Darwinism, or whatever is left of it, assumes that all genetic mutations are random.
Why?
Because any kind of non-random guidance or foresight in the process of evolution could imply intelligence and, God forbid, God himself… Since the first commandment requiring exclusive devotion of materialists is: No Intelligence Allowed – materialism is the dominating force in “science” even if the evidence points in the other direction (Darwinist have to insist that the evolutionary process is as blind as a bat, or as blind as Darwinists themselves and even deny any indications of directions in genetic mutations). So, mutations have to be preached as random processes even if any experimental evidence is indicating otherwise…
Are all genetic mutations really random?
It is interesting that even some hardcore Darwinists admit that natural selection is not a random process…Richard Dawkins, for example…I did an OP here a while back…
What is even more interesting is that some Darwinists, while reluctantly, acknowledge the influence of quantum mechanics in evolutionary process, such as quantum tunneling influencing or even causing genetic mutations…
My last post on Was quantum mechanics use by biological systems predicted by evolution? made some hardcore Darwinist reluctantly admit that quantum processes can no longer be ignored in life processes, such as an embryo development for example …
Recently, quantum tunneling was acknowledged by some as the process playing a role in mutations, but obviously, it has been ignored by Darwinists (by their own admission) because the implications of quantum mechanics in genetic mutations can be very profound, such us intelligence or foresight directing them…
In 1988 a Nature Magazine paper implied that mutations can be directed by cells, allowing them to choose mutations… The experimental evidence cited by the paper clearly indicated that mutations that occurred during the experiments were preferential and cell “chose”to mutate depending on their circumstances, time and time again…
The researchers called those type of mutations adaptive mutations because they allowed the cells to chose a better way of “survival” or development. This can be compared to humans claiming up a mountain and choosing a path that is the easiest to the top of it, which obviously requires foresight and intelligence. Darwinist became furious over this paper and came up with their own speculations why mutations aren’t guided or directed , but we are still waiting for their experiments to prove their elaborate and unfounded speculations…
Look at the experimental results and papers and judge for yourself…If you are not a Darwinists, you will definitely learn something…
The origin of mutants.
Abstract
Nucleic acids are replicated with conspicuous fidelity. Infrequently, however, they undergo changes in sequence, and this process of change (mutation) generates the variability that allows evolution. As the result of studies of bacterial variation, it is now widely believed that mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their utility. In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.
A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation.
Abstract
The principle that mutations occur randomly with respect to the direction of evolutionary change has been challenged by the phenomenon of adaptive mutations. There is currently no entirely satisfactory theory to account for how a cell can selectively mutate certain genes in response to environmental signals. However, spontaneous mutations are initiated by quantum events such as the shift of a single proton (hydrogen atom) from one site to an adjacent one. We consider here the wave function describing the quantum state of the genome as being in a coherent linear superposition of states describing both the shifted and unshifted protons. Quantum coherence will be destroyed by the process of decoherence in which the quantum state of the genome becomes correlated (entangled) with its surroundings. Using a very simple model we estimate the decoherence times for protons within DNA and demonstrate that quantum coherence may be maintained for biological time-scales. Interaction of the coherent genome wave function with environments containing utilisable substrate will induce rapid decoherence and thereby destroy the superposition of mutant and non-mutant states. We show that this accelerated rate of decoherence may significantly increase the rate of production of the mutated state.
On the top of the adaptive mutations that are clearly non-random, we have mutations bias phenomenon:
“However, the genetic code in DNA is not completely stable even in the absence of extrinsic damaging factors: a universal spontaneous point mutation bias can be detected with respect to transitions of the base pairs G:C to A:T and A:T to G:C which cannot be sufficiently explained by well-known mutation models such as UV irradiation, oxidative damage or CpG hypermutation [102]. This implies that this kind of point mutation has to be regarded as an inherent characteristic of DNA.”
If mutation bias wasn’t enough, scientists found mutation hot spots where mutations are directed or more likely to occur in certain, specified areas of the genome…
How about cancer? Are cancer causing mutations random?
If undifferentiated cells were placed in the tissue of a mouse, next to the cancer cells, will those cells differentiate into cancer cells?
If not, why not?
If yes, by what mechanism?
This OP is a bit unusual because I leave bits and pieces of what I really do…
It is unique but not untraceable…
You get this wrong.
Suppose that a biological organism has a purpose of continuing its line. And suppose that it cannot predict what the future environment will be. In that case, using random mutations is an intelligent thing to do.
Purpose? I’m afraid this is my point Neil, ain’t it ?
I totally forgot to give credit to nonlin.org for this comment. He is right on the money…
” Why does it matter? Because as far as I can tell, there’s nothing “entirely random” out there. Take a 6 face die. Can you get 7, 8, 9? NO. Try for yourself: can you think of anything that is entirely random? NO.”
Congrats nonlin! This was my point all along…
J-Mac,
I guess you don’t see the irony there.
In any case I’m interested in reading these elaborate and unfounded speculations from the Darwinist. Can you link them to me please?
Here you go: https://www.random.org/integers/
You can make the “dice” as large as you like now.
I don’t… Do you see anything here? You obviously don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t write this nonsense, would you?
No!!! I can’t accept anymore irrational specs!!! Help!!! Help!!!
I want to build a new kind of organism rather than speculating about what random, unguided processes can or can not do… OMG?
That’s one way of saying that you do not understand the meaning of “random”.
J-Mac,
I, for one, am entirely unclear as to what your point is.
You cite four articles.
The only recent one, Trixler, 2013 seems to be a rather desperate effort to tie mutations to quantum tunneling via keto-enol tautomerism. We’ve known about this mismatch mechanism since before Watson famously tried to model DNA using the enol tautomer…
Are these guys building off the apparent massive woo that is McFadden and Al-Khalili, 1999, who claim to have considered the wave function of the genome? Shame that this is behind a paywall, as I would LOVE to see the math!
Now there could be more to it than that, but you will have to actually make an argument.
The not ridiculously old article is Rogozin and Pavlov, 2003 (bloody Russians!), which shows that some parts of the genome are more prone to mutation than others.
Quite consistent with the idea that mutations are random with respect to function. And really not news. At all. See antibody affinity maturation.
To round this out in the weirdest possible way, you cite Cairns et al 1988. Now this is a seminal paper. But it should not surprise you to learn that there has been more research done on this subject in the intervening 30 years. It should not surprise you to learn that this research has clarified that the environmentally-enhanced mutations are NOT goal-directed in the way that you think they are: they are still random with respect to function.
And the reason that this should not surprise you is that I pointed this out to you when you first cited Cairns et al, 1988, claiming this article
When you behave in this manner, it makes you appear unable to follow along. That’s the charitable interpretation.
Is the restriction of 6 out of 6 limited or no? Can anyone get 7?
If you can, please provided the evidence which you normally don’t provide.. Unless you continue to claim to be a mathematician without any knowledge of the set theory-category theory, you might as well admit you were teaching math to the first grade children..
As is yours…
Why don’t you set up an experiment to prove your point?
It’s easy…My kids can help you…
Do you have proof I can’t replicate the experiments Cairns documented?
It’s pretty naïve on your part to take speculations over experimental evidence…
Why don’t you do the work like OMG always claims to do?
We are all waiting to see that J-Mac-enstein Quantum Woo monster.
Fine… but we all pretty much know by now you are not a mathematician.. and if you were, you must have been helping some kids with LD to add apples…
It is not relevant to whether it is random.
J-Mac,
The cause of certain of cancers from what I have seen is activation of the conical WNT pathway. There are several possible ways this can be activated. For instance if the cancer cells are producing lots of WNT ligands that are floating around in the extracellular membrane this in certain conditions could initiate a condition leading to cancer theoretically in the stem cells.
If the subject is human and has low vitamin d blood levels then there is a chance the stem cells can become cancerous as vitamin d is a down regulator of the WNT by directly or indirectly blocking WNT ligands from binding to Frizzled which leaves the cell with a very active ubiquitin destruction mechanism of the cell cycle initiator beta catenin.
This could very well be true…but that wasn’t my question, was it?
Is randomness restricted by 6 out of 6 though? Yes or No?
I think its a option for investigation INDEED to see if mutations are random. Possibly thyese mutations are not mutations or rather they are common things in the biology and what we call mutations are just errors in the process. Possibly biological change comes from ‘mutations” with some design structure. Just speculation.
I got myself a narrow strip of paper. On one side of the paper I wrote the numeral “-1”, and on the other side I wrote the numeral “+1”. Then I joined the two ends of the paper strip together, giving the piece of paper a half twist in the process. Now, when I randomly toss the paper into the air, and it settles to the floor, what value shows up most?
When I am not using the paper strip, I stick it to the fridge door with a monopole magnet.
Rob,
Your profS and opioids are very vulnerable here plaice no forgut to comet here moor ..
piss and lock!
This is Einstein’s old bs he used with the left and right glove thingy to try to explain quantum entanglement…This is just a “mathematical: way to explain the same phenomena… This has little or nothing to do with this OP but I’m sure Bob or Neil might have something to say about that… lol
What’s the mathematical model? What’s the probability distribution?
You are not making any sense. If you were able to replicate the manipulations that Cairns et al performed, I am sure that you would replicate their results. I have written nothing to suggest otherwise. The results are not in dispute, but their interpretation has changed in light of additional evidence. That’s how science works. [Side-note: your phrasing entertains me: I am fairly confident that you, personally, and your kids lack the expertise and equipment to replicate Cairns. Not that that matters.]
I am not taking speculations over experimental evidence — I have twice pointed you to Foster 2004 :
I don’t need to do the work, Prof. Foster has done it for us (in collaboration with Cairns and Miller).
J-Mac,
I believe this is something you have invented. Please link to where Darwinist got furious over this paper and please link to their speculations why mutations aren’t guided or directed.
Otherwise it’s clear that you are making it up as you go along.
If mutations are not random, what is the plan J-Mac?
It takes some profound mental problem to imagine that arguing about the meaning of the word random makes both evolution false, and gods real.
J-mac, you are operating under an insane understanding of the word “random”. So is nonlin. Is there no end to this fantastic nonsense?
Rumraket,
It’s okay for the entertainment value.
J-Mac,
I showed how the stem cells could become cancer cells. If you mean by the process of cellular differentiation then no they probably cant as cancer cells are by definition not differentiated cells as differentiated cannot metastasize. Tumors from differentiated cells are benign.
Bill,
The OP is about mutations with the implications of QM driving the processes of mitosis, mutations and cell differentiation… Few Darwinists here admitted that quantum processes (quantum information) could be providing the mechanism and the information needed for embryo development…
The main belief among evolutionary biologists is that mutations are the main contributor to cancer and evolutionary process plus NS…
I’m fully aware that there are other contributing factors to cancer or rather that there are other major contributing factors to it…
My point was that if the majority of mutations are non-random, as there are constraints on where mutations can occur, could the same analogy apply to cancers caused supposedly by mutations and the impotence of natural selection to be sift through them …
Here is a quote from a recent paper in Nature:
“With the advent of the twenty-first century, two major misconceptions about cancer have eventually been eradicated: (1) the notion that cancer is a purely cell-intrinsic disorder that stems from epigenetic or genetic alterations1,2; and (2) the view that malignant cells satisfy their bioenergetic and anabolic needs mostly (if not only) via aerobic glycolysis3,4. Thus, it is now widely accepted that tumors form, develop and respond to therapy in the context of a complex, bidirectional interaction with the host immune system5,6. Similarly, the fundamental influence of mitochondrial metabolism on all steps of oncogenesis, i.e., malignant transformation, tumor progression and response to treatment, has eventually been given proper recognition7,8.”
Abstract:
“Glycolysis has long been considered as the major metabolic process for energy production and anabolic growth in cancer cells. Although such a view has been instrumental for the development of powerful imaging tools that are still used in the clinics, it is now clear that mitochondria play a key role in oncogenesis. Besides exerting central bioenergetic functions, mitochondria provide indeed building blocks for tumor anabolism, control redox and calcium homeostasis, participate in transcriptional regulation, and govern cell death. Thus, mitochondria constitute promising targets for the development of novel anticancer agents. However, tumors arise, progress, and respond to therapy in the context of an intimate crosstalk with the host immune system, and many immunological functions rely on intact mitochondrial metabolism. Here, we review the cancer cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic mechanisms through which mitochondria influence all steps of oncogenesis, with a focus on the therapeutic potential of targeting mitochondrial metabolism for cancer therapy.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017155
That’s why therapies targeting the metabolism, keto-diet, intermittent fasting/calorie restriction etc. as well the “manipulation/application of the immune system have become the new way of treating and curing cancer…
The placing of undifferentiated cells in the tissue next to cancerous cells was a catch 22 question… 😉
”It is interesting that even some hardcore Darwinists admit that natural selection is not a random process…Richard Dawkins, for example…I did an OP here a while back…”
There is not a Darwinist alive who thinks that natural selection is random. The word ‘selection’ should be a clue.
No end in sight. If creationists were capable of understanding what “random” really means they would have gotten it the first dozen or so times someone tried to explain it to them. Creationists and woo-mongerers simply cannot operate at that cognitive level — what Piaget called “formal operational thinking.” They can only think in terms of concrete visual depictions. Abstract and critical thinking is simply beyond them — the developmental window for acquiring formal operations has closed because neuroplasticity decreases with aging. So arguing with them is simply a waste of everyone’s time. They cannot be reasoned with, because they lack the basic cognitive abilities that are required for critical thinking. Engage with them all you want, but it won’t make any difference at all.
Nor is there a Darwinist who thinks that mutations are “random” in the sense that J-Mac appears to have in mind, but he’s beyond any hope of reasoning with.
J-Mac,
Any experiments you can cite here would be appreciated.
Remarkable that Cairns (1988 version) is the only scientist worth listening to. Nothing to do with confirmation bias, of course. And this paper can be extrapolated to cover every mutation, ever.
On a related note, I wonder why the immune system bothers, if the right mutations can just be chosen.
So along the same lines but taking a somewhat different approach, questions for J-Mac and Nonlin.org.
Which distribution would you consider to be the “random” distribution?
Do you know why scientists use that particular distribution?
What’s the mathematical model for the environment? What’s the probability distribution of the environment?
If the environment is not random with respect to fitness how do we model it?
You have changed topics. My question to J-Mac was about his claim that tossing a die is not random because there are only 6 possibilities. It was a rhetorical question, to point out that his claim was based on a misunderstanding.
As for a mathematical model of the environment? You should ask those ID proponents who claim to use mathematical models of information to refute evolution.
Moved a post to guano.
Discuss the message, not the messenger.
I don’t know why I started reading the OP. J-Mac’s OP is amazingly stupid. I thought Nonlin’s OPs were the worst, the stupidest OPs of them all. Nope. J-Mac’s OPs give Nonlin’s plenty of competition for the title. What a mindlessly moronic OP!
Pretty much this. It’s just brainless gibberish.
That’s the thing – ‘random’ is a theoretical concept you will not find in nature. Same as a circle, point, parallel lines, etc. We do model (!) the electron as a point particle, but turns out particles are really waves, and who the heck knows what else.
Why don’t you provide the “sane” understanding of “random”?
And how are genetic mutations “random” and “natural selection” “nonrandom”?
In the absence of knowledge how do we avoid introducing bias?
Colloquially it usually is synonymous with “unpredictable”. Or “unintended”. Some times it is used in the sense that multiple different outcomes are equiprobable (a fair coin, or a fair die).
In science it is often used simply to denote that the outcomes of a process or event are modeled in terms of probabilities, using statistics, whether the process is biased or not. Others object and insist that as soon as any bias is introduced and the outcomes are no longer equiprobable, then the process is no longer “truly random”.
Mutations are said to be random with respect to fitness. What is meant by that is the mutational process is essentially blind, because there is no guarantee that a mutation will happen in a location where it will be beneficial(mutations that are beneficial in environment A can still occur in environment B where they are not, and vice versa). That said, mutations are definitely biased in the sense that they do not occur with equal probability all over the genome. And the types of mutations that can occur do not have the same odds of occurring. For example there is something known as transition bias where transition mutations are more likely than transversion mutations. And gene duplications have different odds of occurring than substitutions, and some genes are more likely to be duplicated than others particularly in repetitive regions of the genome duplications can happen more often. And so on and so forth.
In what sense is natural selection said to be non-random? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32
So selection is considered non-random because it introduces a strong bias in the process of fixing alleles in a population.
Rumraket,
People from a mathematical background might strongly disagree with that author.
Maximum Entropy