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?

[jwu]

Evolution rests upon a concept that mutations within the DNA are random.

Evolution doesn't care whether the mutations are random (in this context usually ment as "unpredictable") or not.

[4gold]

Evolution doesn't care whether the mutations are random (in this context usually ment as "unpredictable") or not.

Exactly my point. There is a difference between unpredictable and random.

But using the term "unpredictable" with Evolution doesn't quite fit, either. Scientists can make predictions off of the mutations of a given set. In fact, evolutionary theory makes a range of predictions based upon the mutations of genes.

Edited to Add:I realize your point that whether the mutations are determinate or indeterminate, Evolution is still the same. The point of my post wasn't to bring down Evolution or one of its tenets. The point of my post is to point out an aberration from the science method. I do not believe that science can state that an unanswerable event was random, any more than a "God of the gaps" person can state that an unanswerable event is due to God.

[Grumpy]

4gold

Evolution rests upon a concept that mutations within the DNA are random.

This is a false impression of what evolution stands on. Whether a mutation is random, induced or is the result of a viral insertion Natural Selection will then test it.

Evolution consists of nothing more than descent with modification(from whatever source) tested by NS(does that organism survive and reproduce), that's all.

Grumpy

[4gold]

4gold

Evolution rests upon a concept that mutations within the DNA are random.

This is a false impression of what evolution stands on. Whether a mutation is random, induced or is the result of a viral insertion Natural Selection will then test it.

Evolution consists of nothing more than descent with modification(from whatever source) tested by NS(does that organism survive and reproduce), that's all.

Grumpy

You're the second person to state this, and I realize that I worded it very poorly. What I meant is that Evolution states that mutations are random.

Whether those mutations are actually random or are determinate makes no difference to the theory of Evolution. All Evolution cares about is that the mutations do in fact occur.

The point of my post, unlike many other subjects in this subforum, was not to bring down Evolution or one of its tenets. Quite the opposite! I actually do believe the mutations are random. My point was more that stating something is random is outside the scientific method. Without knowing initial conditions, answering an unanswerable question with "random" is just as philosophical of a debate as answering an unanswerable question with "God did it".

[Grumpy]

4gold

We know the halflives of many radioactive materials. We can accurately predict when half of the atoms will decay. We do not however, have any way of predicting when any particular single atom will decay.

Mutation rates we can calculate, but knowing where in the genes those mutations will occur or what their effect will be ios not predictable, therefore we call them random.

Grumpy

[4gold]

4gold

We know the halflives of many radioactive materials. We can accurately predict when half of the atoms will decay. We do not however, have any way of predicting when any particular single atom will decay.

Mutation rates we can calculate, but knowing where in the genes those mutations will occur or what their effect will be ios not predictable, therefore we call them random.

Grumpy

I understand the science behind the process, and I agree with it. If you take a mole of uranium, it is quite impossible to predict which atoms will release the alpha rays, even though they all have the same half-life. To the observer, the decay of uranium appears random.

But that is not what I am trying to address in the post. In natural events that we cannot predict (such as the decay of specific uranium atoms) and in natural events that we can predict (such as genetic mutations in a specific environment), scientists call these events "random".

Unless you have the initial conditions, "random" is a philosophical debate, not a scientific debate. Am I right, or is my line of thinking wrong?

[Grumpy]

4gold

Randomness does exist, knowing initial conditions can only go so far in predicting outcomes. In science that which can not be predicted(the particular atom, the specific gene)is considered to be random. Whether this is always true randomness(IE we could NOT conceivably predict it given all info) or not has been argued ad infinitum. But to the practical limits of our abilities now both radioactivity and gene mutations appear to be random.

Grumpy

[Goat]

Evolution doesn't care whether the mutations are random (in this context usually ment as "unpredictable") or not.

Exactly my point. There is a difference between unpredictable and random.

But using the term "unpredictable" with Evolution doesn't quite fit, either. Scientists can make predictions off of the mutations of a given set. In fact, evolutionary theory makes a range of predictions based upon the mutations of genes.

Edited to Add:I realize your point that whether the mutations are determinate or indeterminate, Evolution is still the same. The point of my post wasn't to bring down Evolution or one of its tenets. The point of my post is to point out an aberration from the science method. I do not believe that science can state that an unanswerable event was random, any more than a "God of the gaps" person can state that an unanswerable event is due to God.

It doesn't matter if a specific mutation is unpredictiable /random or not.
What matters is there is a selection mechanism (called Natural Selection), that gives for non-random results.

[4gold]

4gold

Randomness does exist, knowing initial conditions can only go so far in predicting outcomes. In science that which can not be predicted(the particular atom, the specific gene)is considered to be random. Whether this is always true randomness(IE we could NOT conceivably predict it given all info) or not has been argued ad infinitum. But to the practical limits of our abilities now both radioactivity and gene mutations appear to be random.

Grumpy

I think you nailed the gist of this conversation on the head, Grumpy. What we call "random" isn't necessarily true randomness, but rather it's just most pragmatic to call it "random".

The most accurate way to describe the systems that appear random might be to use the word "unpredictable", but even that falls short, as we do make certain predictions off of them.