Intelligent Design

Are Mutations Random?

Spread the love

Thought you all might be interested in this video on whether or not mutations are random. It covers both why we originally thought mutations were random plus more current information which shows that the random mutation idea is not the whole picture.



The references are a little hard to read in YouTube, so here they are:

  • Kondrashov. 1995. Contamination of the Genome by Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175(4):583-594.
  • Templeton. 2006. Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory.
  • Orgel and Crick. 1980. Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite. Nature 284:604-607.
  • Chuang and Li. 2004. Functional Bias and Spatial Organization of Genes in Mutational Hot and Cold Regions of the Human Genome. PLoS Biology 2(2)e29.
  • Hall. 1999. Transposable Elements as Activators of Cryptic Genes in E. Coli. Genetica 107:181-187.
  • Market and Papavasiliou. 2003. V(D)J Recombination and the Evolution of the Adaptive Immune System. PLoS Biology 1(1):e16.
  • Papavasiliou and Schatz. 2002. Somatic Hypermutation of Immunoglobulin Genes: Merging Mechanisms for Genetic Diversity. Cell 109:S35-44.
  • Fondon and Garner. 2004. Molecular Origins of Rapid and Continous Morphological Evolution. PNAS 101:18058-18063.
  • Barry. 2006. Implicit Information in Eukaryotic Pathogens as the Basis of Antigenic Variation. In The Implicit Genome, Oxford University Press.

5 Replies to “Are Mutations Random?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Interesting survey. This related video on the cichlid fishes may also be helpful in broadening the view, as also this one on issues on whale evolution by Sternberg. (Cf, the IOSE page on body plan level macro evo.)

  2. 2
    Joseph says:

    Now there is oil in the cell? (well-oild machines) 😉

    Can we harvest this oil? 🙂

    But anyway…

    Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” anyone?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Good video JohnnyB of separating the ‘programmed’ classes of mutations from the ‘purely random’ classes of mutations,, this may be of related interest;

    Natural Selection, Genetic Mutations and Information – EXPELLED – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840/

    ,,,, It is also extremely interesting to note that the principle of Genetic Entropy lends itself very well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation whereas neo-Darwinian evolution does not:

    “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf
    MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
    http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf

    A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA – David J D’Onofrio1, Gary An – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: It is also important to note that attempting to reprogram a cell’s operations by manipulating its components (mutations) is akin to attempting to reprogram a computer by manipulating the bits on the hard drive without fully understanding the context of the operating system. (T)he idea of redirecting cellular behavior by manipulating molecular switches may be fundamentally flawed; that concept is predicated on a simplistic view of cellular computing and control. Rather, (it) may be more fruitful to attempt to manipulate cells by changing their external inputs: in general, the majority of daily functions of a computer are achieved not through reprogramming, but rather the varied inputs the computer receives through its user interface and connections to other machines.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/7/1/3

    Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation (in any supposed ‘Evolutionary Algorithm’):

    Refutation of Evolutionary Algorithms
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1h33EC4yg29Ve59XYJN_nJoipZLKIgupT6lBtsaVQsUs

    Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ruit_flies

    This following video is very good, for it uses the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales, and even of humans, is impossible even by using their own mathematical methods of predicting change:

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

    Here is one of the reasons why no unambiguously beneficial mutations ever arise by purely neo-Darwinian processes (i.e. purely random processes);

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ&hl=en

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As well JohnnyB, though you did an excellent job of pointing out that the immune system, which Darwinists shamelessly use as an example of evolution, is actually a ‘programmed mutation’ process, I think it would be well to point out just how elegant this process is;

    It is interesting to note that many times evolutionists will try to use the highly choreographed mutation/selection process of the immune system itself, claiming that the brilliantly designed immune system is actually proof of evolution. Yet the immune system is almost exactly what we have with the evolutionists claims for ‘evolutionary algorithms’ in that the immune system is carefully designed from the outset to converge on a solution. It would be surprising, and deadly, if the immune system did not do exactly what it was ‘designed’ to do:

    Falk’s fallacy – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ks-falacy/

    Response to Kathryn Applegate – Caroline Crocker PhD.- cell biologist and immunologist – October 2010
    Excerpt: Diversity of antibodies generated by B cells is due to deliberate, cell-engineered changes in the DNA sequence, not random mutations. In fact, I have never before heard the process whereby functional antibodies are formed (before they encounter antigen) described as mutation. And it is well-known that the appearance of functionality as a result of a mistake-mutation is extremely rare. Of course, after encountering antigen the hypervariable regions of the antibody DNA do undergo somatic hypermutation, but again this is in particular places and is controlled by enzymes.,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....more-15176

    Generation of Antibody Diversity is Unlike Darwinian Evolution – microbiologist Don Ewert – November 2010
    Excerpt: The evidence from decades of research reveals a complex network of highly regulated processes of gene expression that leave very little to chance, but permit the generation of receptor diversity without damaging the function of the immunoglobulin protein or doing damage to other sites in the genome.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40661.html

    If some of you think that neo-Darwinists do not blatantly misrepresent the highly choreographed immune system as a prime example of neo-Darwinian evolution in action, the infamous ‘literature dump’ at the Dover trial clearly shows that Darwinists have no reservations in claiming as such when it suits their propaganda purposes.

    “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_03-08_00

    In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.

    What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much – April 2011
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_03-07_00

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Chris Ashcraft (2003) – Genetic Variability by Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLc77xTokA

Leave a Reply