|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: random mutations | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
From:
Create Evolve on 8/23/00: quote: thmsberry from 2 of Definition of Modern Synthesis
quote: From post 5 by thmsberry:
quote: Note--the surrounding information gave no more meaning to this question AFAICT.
quote: I'm completely confused by this question as well. My question was when he said random, he meant in relation to fitness. Which all mutations are random in relation to fitness. More later.
quote: Given past discussions you have been involved in this should be obvious. And I'm at a loss as to why you are confused.
quote: It is pretty clear actually, I will clarify for you. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what exactly your confusion is. You cited in post 2 of Definition of Modern Synthesis that (quoting again):
quote: Spontaneous mutations are random in relation to fitness and random in a couple other senses: Ayala, Francisco J. and John Kiger Jr. Modern Genetics. 1980. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc.pg 551 quote: Lewin
quote: Of course different mutations have different causes spontaneous mutations from Griffiths et alpg 531 [b] [QUOTE] spontaneous are natural occurring and occur in all cells [/b][/QUOTE] induced:
[b] [QUOTE] Induced are porduced when an organism is exposed to a mutagenic agent or mutagen [/b][/QUOTE] pg 532
[b] [QUOTE] Spontaneous mutations arise from a variety of sources including errors in DNA replication, spontaneous lesions, and transposable genetic elements [/b][/QUOTE] Hartl and Freifelder pg 332
[b] [QUOTE] Mutations are random events and there is no way of knowing when or in which cell a mutation will occur. However, every gene mutates at a characteristic rate making it possible to assign probabilitiesto particular mutational events. Thus, there is a definite probability that a given gene will mutate in a particular cell, and likewise a definite probability that a mutant allele of the gene will occur in a population of a particular size. Different kinds of alterations in the DNA lead to mutations, and since these changes differ substantially in complexity, they occur with quite different probabilities. Mutations are also random in the sense that their occurrence is not related to any adaptive advantage they may confer on the organism in its environment [/b][/QUOTE] now from you again:
quote: The only important aspect of randomness to anything I'm discussing is that it is random in relation to fitness. Mutations are random in some other senses, but see the first quote at the top of this post...What did you mean by the quote directly above? How are HGTs not random in relation to fitness? Even if you don't classify them as mutations--please cite specific material that is relevant. The only challenge is if you could demonstrate that they are not random in relation to fitness. Clarify. Thanks,Larry Handlin [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 03-13-2001).] [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 03-13-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
I appreciate this post. It was extremely fair to my position. And even shows how consistent my debate has been over time. I believe the Sue quote is like from November of 2000(I didn't check the date). The past argument that mutations are Random as you notice was a semantic stalemate. But we were able to cut the meaning of Random as Spontaneous out. I argue that mutations are contingent or currently unpredictable by mankind. The process by which populations of organisms adapt to their environment is extemely contingent.Mutations occur independent of any one particular environmental advantage for a given organism. This appears to be what you mean when you say random in terms of fitness. If so, we have no argument with the idea of random in terms of fitness. However, I believe that mutations occur because the environment changes and organism must be able to evolve to survive a continuously changing environment. Thus, I would not say that mutations are random. Mutations exists to give organisms the ability to evolve to an ever evolving environment. Thus, the fact that all life mutates is not random. Now, if you disagree with this argument, fine. But in order to disprove it, you would have to make me aware of live organisms on this planet that do not have the ability to mutate or evolve. Funny though. Because that would disprove the Theory of Evolution. A theory you have demonstrated that you agree with. The word Random in itself is not terribly troubling. It is its association with the term Spontaneous or its implied meaning( without a planned cause). Let me explain. There is a belief that given that the environment of this planet changes and so does the life on it, the fact that these two process exist and sometimes are intertwined is a cosmic coincidence. There is no scientific evidence for this assumption. You see, I am saying that there is a purpose behind mutations and other evolutionary processes. They make life adaptable to changes in populations and their environment. These individual process, however, are extremely contingent and their purpose is quite obvious at the macro. Just like it is wrong to say that evolution occurs at the individual level, it occurs at the population level. It would be horribly wrong to say that life does not change for the purpose of being able to modify itself in an environment that is constantly changing, simply because the process by which individual organisms mutate is not directed by environment and is contingent and independent of environment. These sort of issues center around the fact that anticreationist often try to define the creator. And in their definition, The creator can’t use nature processes and contingencies in order to create. If you are viewing creationism the way that I defined before, this tact is clearly a strawman. Now, if we were discussing creation science, it would not be a strawman. But we are not discussing creation science or even young earth literal biblical christian fundamentalist creationsism. So as I hope it is clear, the subtle difference behind our respective uses of the term Random has a direct bearing on a major aspect of my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:
[B] I argue that mutations are contingent or currently unpredictable by mankind. The process by which populations of organisms adapt to their environment is extemely contingent. Mutations occur independent of any one particular environmental advantage for a given organism. This appears to be what you mean when you say random in terms of fitness.
[/QUOTE] What I mean? Yes, and what nearly every source says. It isn't that hard to follow. This is a scientific statement.
quote: What does the above have to do with science? It appears to be personal philosophy unless you are making a Lamarkian argument. And I really don't care about your personal philosophies.
quote: And how is this related to science? Your personal philosophies are quite irrelevant.
quote: That is nice, but I'm not interested in bad theology. Please confine you remarks to science.
quote: And you still haven't explained who is counted in that definition. Is it by self-identification or by some sort of bizarre labeling based on a persons faith?
quote: What argument? That you have personal faith? Okay. What does that have to do with science? Now, let me ask you what you meant by:
quote: What did this mean? It appears to be at odds with your famed consistency. Random in relation to fitness is the primary way anyone is going to address the issue so perhaps you can explain what the above was meant to convey? Or are you arguing Horizontal Gene Transfer is not random in relation to fitness? Clarify... Cheers,Larry Handlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
You wrote:"What did this mean? It appears to be at odds with your famed consistency. Random in relation to fitness is the primary way anyone is going to address the issue so perhaps you can explain what the above was meant to convey? Or are you arguing Horizontal Gene Transfer is not random in relation to fitness? Clarify..."
Cute. But there is no disagreement in my position. My point is clear the word random has an element to its definition that means without plan or order or purpose. I am clearly arguing that their is a purpose to mutation. So I would not use the word random under this definition and I have not. Also, I am saying that process by which mutations occur is contingent and complex, thus making them unpredictable by mankind. From a mathematical standpoint, this is what is meant by the term random. And I always need to separate the two meanings from one another. Since you are clarifying your use of the term random to just mean unpredictable and not to mean without design, I don't have a problem with your usage of the term Random. Thus, my issue was never with the phrase "Random in terms of fitness", but in clarifying what you meant by the word Random. It can be ambiguously used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: you from post 4:
quote: The was the last sentence of the first quote a mistake? It directly contradicts what you say in the second quote. In the first you claim biologists and geneticists define mutations as random, not contingent. In the second, you say they are contingent and complex. If this is a mistake fine. However, I will be quoting you on how careful you are with your wording. Additionally, I asked specifically, does this mean you are arguing HGTs are not random in relation to fitness? Thanks,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
I just don't see your point. Geneticist and Biologist do not describe mutation as contingent, but random. The double meaning of the word random allows the possibility to say they are without design. I define it as contingent too make it clear that I am eliminating the ability to blur the meaning of random to mean simultaneously unpredicatable and without design. I(Thmsberry) define mutations as contingent.Geneticist and Biologist (individuals not Thmsberry) define mutations as random, these mutations are governed by forces outside of the scope of Biology (Not supernatural, Ha, Physics and Chemistry). Yet, Horizontal mechanisms can not be termed random under this criteria. Their unpredictable is not based on forces outside of the scope of Biology. They are contingent on the interactions of Biological systems. Maybe we will need another exchange on this issue. But I am totally missing your claim of contradiction. I can be more precise in my definition of a term than people who are not me. And also, I clarified my view on your use of the term "random in terms of fitness". So let me know where exactly you need futher clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
It wasn't clear before, thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
It wasn't clear before, thank you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024