Can mutations be random?

[4gold]

Evolution rests upon a concept that mutations within the DNA are random. Quantum mechanics rests upon a concept that wavefunctions are random. Other parts of science also rest upon a concept of randomness.

I already understand that the tests that show that chemical reactions on a gene cause a mutation that appears to be random. I understand the accuracy of the mathematics behind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I am not arguing the science behind the conclusion. I am arguing the conclusion itself.

Whenever I hear a scientist say something is random, I automatically insert the phrase "I have no idea how it happens" in its place.

Randomness is an objective property that can be tested if you know the initial conditions. Take, for example, a computer generated-program that outputs random numbers. To the observer, the numbers appear to be random, but the randomness can only be known by the software programmer. It is possible that the programmer inserted some code that makes the numbers appear unpredictable, but are in fact predetermined.

Since all of the initial conditions of life can never be known, is it ever really possible to conclude that Evolution, quantum mechanics, or anything else in nature is truly random?

[Goat]

Goat, I read throug the article. It seems to say that there are hidden variables and that our logical understanding is incomplete.

We might have an inadequate understanding, but that doesn't negate everything we know about the process. In fact the theorem is based on knowing something about the cause of radioactive decay.

Some of the alternate theories do, yes, it said that. But other theories are denying the hidden variables, and bell's theorem trys to disprove the 'hidden variable' concept. That is what I get out of trying to read that article.

The author mentions several of the alternate explainations at the end, and his comment is 'the problem iwth them is they seem to be trying to reintroduce the hidden variable concept through the back door'.