Can mutations be random?

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:05 am

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?

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:00 pm

goat wrote: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.

I understand that part. The part that I am calling into question is the part we call "Random", when there is really no way of telling whether something is actually random or not without knowing the initial conditions.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:08 pm

4gold wrote:
goat wrote: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.
I understand that part. The part that I am calling into question is the part we call "Random", when there is really no way of telling whether something is actually random or not without knowing the initial conditions.

I think that is what makes it random. We don't know the initial conditions or all of them.

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:18 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:I think that is what makes it random. We don't know the initial conditions or all of them.

Knowing the initial conditions is the only way to know if something is random or deterministic.

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:22 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:
4gold wrote:I think that is what makes it random. We don't know the initial conditions or all of them.
Knowing the initial conditions is the only way to know if something is random or deterministic.

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:22 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:I think that is what makes it random. We don't know the initial conditions or all of them.

Knowing the initial conditions is the only way to determine if something is random or deterministic.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:29 pm

4gold wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:I think that is what makes it random. We don't know the initial conditions or all of them.
Knowing the initial conditions is the only way to determine if something is random or deterministic.

Many of the high level guru's in the QM field feel that certain events are probablistic, rather than deterministic.

I can't understand their math.

4gold · Post by **4gold** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:56 pm

goat wrote:Many of the high level guru's in the QM field feel that certain events are probablistic, rather than deterministic.

I can't understand their math.

QM is way above my head, too. It is certainly not the kind of debate I want to get into, unless I am a masochist for defeat.

But even QM scientists cannot conclude that something is random. Random is within the scientific method, but it can only be known if all the initial conditions are known.

This whole thread seems to be more about semantics than application, but I don't think it is.

I think it leads to greater questions, such as:

(1) If you simply accept things as random, you must accept the philosophical and religious consequences that come with it. A determinist worldview is quite different than a indeterminist worldview.

(2) On what issues is it acceptable to aberrate from the scientific method? When there is consensus among scientists? That would be circular reasoning: what is considered acceptable science is that which is acceptable to scientists.

(3) Why is "random" any better of an answer than "God did it"?

I think you get my drift...

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:24 pm

4gold wrote:
goat wrote:Many of the high level guru's in the QM field feel that certain events are probablistic, rather than deterministic.

I can't understand their math.
QM is way above my head, too. It is certainly not the kind of debate I want to get into, unless I am a masochist for defeat.

But even QM scientists cannot conclude that something is random. Random is within the scientific method, but it can only be known if all the initial conditions are known.

This whole thread seems to be more about semantics than application, but I don't think it is.

I think it leads to greater questions, such as:

(1) If you simply accept things as random, you must accept the philosophical and religious consequences that come with it. A determinist worldview is quite different than a indeterminist worldview.

(2) On what issues is it acceptable to aberrate from the scientific method? When there is consensus among scientists? That would be circular reasoning: what is considered acceptable science is that which is acceptable to scientists.

(3) Why is "random" any better of an answer than "God did it"?

I think you get my drift...

That is something that you will have to ask the QM guru's. There is this one thing about science. Things have to be testable and repeatable (and or obsevable).

The Copenhagen model of QM , although not universally accpeted, has very strong support amoung physicists. There are a number of different approaches, and many of them are probablistic, rather than deterministic.

The 'random' can be tested for. The 'God did it' can't be.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:30 pm

Even at the QM level where the random seems to occur or noticed, being that it is not predictable except for probability theory it then determines other occasions in a some what random fashion.
The problem with Cause is that we can only see it after it happens.
It should be effect and cause instead of cause and effect.
Where are our physicists when we need them?
Guys?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:37 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:Even at the QM level where the random seems to occur or noticed, being that it is not predictable except for probability theory it then determines other occasions in a some what random fashion.
The problem with Cause is that we can only see it after it happens.
It should be effect and cause instead of cause and effect.
Where are our physicists when we need them?
Guys?

If there is a cause, (which means it is deterministic), then at the level at which QM operates, we have no way to detect that cause (currently).

The only thing about Cause and Effect is the law of cause and effect states that the cause has to preceed the effect.