Are Mutations Really Random?

_{Barry Arrington

January 15, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

That is the question they are asking over at Science Friday.

Now, scientists are questioning whether that’s actually true—or if mutation is more likely to occur in some parts of the genome than others. New research published in the journal Nature this week looks at just that question, in a common weed called Arabidopsis thaliana. After following 24 generations of plants for several years and then sequencing the offspring, the team found that some genes are far less likely to mutate than others. And those genes are some of the most essential to the function of DNA itself, where a mutation could be fatal. Conversely, the genes most likely to mutate were those associated with the plant’s ability to respond to its environment—potentially a handy trick for a highly adaptable weed.

Comments

In this post an hour ago, I argue that Darwinian evolution is self refuting. It cannot possibly have happened or else every ecology would eventually be destroyed. But they are not. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/is-darwinism-an-empty-theory/#comment-745010jerry_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

JVL holds that Darwin's theory is "not a threat to you, your way of life or your beliefs." I wish that JVL could go back in time and explain exactly why Darwin's theory is "not a threat to you, your way of life or your beliefs" to the over 200 million victims of Darwin's murderous 'Death as the Creator" ideology.
How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator,, As Darwin wrote at the end of his most famous work (Origin): “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/ “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – 1861, page 266 A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – Chapter 4 Michael Medved and Richard Weikart Lay Bare the Evolutionary Roots of Nazism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkv3B0LF-Sw Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 Excerpt: Mao and his fellow Communists, “found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.” He concludes his article thus: "This was not, of course, all Darwin's doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a 'racial' struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled." Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin. https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/
So JVL, the real question is not why do I hate Darwin's murderous ideology, that much is abundantly obvious, the real question why do you, JVL, love your "Death as the Creator" worldview that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for mankind?
Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death. "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: It's pretty amazing really. You have spent possibly hundreds of hours collating a searchable collection of quotes (a database? I would think a spreadsheet would be too unwieldy.) decrying unguided evolutionary theory. Why did you do that? Do you ever regret spending all that time railing against unguided evolutionary theory instead of going to the theatre, having a nice night out with friends and family, going for a long walk in the woods with your spouse, spending time with your offspring, going outside late at night and gazing up at the stars and marvel at the cosmic beauty of it all, just kicking back and enjoying the NFL playoffs? You've spent a lot of your precious time on Earth attacking an idea that is, as far as I can tell, not a threat to you, your way of life or your beliefs. Why would you do that? Why would an intelligent, insightful, thoughtful person spend so much time on something they don't believe? Is it really that much of an existential threat? Hate is a commitment of time and effort and caring. Do you really care so much about unguided evolutionary theory to spend hours, days, weeks, years of your life attacking it? Whose will are you serving?JVL_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

JVL then argue against what it actually says not what you think is says or what it used to say.
:) This is an old tactic of evolutionists: "you don't understand , you are not informed , blabla ... is not random random it's random only with respect to fitness...". :)
Why do you hate unguided evolutionary theory so much? What difference does it make to you if some people think it’s true?
When you know the truth you hate the lie when you like the lie you hate the truth.
since Darwin knew nothing about mutations.
:) Oh dear he didn't know about basics(1+1=2) of life , but somehow he knew (the result of an complex ecuation) that evolution is true?Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

"Other opinions are available." And those 'other opinions', like your 'opinion', are wrong. Darwin Evolution is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Period!
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659 “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Far from being a sign of ‘good science’, the fact that Darwin’s theory keeps modifying and adding ‘epicycles’ to avoid falsification is a sure sign we are dealing with a pseudoscience, (Lakatos and Kuhn). instead of a hard science. Other opinions are available. Regardless, if you want to argue against modern evolutionary theory then argue against what it actually says not what you think is says or what it used to say. You seem to be a bit confused over these things; why else would you say: Darwin’s theory is found to be false in core presuppositions, (completely random mutations in this case), since Darwin knew nothing about mutations. Could it be that modern evolutionary theory doesn't say what you think it says? Maybe you would actually agree with it if you understood it? Maybe you should read about it instead of mining for quotes which you think tear it down? Maybe you should consider your own pre-held biases and prejudices? Maybe you should consider why you hate it so much? Is it because it seems an attack on your faith and theology? Some Christians find unguided evolutionary theory perfectly acceptable. Is it because you want people to see and appreciate the divine the way you do in every facet and aspect of the world and all you get from some evolutionary supporters is derision and insults? Does the behaviour of some supporters change the truth of the theory? Is it because unguided evolutionary theory questions your feeling that you are here for a purpose, a cosmic purpose, and if that is not true then your life and goals and sacrifices don't have the meaning you thought they did? Do your feelings change the truth of the theory? Why do you hate unguided evolutionary theory so much? What difference does it make to you if some people think it's true?JVL_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

JVL something that is no longer considered accurate.
:) ...and what is considered accurate today will be no longer considerate accurate tomorrow? When (some) atheists preach about " the science of evolution" they always talk like they are the owners of absolute truth they are so full of them , so arrogant and next day they tell us with stright face that they were talking nonsense but...today, today they are not talking nonsense because science finally discovered the final-final truth . Hahaha!
JVL random with respect to fitness.
Random only with respect to fitness ? What about other respects? :)
Mutations are more likely in some genomic domains than others;
You know that this is absolutely irrelevant for the subject discussed(non random mutations)Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

JVL, "Any good scientific view should be updated and modified when new evidence and data is discovered." You are, as usual, wrong. Newton's theory was replaced not modified.,, Einstein's relativity and Quantum Mechanics have not changed one iota.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
Far from being a sign of 'good science', the fact that Darwin's theory keeps modifying and adding 'epicycles' to avoid falsification is a sure sign we are dealing with a pseudoscience, (Lakatos and Kuhn). instead of a hard science.
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) – “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture - science and pseudoscience http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/science-and-pseudoscience-overview-and-transcript/ Unanswered Questions: New York Times Highlights the Benefits of Teaching “Ignorance” in Science Sarah Chaffee - September 4, 2015 Excerpt: In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Thomas) Kuhn stated that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict (Kuhn [86] pg. 78).” But eventually, given enough anomalies, the old theory will be replaced ,(i.e. which Kuhn termed to be a 'paradigm shift'). https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/unanswered_ques/
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Darwin’s theory itself will, time and time again, simply “evolve” so as to try to avoid any potential falsification from empirical evidence. Any good scientific view should be updated and modified when new evidence and data is discovered. It's non-sensical to defend an old text down to every dotted I and crossed t. You'd be a fool to do that when new knowledge (which doesn't contradict the basic core idea) is accepted. Perhaps in theology you have to continue to argue over the same old statements and proclamations. But that's not the way science works. A long time ago Aristotle was considered the 'science' expert. New data and evidence showed he got some things wrong. That didn't mean we threw out everything he said or wrote, just the stuff that was shown to be incorrect. Newton came up with a new paradigm/system of thinking about the natural world. And it worked better than Aristotle's so we adopted it. Then, a bit over one hundred years ago Einstein found an even better model of mass and motion and time and so we supplanted some of what Newton said with the new, better ideas. Darwin got a lot of things right, not all though. The reason he is still referred to is because aside from getting things generally right (and, by the way, he never, ever spoke of mutations since he knew nothing about modern genetic) he presented a well-reasoned, detailed argument for his conclusions which changed the way biologists in particular looked at the history of life forms on Earth. And, while his statements and hypotheses have been altered and updated and refined he was mostly right and he clearly was one of the first to blaze a fruitful and insightful trail. If you want to argue against 'Darwinism' then please address the updated and modern version. That means learning what that updated and modern version actually says. And, regarding mutations, the statement is: mutations are random with respect to fitness. Maybe in 10 or 20 or 100 years that will have been altered or changed because of new discoveries and evidence. But it's silly to argue against an old idea no one supports anymore. And, like I said, Darwin himself could never have possibly made any kind of statement about mutations. He spoke of variation, inheritable variation. And slow, fairly steady change and modifications. He saw clear evidence that the variation was sufficient based on observed breeding histories. And he knew that some variation was selected against while some was 'preferred'. He got the general idea right.JVL_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

JVL, "If you choose to not keep up with the latest iterations (or Darwin's theory)",,, LOL, too funny, the only thing that we have any real evidence for "evolution"' is with Darwin's theory itself. Darwin's theory is found to be false in core presuppositions, (completely random mutations in this case), and Darwin's theory itself will, time and time again, simply "evolve" so as to try to avoid any potential falsification from empirical evidence. As Cornelius Hunter put the 'no bad news' problem with unfalsifiable "Darwinian science":
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." —Cornelius Hunter https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2013/10/being-an-evolutionist-means-there-is-no-bad-news.html
Despite whatever lies JVL may try to tell, and due to Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification, Darwin's theory simply does not qualify as a hard and testable science.
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. - Imre Lakatos - 1973 Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
Again, Darwin's theory simply does not qualify as a hard and testable science. And is, in fact, more properly classified as being a pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists, rather than as being a hard science.bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: No JVL, Darwin’s theory holds that mutations are random, i.e. unguided, period. If you choose to not keep up with the latest iterations then you're going to look foolish arguing against something that is no longer considered accurate. Decent scientific views adapt to new data and results. Mutations are more likely in some genomic domains than others; that has been clearly established. But, the mutations whenever they occur, wherever they occur are random with respect to fitness. They are not predictably beneficial to the life form. The rate of mutations is separate from they're being random with respect to mutation. Moreover JVL, for you to claim this (i.e. directed mutations) Something I did not say or support. Do you really expect people to want to discuss these issues with you when you can't even accurately hear what someone has said/written? Perhaps you don't really care if anyone seriously tries to discuss these issues with you if they have a different opinion from yours. That would explain why you don't bother to really listen and respond. That would explain why you make a lot of assumptions and pre-judge others. You can't see any way you could be incorrect (your view is unfalsifiable) so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. That does explain a lot actually.JVL_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

No JVL, Darwin's theory holds that mutations are random, i.e. unguided, period. Completely random mutations are the friggin teleological denying core of Darwin's theory for crying out loud!
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition – or the hope – that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” – Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
Moreover JVL, for you to claim this (i.e. directed mutations) is not 'revolutionary' whilst mentioning James Shapiro in the same breath would be a big surprise for Shapiro who holds that this "has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences."
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611
Moreover, even your attempted dodge to try to get around the fact that mutations are now known to not be truly random, as Darwinists hold as a foundational presupposition, and to try to claim that mutations are only held to be random 'with regard to fitness', i.e. to the needs of the individual, is now known to be a false claim in and of itself.
(False) Prediction of Darwinism – Mutations are not adaptive – Cornelius Hunter In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained: “chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.” (Monod, 112) Ronald Fisher wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright) The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
bornagain77_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert: I was going to put my two-cents in but you've covered much of the core ideas. I think I would just add two things: This is not all that new or revolutionary; I've been hearing about certain genomic domains being more prone to mutations than others for years. And I think some of that past research has prompted conclusions by folks like Dr James Shapiro. What modern biologists ACTUALLY say is that mutations are random with respect to fitness. That is: irregardless of where they occur, particular mutations are not predictably beneficial.JVL_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

If all life from simple to complex has the goal to survive, guess what? If there is a single word implying a goal ,aim, purpose , etc then you don't need to be a "scientist" to understand there are no random mutations. Not even a single one. Could be erroneous mutations induced by external factors that superseds the capacity of adaptation . Erroneous is not equal to randomness ,erroneous means there is a goal and that goal wasn't achieved because the system adaptation was overpowered .Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 16, 2022
January
01
Jan
16
16
2022
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

The slow curve, “We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, “ Now the fast break, “… challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.”Belfast_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

Also of supplemental note; Wolfgang (not even wrong) Pauli himself stated, "they (Darwinists) use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
bornagain77_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Neil, "That is not what mathematicians mean by “random”." First, It is certainly what Darwinists themselves mean by "random" in their theory.
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” - Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology TRUE DARWINISM IS ALL ABOUT CHANCE – – NOAH BERLATSKY – JUN 14, 2017 Excerpt: Chance is an uncomfortable thing. So Curtis Johnson argues in Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin, and he makes a compelling case. The central controversy, and the central innovation, in Darwin’s work is not the theory of natural selection itself, according to Johnson, but Darwin’s more basic, and more innovative, turn to randomness as a way to explain natural phenomena. This application of randomness was so controversial, Johnson argues, that Darwin tried to cover it up, replacing words like “accident” and “chance” with terms like “spontaneous variation” in later editions of his work. Nonetheless, the terminological shift was cosmetic: Randomness remained, and still remains, the disturbing center of Darwin’s theories. https://psmag.com/environment/wealth-rich-chance-charles-darwin-darwinism-chance-meritocracy-89764
Secondly, since when have Darwinists ever really cared what mathematicians have to say about their theory? i.e. "The Wistar Symposium anyone?
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” - Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. 50 Years of Scientific Challenges to Evolution: Remembering The Wistar Symposium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQy12X_Sm2k Top Ten Questions and Objections to 'Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics' - Robert J. Marks II - June 12, 2017 Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,, We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,, We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,, If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,, ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,, ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure 'stair step active information'. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,, Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,, ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
Supplemental notes
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” - James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82) How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Genome Self-Editing - directed mutations - Johnnyb - video (2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YesEq8VKgvg This video explores,, the mechanics and specifics of many different types of directed mutations. "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html Probability of change in life: Amino acid changes in single nucleotide substitutions - June 2020 Discussion We found in-built intrinsic biases and barriers to drastic changes within the genetic code. Within single mutational events, there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264720300393
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Neil - The biological meaning of "random" is that they occur without respect to the potential usefulness. However, the mutations found are much more highly correlated with usefulness (by not mutating genes that are dangerous to mutate) than others. Therefore, by the biological definition, these are non-random.johnnyb_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

What role do built-in repair mechanisms play here, in making DNA mutations look less random? I.e., can they happen at nearly any point, but repair mechanisms fix them at a subset of those points only, leaving other damage unrepaired? (Haven't gotten to the paper yet.)EDTA_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

“Random” at its most basic level means “with no discernable pattern.”
That is not what mathematicians mean by "random". And it is not what biologists mean by "random".Neil Rickert_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Seversky, will you comment on my 5 ?martin_r_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Seversky, you have missed the point again ... i posted the paper here, because it is showing, that the same mutation at the same place in various species don’t necessary means a common descent .... As you can see, there might be other explanation ....martin_r_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Martin_r/6 From the same paper
Because of their increased mutation rates, non-B DNA sequences could be an important source of genetic variation, which is the ultimate source of evolutionary change.
So maybe this could be a source of all that new genetic information that neo-Paleyists are so concerned about.Seversky_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Science Daily 2021
Mutations are usually thought to be so rare, that when we see the same mutation in different individuals, the assumption is that those individuals shared an ancestor who passed the mutation to them both… But it’s possible that the mutation rate is so high in some of these non-B DNA regions that the same mutation could occur independently in several different individuals. If this is true, it would change how we think about evolution. — Kateryna D Makova, biologist (Pennsylvania State University) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210209121031.htm
martin_r_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

After following 24 generations of plants for several years and then sequencing the offspring, the team found that some genes are far less likely to mutate than others.
Only 24 generations ...only a few years ... I don’t understand one thing... did this weed start to mutate just now? What did it for the last millions of years? I would expect, that the part of genome they looked at was already mutated ... The same for viruses... i hear all the time, that e.g. coronavirus mutates very fast... so how it is possible, that after millions of years of existence we can still recognize a new mutation... i would expect, that after millions of years, everything is over- mutated... Could some smart Darwinist explain ?martin_r_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Neil, "Random" at its most basic level means "with no discernable pattern." If a data set does have a discernable pattern, one may conclude that the data set reflects a non-random cause. The data set in question here has a discernable pattern.Barry Arrington_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

And here is a completely unrelated article which appeared recently: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/13/world/icefish-colony-discovery-scn/index.html The article is about the recent discovery of a colony of icefish. It states: "Icefish are the only vertebrates to have no red blood cells. ... To survive at such low temperatures, it has evolved an anti-freeze protein in its transparent blood that stops ice crystals from growing." Imagine the transitional steps from blood which contains red blood cells to blood which does not. Imagine the DNA coding required to synthesize a non toxic antifreeze protein. I will sit back and wait for the ID opponents to explain these marvels.Blastus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

or if mutation is more likely to occur in some parts of the genome than others.
Of course they are more likely in some parts of the genome. But that has nothing to do with whether they are random. "Random" does not imply "with a uniform probability distribution."Neil Rickert_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Amazing how the forces which cause mutation seemingly discriminate. Here is another look at the same discovery: https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutationsBlastus_{January 15, 2022
January
01
Jan
15
15
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply