call random is merely our inability to understand fully the process. Which means, I suppose, that, if we understood it properly we might find out that they are not random at all. In fact, it must mean that or you explain away the explanation.

there are at least two different reasons that this is not possible. the first is quantum uncertainty. at the level of DNA molecules this is significant.

the second is historical uncertainty and the inability to trace past actions. Say you are looking at the source of the HbS mutation, you have no way to reconstruct it's source. It is this usage of the term "random" in something like "random matings", it is not that matings are entirely random for they are not but the inability to map the consequences of those matings thousands of generations later.

i'm sure someone can add even more reasons that a reconstruction of even the events of a single mutation like HbS are impossible, even in theory.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Nothing is random, If you throw dice the same way, you will get the same results.
You get different results because no matter how hard you try, you can not throw them the same way every time.

In other words, how you throw the dice is random, not predictable, and not repeatable.

To clarify further, IF you were able to throw the dice exactly the same way under the same circumstances twice, you would likely get the same result, But since there are far to many variables involved in just how you throw them, the effect can be said to be random, even though it is the result of deterministic physics.

 

[JohnR7]

In other words, how you throw the dice is random, not predictable, and not repeatable.

To clarify further, IF you were able to throw the dice exactly the same way under the same circumstances twice, you would likely get the same result, But since there are far to many variables involved in just how you throw them, the effect can be said to be random, even though it is the result of deterministic physics.

That sounds better then I can explain it

I just keep thinking of a robotic arm that does the same thing and gets the same results everytime.

 

[Phred]

We know now that variation is not due to mutations.

Whoop Whoop Whoop... the alarms are going off. This is, once again, pure manure. "We" know no such thing. This is John-speak for "I don't think it can be true."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by JohnR7
Nothing is random, If you throw dice the same way, you will get the same results.
You get different results because no matter how hard you try, you can not throw them the same way every time.

In other words, how you throw the dice is random, not predictable, and not repeatable.

To clarify further, IF you were able to throw the dice exactly the same way under the same circumstances twice, you would likely get the same result, But since there are far to many variables involved in just how you throw them, the effect can be said to be random, even though it is the result of deterministic physics.

i don't know. the take home messsage of chaos theory is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. most of our random games like dice are chaotic systems. it may not even be theoretically possible to duplicate the throw of a dice, for example, microscopic wind currents on the table from people breathing etc. IT is possible that this process of throwing a dice is not deterministic.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

i don't know. the take home messsage of chaos theory is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. most of our random games like dice are chaotic systems. it may not even be theoretically possible to duplicate the throw of a dice, for example, microscopic wind currents on the table from people breathing etc. IT is possible that this process of throwing a dice is not deterministic.

That is why I said IF but back to the original point, random,as far as evolution is concerned, means not calculable in the present, it does not actually necessarily relate to universal determinism, though if you are of that persuasion, then sure, it was predetermined at some point.

 

[Willtor]

So then randomness doesn't really exist, if I understand you all correctly. What we call random is merely our inability to understand fully the process. Which means, I suppose, that, if we understood it properly we might find out that they are not random at all. In fact, it must mean that or you explain away the explanation.

No, science doesn't take a philosophically hard stance on randomness besides saying "we cannot predict." It loosely says that we have not discerned a pattern in a thing, but it does not state that there is or is not a pattern to be discerned.

If we were to discern a pattern in mutations (someone else might better know the implications such a thing would have in other sciences), then it wouldn't change what has been observed in evolution, though, it might increase the precision of what we can say regarding various ancestors.

In a sense, when people call the mutations random, you can think of it as a description of the absence of an observation. Nobody has observed a pattern, and we use the term, "random," to describe this.

It might be, however, that physics and mathematics assign particular constraints to this. But you shouldn't think that the scientific application of the word, "random," makes philosophical statements regarding determinism or whatever else. These really are philosophical questions.

 

[yeshuas1]

I rarely post in this forum but maybe someone here can help me understand. Evolution, if I understand it correctly (if not please explain it to me) is based on two things: random mutations and natural selection. I just don't understand the concept of randomness. What does that mean? Isn't randomness and faith on two opposite sides of the same coin? Doesn't it require just as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in the opposite?

while you all give good definitions of "random", at its root, random here means caused by natural non-conscious non-purposeful forces.

while there are differing theories of biogenesis and evolution, in the end, one comes to purposeful or purposeless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

while you all give good definitions of "random", at its root, random here means caused by natural non-conscious non-purposeful forces.

while there are differing theories of biogenesis and evolution, in the end, one comes to purposeful or purposeless

this is nonsense.

science doesn't do teleology, it is SILENT on the issues. It doesn't discuss purpose or purposelessness, that is the domain of metaphysics or some religions, it is not the arena of science.

this kind of thinking is very much the legacy of Aristotle and his 4 types of causes. Science deals ONLY with the efficient or material cause. Are mutations directed by a god or are they undirected? it is a nonsense question when posed to science, it doesn't answer these kinds of questions, nor are it's tools something that can even look at the issues.

now it you want to pose the question to metaphysics, then answer it with metaphysical answers and look at it with metaphysical tools. But this is not science, nor can it be pushed down into science to try to trump the issues.

 

[yeshuas1]

this is nonsense.

science doesn't do teleology, it is SILENT on the issues. It doesn't discuss purpose or purposelessness, that is the domain of metaphysics or some religions, it is not the arena of science.

this kind of thinking is very much the legacy of Aristotle and his 4 types of causes. Science deals ONLY with the efficient or material cause. Are mutations directed by a god or are they undirected? it is a nonsense question when posed to science, it doesn't answer these kinds of questions, nor are it's tools something that can even look at the issues.

now it you want to pose the question to metaphysics, then answer it with metaphysical answers and look at it with metaphysical tools. But this is not science, nor can it be pushed down into science to try to trump the issues.

I am speaking to the original post, and sorry, but the definition of random does include undirected.
the questions of biogenesis and macro-evolution are NOT in the realm of operational science as they are not, at least to this point, subject to repeatable experiments or observations.
they are in the realm of forensic or historic science, which includes things like inference, continuity, etc.

 

[[serious]]

Nothing is random, If you throw dice the same way, you will get the same results.
You get different results because no matter how hard you try, you can not throw them the same way every time.

Actually, given our current understanding of physics, everything is random. It's just that certain states are more likely than others.For more information, look into wave particle duality.