• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Random Mutations

Status
Not open for further replies.

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Micaiah said:
Some further things to ponder.

1. Suppose in the example above of the tossing of two coins I write down the outcomes of each on a piece of paper. I number each outcome as follows:

1. HH
2. HT
3. TH
4. TT

If I then put each piece of paper into a bag, shake up the bag and remove one piece, the chance of me getting any one of the four events is equal. However, the chance of getting a head and tail is different to getting a tail and tail, or head and head. By my definition, the first event specified is random, the second is not.

By your definition, rolling a pair of dice is random, but the sum is not. Are you sure that's a good definition of random? A sum of a pair of dice is non-random, even though each individual roll is? By the same analogy, evolution is non-random since some areas of DNA are highly conserved and are less likely to mutate than other areas. If this is the case, why don't you drop the random evolution argument.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
random_guy said:
By the same analogy, evolution is non-random since some areas of DNA are highly conserved and are less likely to mutate than other areas. If this is the case, why don't you drop the random evolution argument.

If you get three successive point mutations of a certain nucleotide would you call that random?

Why are some areas of the DNA more likely to mutate than others?

If this is the case, why don't you drop the random evolution argument.

Why indeed, which is the point that we've been trying to make for some time. The 'random evolution argument' is not something that YEC's invented. I understand that the NDT of evolution is still the most widely accepted theory of evolution today. YEC's merely point out that there is a good case for saying that many of the mutations that are claimed to be examples of evolution fail because they do not meet the randomness criteria of this theory. You seem to agree.

The following is an extract taken from an AIG article on the bacteria that feeds on nylon waste:

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.11 Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

Batten, D., The adaption of bacteria to feeding on waste, TJ 17(3):3–5 December 2003

AIG link http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp#r11

Why not stop claiming these are undeniable examples of evolution. As stated a number of times in the past we are yet to obtain examples of the type of mutations can be considered random and demonstrate a net gain in information.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Micaiah said:
If you get three successive point mutations of a certain nucleotide would you call that random?

I'm not sure by what you mean by random. I still think your definition of random is incorrect. Can you explain why the sum of 2 dices is non-random?

Why are some areas of the DNA more likely to mutate than others?

At a molecular level, depending on the sequence of bases that make up a region, they have different chemical properties which makes the binding affinity different. That means that they have different probabilities for mutation. This means they're not random, according to your definition.

At a population level, sequences are conserved because mutations that occur in a conserved coding region will usually be harmful, killing the organism. That's why certain regions are near the same across all species. Again, this means evolution is not random, according to your definition.

Why indeed, which is the point that we've been trying to make for some time. The 'random evolution argument' is not something that YEC's invented. I understand that the NDT of evolution is still the most widely accepted theory of evolution today. YEC's merely point out that there is a good case for saying that many of the mutations that are claimed to be examples of evolution fail because they do not meet the randomness criteria of this theory. You seem to agree.

The following is an extract taken from an AIG article on the bacteria that feeds on nylon waste:



Batten, D., The adaption of bacteria to feeding on waste, TJ 17(3):3–5 December 2003

AIG link http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp#r11

Why not stop claiming these are undeniable examples of evolution. As stated a number of times in the past we are yet to obtain examples of the type of mutations can be considered random and demonstrate a net gain in information.

I still think the problem is your definition of random is wrong. Until you state why you believe your definition of random is correct, we won't be able to progress any further.

You still haven't even explained why tossing a coin is random, even though heads and tails have different probabilities of ocurring (due to non-uniform density distribution). How can we discuss "randomness" of evolution if you refuse to define random in a way that can be discussed.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Micaiah, is a standardly distributed variable random? I really don't know why you're sticking to your definition of "random" and "non-random"; after all it does nothing for creationism anyway. Just because an event is non-random doesn't mean it involves information. By your example, tossing two coins is not random, apparently. Well, why does this constitute a loss of information? After all by creationists' own definitions we have gone from a highly unordered state (two indeterminate coins) to a highly ordered state (two well-determined coins) which constitutes a net gain of information in the system of the coins. So just because a mutation is "non-random" (to prove that, by ebia's definition, scientists would have to predict where mutations occur) doesn't mean that it does not constitute a net gain of information.

I'm not sure, but I think that randomness is not so much a discrete property (random or not random, and nothing in between) but a continuous property. For example, if I see a raincloud in the sky I can say confidently that "it will rain today". There is no chance that this raincloud will hover and not drop as rain for the next 3 days; therefore I can predict something quantitative about its behaviour. But even so we can't predict the exact time the first raindrop will hit the ground. Therefore we can predict a range of possible values for a variable and assign relative probabilities, but not the actual value prediction itself. Is there a "measure of randomness" in statistics? What is the relationship between degree of correlation and randomness?

As far as I know the NDT doesn't say anything about the randomness of mutations except to say that on average, there will be all three of beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations relative to the environment occurring in a population. NDT is more a statement of what happens to the relative frequencies of these mutations due to the environment, and what we can predict as a result.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Micaiah said:
Some further things to ponder.

1. Suppose in the example above of the tossing of two coins I write down the outcomes of each on a piece of paper. I number each outcome as follows:

1. HH
2. HT
3. TH
4. TT

If I then put each piece of paper into a bag, shake up the bag and remove one piece, the chance of me getting any one of the four events is equal. However, the chance of getting a head and tail is different to getting a tail and tail, or head and head. By my definition, the first event specified is random, the second is not.
Which just goes to show that your definition of random (which you have completely failed to justify on any basis except your personal opinion, despite dictionary and mathematical definitions to the contrary) is completely wrong.

So long as your argument is founded on a fundamentally flawed definition of random, it's a waste of bandwidth.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.