Random Mutation... Science Fact or Science Fiction?

reply to post by Joecroft


The words are defined perfectly adequately for everyone else - it seems it's just you who is having difficulty.

Radiation-cased mutations are random because they can affect any gene, yet the ones that are actually affected are not affected for any particular reason, merely that they are in the right place at the right time. You seem to think every one of those definitions of "random" apply all the time - they don't. Radiation-caused mutations fall into the first, third, and fourth definitions. Of course they are without aim - the radioactive particles don't think "I'm a gonna knock into that there atom and cause a mutation in this particular cell's DNA! w00t!". They are without consciousness. Their effect is random.

Originally posted by Joecroft
I was wondering when you were going to show up…

Well, here I am. Make what you will of it.

Anyway, we are discussing whether the word “random” is an accurate description of mutations in science. I personally don’t think it is, so where’s the nonsense in that?

It's nonsense to say that the definition of 'random' makes it impossible that truly random phenomena can exist in nature. Firstly because, obviously, they can and do. One famous example is radioactive decay. Another is Brownian motion, the random movements of molecules in a volume of gas. These things are random at the most fundamental level. The outcomes of coin tosses, dice throws, honestly-executed card shuffles, etc., are also randomly distributed. The real world literally teems with (genuinely) random phenomena, of which mutation is one.

Secondly, it is nonsense because saying so automatically assumes a governing intelligence behind every phenomenon, or at least every causal phenomenon. You are assuming as a precondition the very thing you are setting out to prove (you will not, of course, deny that you are a Christian apologist; I've looked at your profile).

All macroscopic events, you may say, are caused; however, that is not to say that they have a purpose, or that they are always, at some level, predictable. Your earlier example of tossed sand shows how deeply you misunderstand this. Plenty of natural events occur without 'method or conscious choice'.

It is quite nonsensical to say that mutation does not occur randomly. How are mutations caused? By the external application of energy to a molecular bond. The source of the energy may be high-frequency ultraviolet light, a high-energy particle impact, a free radical or whatever. The choice of which molecule (among the billions or trillions that comprise a living organism) receives and is affected by the energy is quite random. The mutation that results is also entirely random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict what it will be (except, I suppose, by that God you're trying to smuggle into the argument in disguise).

The idea, proposed in the article you quote, that SNPs cluster nonrandomly around an initial mutation site, is all very well, but how did the original mutations that function as SNP 'attractors' come to be in the first place?

The article certainly does not suggest that mutations of any kind are the result of conscious choice, or occur with any foreordained aim or purpose.

Fourthly, it is hilariously nonsensical to invoke pseudorandomness as proof that true randomness does not exist. Plainly the existence of pseudorandomness is predicated on that of true randomness; you can't have the former without the latter.

Perhaps you should have read the Wikipedia entry you linked to more closely. As is explained therein, it is often necessary for mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists to introduce an element of statistical randomness into their operations. This is hard to do because human beings cannot generate truly random numbers, and neither, for reasons we need not bother with here, can computers. Before the computer era, it was possible to use dice throws and laboriously-compiled random-number tables (made with dice throws and rule sets) to achieve this statistical randomness. Computers work too fast and are too greedy for data to tolerate such sluggish inputs, so something a bit quicker had to be developed. That something was the pseudorandom number generator. Its existence certainly does not abolish true randomness.

Granted that you are 'no expert' on the mathematical sources you quote, surely an understanding of simple English is sufficient to verify that none of them doubts the existence of true randomness in nature?

Your use of a Leonardo quote in a completely inappropriate context makes nonsense of that, too. Randomness isn't 'science'; it's simply a phenomenon in the world, just as love is, or irritable bowel syndrome. Would you try to define these phenomena in mathematical terms? That would be nonsense.

If random mutations only fulfill the first definition of “random”, then by definition, they can only be termed “pseudorandom.” Furthermore, if you bring into the equation the word “random”, into any field of science, you are by default, bringing an aspect of arithmetic, into it.

That, I'm afraid, is complete nonsense. Jabberwocky, in fact.

[edit on 8/3/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Joecroft

If you think this discussion is immaterial to evolutionary theory, then you need to think again, because how we define words is important to how we understand the theory. How we understand evolution, should be portrayed as accurately as possible, within the theory itself.

There's no other way to describe mutations than random because they are random, therefore to call them anything else, like pseudo-random would only end up convoluting understanding of the theory.

Seeing as you think semantics is boring

I don't think semantics is boring, I think your semantics is boring, and wrong, and pointless.

I’m not really sure I want to discuss this any further, with someone who hates threads

I just hate getting dragged into inane, pointless threads.

Oh boy. You are confusing one language game with another one my friend.

You have given an adequate definition of mathematical randomness that came from infinite set theory.

Then you applied that definition to biology, which uses the word quite differently for obvious reasons.

In mathematical terms, randomness can't exist without infinity.

In biology, there are certain events (like mutation through radiation as pointed out by others) that we call random because the exact type of occurance defies prediction and ultimate causal agency and happens without a decisive volitional input. In that sense it is entirely coherent to use the word random to contrast it to non-random factors (like the volitional ones you mentioned).

I'll copy your argument:

In logical symbolism, the closest semantic system we have to mathematics, "or" is only used in the strictest sense.

In every other field "or" is used inclusively, not exclusively.

So when I say " I am going to themovies or the zoo on sunday " in loigc this means "either, or" while in everyday language I could go to both venues without committing a logical blunder.

But in your view I could only go to one of the two because logical symbolism won't allow me the option of going to both.

That's what you get when you confuse your language games or when you refuse to read the blue book ;-)

reply to post by davesidious


"Radiation-cased mutations are random because they can affect any gene"

I figure that mutation are becoming less random. The main contributer to mutation is bacteria, which introduce genes into organisms to produce proteins which they eat. Bacteria that can sense successful mutation have a survival advantage.
Two points to make on this, GMO's transgenes have a weaker "bond" more subseptable to insertion. The existance of an altered organism will lead to more mutation attempts.
Surviving mutations of course are not random, (most by far do not survive) however the testing so far claims that organisms today have been mutated by some 25%, this is of course over a very long time.

reply to post by Peter Brake

Thanks for that. It's good to read a post for the opposing side that is both logically consistent and thought-provoking.

I'm not enough of a biologist to say whether or not you are right, but your argument is certainly credible to this 'educated layman'. You will agree, I'm sure, that the mechanisms you cite do not eliminate or fundamentally alter the generally random character of mutation, and that they should not be tortured by interested parties in the hope of making them yield teleological implications.

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
It's nonsense to say that the definition of 'random' makes it impossible that truly random phenomena cannot exist in nature.

I never said that the dictionary definition of “random” was impossible or that it cannot exist, I said that it hadn’t been proven scientifically, within living things.

I didn’t say that “pure randomness” in mathematics was impossible either, but I did point out that mathematicians have so far, been unable to produce a purely random sequence of numbers. They might exist, but then again, they might not, its unknown/unclear.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Firstly because, obviously, they can and do. One famous example is radioactive decay. Another is Brownian motion, the random movements of molecules in a volume of gas. These things are random at the most fundamental level. The outcomes of coin tosses, dice throws, honestly-executed card shuffles, etc., are also randomly distributed.

All those things you mention above, are non-living things, they never once in their evolution, made any conscious choices, although the field of metaphysics may disagree.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Secondly, it is nonsense because saying so automatically assumes a governing intelligence behind every phenomenon, or at least every causal phenomenon. You are assuming as a precondition the very thing you are setting out to prove (you will not, of course, deny that you are a Christian apologist; I've looked at your profile).

Thanks for checking out the profile… Yes I am a Christian and I believe in God but I also believe/accept science i.e. I’m not a creationist.

I’m not setting out to prove anything, believing in God, is a question of faith.

Describing the mutation process as “unpredictable”, does not necessarily assume or imply that there is a governing intelligence behind it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
All macroscopic events, you may say, are caused; however, that is not to say that they have a purpose, or that they are always, at some level, predictable.

Agreed, but we cant’ also say, that they definitely don’t have a purpose either.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your earlier example of tossed sand shows how deeply you misunderstand this. Plenty of natural events occur without 'method or conscious choice'.

My example of throwing sand earlier was mainly connected to mathematics and “pure randomness” i.e. not the dictionary definition of “random”.

Yes I agree that there are natural events that appear to occur without 'method or conscious choice', and which could be “random”, “purely random” or possibly even “pseudorandom” but can we really apply the extra conditions of “without method or conscious choice”, to living things?

Originally posted by Astyanax
... The choice of which molecule (among the billions or trillions that comprise a living organism) receives and is affected by the energy is quite random. The mutation that results is also entirely random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict what it will be (except, I suppose, by that God you're trying to smuggle into the argument in disguise).

Nice detective work, you have foiled my dastardly plan lol and I was going to try and work God, slowly into the picture lol (j/k)
Seriously though – I just want to stick to the scientific facts about what we really know about mutations.
Some of the causes of mutation are classified as either non-random or random. Science doesn’t really know how the interactions of all these causes of mutation are effecting mutation itself and yet they are saying the actual mutations themselves are “random.”

Originally posted by Astyanax

Fourthly, it is hilariously nonsensical to invoke pseudorandomness as proof that true randomness does not exist.

Once again I didn’t say that pure randomness doesn’t exist, I said it hadn’t been proven to exist in mathematics. I wasn’t trying to use pseudorandomness to prove that “pure randomness” might not exist; I only mentioned it because many people are not aware of the differences between the two.

Originally posted by Astyanax
That something was the pseudorandom number generator. Its existence certainly does not abolish true randomness.

I absolutely agree…

Originally posted by Astyanax
Granted that you are 'no expert' on the mathematical sources you quote, surely an understanding of simple English is sufficient to verify that none of them doubts the existence of true randomness in nature?

I’m pretty good with math’s, although I have never done equations involving infinity before, that’s what I meant by “no expert”.
As for whether or not they believe in true randomness in nature; you would have to ask the mathematicians involved.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your use of a Leonardo quote in a completely inappropriate context makes nonsense of that, too.

I will admit that there has been a lot of ambiguity between the dictionary definition of random and the mathematical random. (see my last comment (A))

Originally posted by Astyanax
Randomness isn't 'science'; it's simply a phenomenon in the world, just as love is, or irritable bowel syndrome. Would you try to define these phenomena in mathematical terms?

No, I wouldn’t try to define those things in mathematical terms.

“Randomness isn’t science”; exactly! I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Yes randomness is a phenomenon in the world just like love is, but we can’t prove that love exists and the definition of love, is pretty hard to pin down. Take the word “ghost” for example, now we know that the phenomenon of ghosts exists but we don’t really understand it or know it’s causes. We have a dictionary definition of “ghosts”, which may or may not be accurate. As our understanding grows of that phenomenon, parts or all of the dictionary definition of that word, will change accordingly or possible disappear altogether.

I mean, you wouldn’t use the phrases “ghost mutations” or “love mutations” (although maybe they should lol), within a scientific theory, would you?

We are using the word (random), which is a phenomenon, that has arguably not been accurately defined, to describe a process, that we are only barely scratching the surface to understand, within a scientific theory; that’s nonsense!

After all, it is us who define the actual words in dictionaries, based on our understanding of the world around us. Hundreds of dictionary definitions change every year.

Originally posted by Astyanax
That, I'm afraid, is complete nonsense. Jabberwocky, in fact.

“Jabberwocky” LOL
Thanks, I will be adding that word too my ATS repertoire.

(A) Ok, I do understand what the dictionary definition of “random” is, and I also know what the mathematical definition is, and that, by definition, it is different from the dictionary version of “random”, i.e. I am not a crazy person! lol

I also understand, that there are similarities between parts of both definitions. For example, the definition of a “purely random” sequence of numbers, is said to be a sequence, without aim or plan or pattern to it. Those very same attributes, also make up part of the dictionary definition of “random”.

If it wasn’t for those similarities, then there wouldn’t have been any cross over into the field of computer simulations, using random number generators, to try to get a better understanding of how mutation in evolution works in biology.

PS – What happened to point number three? Did it get lost in the random number generator lol


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

A nice post, well-written (and well formatted!), even-tempered and good-humoured in the face of provocation. I give it a star, but forbear to reply; I've said what I had to stay, and--apart from the accusation of covert proselytizing, which I withdraw--it stands.

Thank you for a lapidary example of how to be a decent sort on the interwebs.

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
A nice post, well-written (and well formatted!), even-tempered and good-humoured in the face of provocation. I give it a star, but forbear to reply; I've said what I had to stay, and--apart from the accusation of covert proselytizing, which I withdraw--it stands.

Thank you; and I think with hindsight I could have explained my OP in a much better way and avoided a lot of ambiguity. Unfortunately my conversation gravitated towards the semantics, which was not completely what I had in mind, even though, I think it is important.

In light of this, I think it would better for me to start another thread, where I can actually discuss the science of mutations themselves, with material presented, that can actually be scientifically examined.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Thank you for a lapidary example of how to be a decent sort on the interwebs.

I read a lot around ATS and a lot posters stand out, and you are one of those that do so; most of your posts, I have read, are excellent.


Thanks once again, and I look forward to our next interactions on ATS…



- JC