Do Random Mutations in species exist?

[Awesome!]

Are we humans the product of a random mutation?

 

[Thinker]

Are we humans the product of a random mutation?

No. We are the result of countless random mutations that have been subject
to natural selection.

 

[Tashah]

Are we humans the product of a random mutation?

As Thinker has denoted, random mutations occur frequently in the human genome. Genetic mutations also occur due to external stimuli.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Which Way Do We Go?

"Which Way Do We Go?"

Are we humans the product of a random mutation?

Random mutation implies a genetic occurrence without a causal or compelling reason.
An impossibility of a completely random progression is often used by creationists to reject evolution.

Genetic mutations also occur due to external stimuli.

Yes, genetic mutation also occurs by feedback from adaptations.
Adaptations can occur by a combination of decisive reason and opportunity.
Intuitive choice outweighs the low probability of success by random direction.

The replication of RNA has a high mutation rate.
DNA has error correction and has a lower rate of mutation.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Which Way Do We Go?

Random mutation implies a genetic occurrence without a causal or compelling reason.

Assuming your convoluted language is suggesting that a random event has no
cause, you are wrong. Random simply means that the cause is unpredictable
and undirected. If you have a different meaning for your words, please give it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Which Way Do We Go?

We are the products of the NONrandom survival of RANDOMLY varying replicators.

 

[Awesome!]

No. We are the result of countless random mutations that have been subject
to natural selection.

Is this a theory or fact?

 

[Thinker]

Is this a theory or fact?

It is a scientific theory (which is not the same as a guess) that is supported
by such an overwhelming amount of factual evidence, and a complete lack of
contradictory evidence, that the chances of it being significantly incorrect are
vanishingly small.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Nitpicky

"Nitpicky"

Randomness
The word random is used to express lack of purpose, cause, order, or predictability in non-scientific parlance.
A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.
The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation.

Random mutation implies a genetic occurrence without a causal or compelling reason.An impossibility of a completely random progression is often used by creationists to reject evolution.

Assuming your convoluted language is suggesting that a random event has no cause, you are wrong. Random simply means that the cause is unpredictable and undirected. If you have a different meaning for your words, please give it.

Random mutation in non-scientific parlance is being used to mean a lack of bias or correlation between successive mutations.
That is how the arguments are presented when the probability of evolution is rejected given the assay of genetic code.
That is the answer that few are given.
Of course you excised the comment in purple and ignored the comments in blue.

No. We are the result of countless random mutations that have been subject to natural selection.

This account of random mutations might be described by the second definition as a nondeterministic process compliant with a probability distribution. Your description fails to relate the intuition.

So let us quibble over consequence. If for every action there is a reaction, if the cause is unpredictable and undirected, does this imply that the reaction is without a causal or compelling reason?

 

[Thinker]

Re: Nitpicky

This account of random mutations might be described by the second definition as a nondeterministic process compliant with a probability distribution. Your description fails to relate the intuition.

So let us quibble over consequence. If for every action there is a reaction, if the cause is unpredictable and undirected, does this imply that the reaction is without a causal or compelling reason?

Enough! I am fed up with your babble. Write in clear, simple, unambiguous
English or I shall ignore you.

If you actually have a point you want to make you should be able to do so
simply. Continuing to write as you do will only convince me that you have
nothing of substance to say.

You are free to claim anything you like about this reaction of mine. I suspect
that any reasonable people still bothering to read this thread will understand
your little game.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Nitpicky

Enough! I am fed up with your babble. Write in clear, simple, unambiguous
English or I shall ignore you.

If you actually have a point you want to make you should be able to do so
simply. Continuing to write as you do will only convince me that you have
nothing of substance to say.

You are free to claim anything you like about this reaction of mine. I suspect
that any reasonable people still bothering to read this thread will understand
your little game.

I've been on to his game for weeks now and have also stopped trying. I am often apprehensive about people who speak in babble as opposed to speaking directly.

Either they are attempting to sound intelligent, are being deliberately deceptive, or have a vested interest in causing debates to come to a halt.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Bias Of Knowledge

"Bias Of Knowledge"

...caustic babble...

You would do better to inquire for clarification rather than hurling tripe in royal garb.

This account of random mutations might be described by the second definition as a nondeterministic process compliant with a probability distribution. Your description fails to relate the intuition.

If your statement was, "We are the result of countless mutations that have been subject to natural selection.", it would not include the vague, vacuous, freakish, uncorrelated, meaning associated with random.

You asked for simple explanations.
Let us here your all encompassing explanation of random genetics.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Art Of Objectivity

"Art Of Objectivity"

I've been on to his game for weeks now and have also stopped trying. I am often apprehensive about people who speak in babble as opposed to speaking directly.
Either they are attempting to sound intelligent, are being deliberately deceptive, or have a vested interest in causing debates to come to a halt.

Yes, keep it simple for stupid.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Nitpicky

I've been on to his game for weeks now and have also stopped trying. I am often apprehensive about people who speak in babble as opposed to speaking directly.

The phrase "snake-oil salesman" comes to mind.

ither they are attempting to sound intelligent, are being deliberately deceptive, or have a vested interest in causing debates to come to a halt.

He certainly does not sound intelligent, but then it's difficult to work out what
he is trying to say. That problem is easily resolved: I'm not going to bother
reading any of his posts in detail: a quick glance will tell if they are simply
more of his gibberish.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Art Of Objectivity

You would do better to inquire for clarification rather than hurling tripe in royal garb.

No, no he really wouldn't. I've tried, you declined.

"Art Of Objectivity"
Yes, keep it simple for stupid.

If you think being direct and not intentionally deceptive is being simple for stupidity's sake, then color me Bush.

I happen to think, being able to say what you need in as few words as possible while still being able to express yourself fully and be understood is what it is to be articulate.

You seem more content with babble, and you can have it.

The phrase "snake-oil salesman" comes to mind.

:rofl "You see the difference between us and other banks is that other banks are banks, sign here."

He certainly does not sound intelligent, but then it's difficult to work out what
he is trying to say. That problem is easily resolved: I'm not going to bother
reading any of his posts in detail: a quick glance will tell if they are simply
more of his gibberish.

You're right, a tough read isn't necessarily a good one.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Depth

"Depth"

The phrase "snake-oil salesman" comes to mind.
He certainly does not sound intelligent, but then it's difficult to work out what
he is trying to say. That problem is easily resolved: I'm not going to bother
reading any of his posts in detail: a quick glance will tell if they are simply
more of his gibberish.

Are the two of you finish queering each other off?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Depth

"Depth"
Are the two of you finish queering each other off?

Was anything we said to each other about each other? Aww poor baby is upset because no one likes his babbling...:2wave:

 

[Monk-Eye]

World Lines

"World Lines"

Was anything we said to each other about each other? Aww poor baby is upset because no one likes his babbling...:2wave:

You were sharing in a common overture. That is quite a dullard oversight. So do not assume I care what fools believe.

Stinker prefers to use his own diction.
He makes pointless, trivial issues, about linguistics out of context.
He had is arse handed to him in another post, he is still whimpering about it.

No, no he really wouldn't. I've tried, you declined.

Great, more nonexistent references. You made no inquiries. But by all means keep flatulating, the sound makes you think you are intelligent.

 

[Awesome!]

It is a scientific theory (which is not the same as a guess) that is supported
by such an overwhelming amount of factual evidence, and a complete lack of
contradictory evidence, that the chances of it being significantly incorrect are
vanishingly small.

What is interesting to me is that natural selection seems to be true, however random doesn't seem to be true because how could random mutations make something better if they are random?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Random Anticipation

"Random Anticipation"

There are millions upon millions of these random mutations, and what the theory of natural selection is is that those mutations which make one more able to survive will survive, and those mutations which don't will die off, in so many words.
This is to say that not all of the mutations will make the species "better", but the species will change into something "better" as those who have "better" mutations will survive better than those who do not.

It is not likely that you are saying, in every genetic replication there are millions and millions of random mutations.

Mutation
In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

Random is a cute interjection - it is a bullshit word.

 

[Thelost1]

Re: Random Anticipation

Damn, I really wanted this thread to go to the basement so that we could discuss Monk-Eye.

Anyways:
The Evolution of Improved Fitness

No, Evolution is not fully random. It involves small amounts of controlled randomness (though, as Galen and M-E pointed out, "random" is a bad word to use) that are put through "filters" in order to achieve a result that is better suited to survival. At least, that is how i think of it.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Biofeedback

"Biofeedback"

Of course not, but in the course of evolution there are millions of mutations.

Certainly.

You make a fair point, as we tend to assign the word random for things that are far too complicated for us to assess.

It is meant more concretely than that, as can be inferred from the articles in Evolutionary Development Biology.

Later, scientists discovered specific genes in animals, including a subgroup of the genes which contain the homeobox DNA motif, called Hox genes, that act as switches for other genes, and could be induced by other gene products, morphogens, that act analogously to the external stimuli in bacteria. These discoveries drew biologists´ attention to the fact that genes can be selectively turned on and off, rather than being always active, and that highly disparate organisms (for example, fruit flies and human beings) may use same genes for embryogenesis, just regulating them differently.
Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. Highly disparate organisms (for example, fruit flies and human beings) may thus use the same genes for embryogenesis (e.g., the genes of the "developmental-genetic toolkit", see below), only regulating them differently. In addition to providing new support for Darwin´s assertion that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, this finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that the action of natural selection on promoters responsive to Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution.

Another focus of evo-devo is developmental plasticity, the basis of the recognition that organismal phenotypes are not uniquely determined by their genotypes. If generation of phenotypes is conditional, and dependent on external or environmental inputs, evolution can proceed by a "phenotype-first" route,[5][3] with genetic change following, rather than initiating, the formation of morphological and other phenotypic novelties.

 

[Thinker]

What is interesting to me is that natural selection seems to be true, however random doesn't seem to be true because how could random mutations make something better if they are random?

The results of mutations may be neither better nor worse when taken in
isolation; you have to consider the environment in which the organism lives.

For example, consider creatures where two mutations (or sequences of
mutations) have resulted in two populations: one where breeding is most
efficient when the temperature is less than or equal to the current ambient
temperature, the other where it is most efficient when the temperature is
greater than or equal to the current temperature. These mutations are neutral
in the current environment. If the temperature falls, members of the first
population will be favoured and their mutation would be seen as "better" than
the others. If the temperature rises, the opposite would be true.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Random Anticipation

Damn, I really wanted this thread to go to the basement so that we could discuss Monk-Eye.

You could always start your own thread in the basement.

 

[black wolf]

In Germany, we use the term "mathematically random mutation". This describes more exactly what occurs. The mutations occur with a mathematical probability at a random genetic location. It's not like "we might or might not get a mutation", it's "we will see a mutation in a certain genetic area, but we can't predict the exact base pairs".