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?

[Jose]

Even if I have problems separating cause and effect and would rather think in terms of causality because it does seem effect must be understood or experienced before we can speak of cause and random does not mean without cause but closer to unpredictable except as a probability.
When we speak of statistics we are always talking about an historical population of data.

An excellent point, Cathar. We can only determine statistical randomness after the fact. I guess that means that if we think of "a mutation that will happen," we must think of it in probabilistic terms. Geneticists do this automatically. "Gee...I want to obtain mutations in gene XXX. Let' see...using X-rays at the normal dose, and assuming an "average" gene size, I'll predict roughly 0.1% probability of hitting that gene. So, I'd better set up my experiment to look at 100,000 flies." At least, that's how I've done it. You're right--it's predictable only as a probability.

The probablistic effect of radioactivity, and of virtual particles is 'without cause', at least by some of the various QM theories.

I don't know enough QM to argue one way or the other, so I'll accept your statement. Still, my gut-level feeling is that the 'ol alpha particle or whichever it may be is rattling around in the nucleus as a probabilistic wave function or something, along with a whole bunch of others, and they don't quite fit right (whatever "fit" means), so in some probabilistic way, ol' Heisenberg steps in and voila--the particle is on the loose. It feels like the cause of radioactive decay is that the atom is unstable (which are probably two ways of phrasing exactly the same thing); we don't know precisely whose boot kicks out the particle, but you'd think there has to be some force that eventually makes it happen. But, that's just my common-sense notion of it. If common sense is once again wrong, and the counter-intuitive explanation is correct, that's even more fun.

[QED]

The only way I can see to get beyond the idea that superoxide acts wholly without malice aforethought is to imagine that, somehow, some weird Initial Conditions were set up at the Beginning of Time that directed me to take exactly those DNA molecules, those particular water molecules, those exact vitamin K molecules, and mix them together in precisely that test tube exactly the moment I did, so that just the right oxygen molecules would dissolve into the water from the air, become acted upon in just the right orientations and at just the right moments to cause the precise mutations that we ended up observing.

Some people will tell you that this all goes to show just how great God truly is! If we combine this awesome power with a couple of philosophical loopholes then, at best for the theologians, we're faced with an unresolvable ambiguity. But just how happy are we with a single divine strike of some cosmic cue ball? The balls would still bouncing around the table and would continue to bounce in an exact pattern until the end of time. There are other discussions on the implications of this so we ought to try to stay focused on the question of mutations being random. This should keep us closer to the physics involved therefore I would recommend a peek at The Status of Determinism in Physical Theories on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

[jjg]

Perhaps the msiunderstanding was my fault. I was speaking of cause and effect on metaphysical grounds, not physics.

[Cathar1950]

Perhaps the msiunderstanding was my fault. I was speaking of cause and effect on metaphysical grounds, not physics.

So how does this help?
What would be your metaphysical grounds?
Are you saying something about random mutations that has some metaphysical relevancy?

[jjg]

Already explained it.

[jjg]

Goat, would you like to explain how Bell's theorem says radioactive decay has no cause?

[Goat]

Goat, would you like to explain how Bell's theorem says radioactive decay has no cause?

I am not a physist, but an explaination can be found at this link to the
University of Toronto's physics program

www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Be ... heorem.pdf

[jjg]

Goat, I'll try to read through this and get back to you. I know the physics is hard to understand.

[jjg]

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.

[Jose]

Perhaps it would be more profitable to look here. I'd guess that the guys at Argonne would have modest understanding of this stuff. Some of them can put it into English. For example:

An unstable nucleus is one in which the ratio [of protons and neutrons] is off far enough that the nucleus really cannot hold itself together, but it might not decay immediately, because relatively stable decay products must form and separate. This might take a long time, because the nucleus is continually rearranging itself, and most arrangements do not correspond to the required relatively stable decay products.

The "real" cause of radioactive decay has two meanings. The first is a statistical definition. If a light nucleus has too many neutrons compared to the number of protons in the nucleus, the nucleus will be radioactive. What constitutes "too many" depends upon the element.... The second definition of the"actual cause" means if I sit and look at a single nucleus, will there be any indication that it is "about to decay" the answer is no one knows at least at the present time. Radioactive decay appears to be a statistical event.

If a ball in a very small dimple on a hill suddenly rolled out and down, we would probably ascribe it to provocation by molecular ("Brownian") motion. Or a breath of wind. Or
something moving. In the quantum mechanical world we do not have anything analogously visibly moving. An unstable particle simply has a finite, indeterminate lifetime describable only by probabilities. Maybe there is nothing moving, or maybe there are things moving so small that we can never see them and pin them down.

... As yet we have no way to distinguish between silent probabilistic uncertainties, and a roiling sea of virtual particles. So far they are
a consistently smeared-together picture with known average numbers but no underlying explanation. So far this issue is on the same level as " Why is an electron?"

So, there it is in English, without the math. Lump these together and imagine the particles (ie, probabilisitic uncertainties) lurking uncertainly in the space of the nucleus. What we need is the temporary uncertainty of several not-quite-particles to happen to be in certain states at the same time, so that the particulate nature of their probabilistic waveforms can take over and they can repel each other, escaping the nucleus, and becoming radioactive decay.

One might think of this as god continuously shuffling an infinite deck of cards for each sub-nuclear not-quite-pariticle, essentially as a random-number generator. Like hitting the jackpot on a very tiny slot machine, decay occurs when god's random number generators for all the particles happen to come up "just so." Then, voila! Your X-ray film gets a black dot on it.

To add a bit of extra QM, Heisenberg's Uncertainty is that particles, which are at the same time electromagnetic waves, actually exist (if they exist at all) in some sort of uncertain probabilistic distribution along the wave packet. We can imagine a particle "escaping" the nucleus and becoming a radioactive decay simply because its wave packet is of an appropriate size to be inside the nucleus...most of the time. But the uncertainty results in the "particulate nature" of it being sometimes inside, and sometimes outside...if it happens to be outside, then it can escape in radioactive decay. So...what's the cause? The cause is the fundamental nature of the particle--it can never be precisely defined as existing in any particular location. It's location is a probability function based on its wavelength. Sometimes it's here, sometimes it's there, because that's how it is.

When thought of this way, the "cause" of radioactive decay is that things exist; matter is the way it is. It can't help it. Wholly unpredictable things happen to come together just so.