The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?  (Read 11478 times)

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #25 on: 11/06/2010 00:52:58 »
It's not a bad analogy the body has some degree of error correction too but this isn't perfect so some errors get through.. I could go into details about radiolysis of water to give hydroxy radicals and their reaction with DNA that alter it to produce mutations.

The fact is that these interactions happen where radiation happens to "hit" DNA.

Unless someone can explain the "targeting" mechanism, we have to accept that it's random whether Echochartruse likes it or not.

There are many scientific papers that explain the process and effect.

you have not been reading the links previously posted in this forum...

please read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602090327.htm

Stem Cell Researchers Uncover Previously Unknown Patterns in DNA Methylation
Quote
"These results indicate that nucleosome positioning influences DNA methylation patterning throughout the genome and that DNA methyltransfereases (the enzymes that methylates DNA) preferentially target nucloesome-bound DNA,"

please read the article...http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/182/11/2993

Quote
The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6)  who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating "The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by `chance' and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye."


Sorry Echo, I don't think that paper is relevant.

I think you consistently confuse "mutation" - which is random, with other genetic changes, which are not.  The Tasmanian devils & almost all of the papers you cite have nothing to do with DNA mutation.

This forum is not about "DNA mutations" Are you saying that evolution can only happen through DNA damage? That nothing before or after 'random' permanent damage has to do with evolution?

Quote
What do you think people mean when they say "random mutation"?

I think people are saying "there is a permanent change to the DNA which is disease or damage and I don't know how or why it happened, yet"

Quote from: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/182/11/2993
The environment gave rise to life and continues to direct evolution. Environmental conditions are constantly controlling and fine-tuning the transcriptional machinery of the cell. Feedback mechanisms represent the natural interactive link between an organism and its environment. An obvious selective advantage exists for a relationship in which particular environmental changes are metabolically linked through transcription to genetic changes that help an organism cope with new demands of the environment.

Ben V do you disagree That the Tassie Devils are evolving, maturing earlier, breeding earlier. That genetic changes are due to their fatal cancer?

The Tassie Devils genes have changed to allow them to breed earlier. Not one Devil but entire societies of Devils.
Can anyone truly say this is random?

Does evolution depend on permanent (random) damage to DNA?
DNA mutation is a quick process. It doesn't have to take vast periods of time for permanent damage to DNA to occur.

Quote from: ==http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/07/infectious-cancer-forces-tasmanian-devil-lifecycle-evolution.ars
Now, a study that will appear later this week in PNAS suggests the wild populations of the animal may be evolving in response to the lethal disease and adopting a completely different life cycle as a result.

Evolution down under September 2008
Quote from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080901_dftd
   This summer, however, scientists reported that devils may be responding to DFTD by breeding earlier — before they are likely to be killed by the disease. This change could help the species survive longer, but is it an evolutionary one?

 [Sydney Morning Herald]. While some researchers believe this to be an example of rapid evolution, skeptics say the case is not yet closed.

....We are still waiting for the well fed zoo Tassies to breed earlier... to please the skeptics.

Quote from: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/07/14-01.html
The shift toward early breeding could be an evolutionary response, says Jones. By killing any adults that breed after age 2, the cancer could be genetically selecting for younger breeding females, she notes. If so, the findings would make the devil the first known mammal to rapidly evolve its reproductive patterns in response to a disease.



Does anything have to have permanent change to evolve? If the cancer is evolving then it must continually changing.

Is it required to be random?

Can random be proven?

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #26 on: 11/06/2010 06:07:52 »
The mechanism may not be too different from the manner in which radiation randomly alters the contents of computer memory (RAM). Fortunately, computer systems have built in defences to detect and correct these random changes, so we are usually unaware of them.

 "pseudo-random" numbers are used to encode messages across the net. The computer algorithm generates them and they can be cracked. There is no way to identify these numbers as truely random.

Quote from: http://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-qubits-how-quantum-computers-work.ars/4
Imagine if someone showed you a pair of coins, claiming that when both were flipped at the same time, one would always come up heads and one would always come up tails, but that which was which would be totally random. What if they claimed that this trick would work instantly, even if the coins were on opposite sides of the Universe.

You would probably say that's impossible. Albert Einstein did.

In 1935, in one of the most famous scientific papers of all time, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that because quantum mechanics allowed exactly this type of strange action at a distance, it must not be complete. Some part of the theory had to be missing.

In effect, they claimed that some extra information (called hidden variables) was programmed into the coins—although they seem random, they really only show correlation because of hidden instructions which tell the coins which way to flip. After all, dice seem random, but if you know precisely how a die is rolling, you can predict its outcome. This assumption—that, in principle, the outcome of any experiment is predictable—is called realism.



Echo: What you are referring to has nothing to do with the phenomenon I mentioned. The situation I described is truly random. It can effect lots of different electronic devices, but the random errors it produces in computer memories (RAM) are of the greatest concern.

Some memories operate by storing a small amount of charge in a capacitor. The presence or absence of charge represents a binary state (a 1 or a 0). Alpha particles from the materials that are used to make the device bombard the capacitors, and they can occasionally discharge the capacitor sufficiently to change the state of the bit of information stored.

Actually, it took companies like Intel quite a while to figure out what was actually going on, and there are some interesting stories about making massive lead boxes to conduct various tests.

The RAM manufacturers publish data on how often this situation could arise (worst case) for any one device. The circuit designer then decides on an appropriate strategy to deal with the problem that best meets the needs of the intended application. It might have just happened in your computer, but it will be corrected automatically when the CPU accesses the corrupted cell.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #27 on: 14/06/2010 02:23:44 »
The mechanism may not be too different from the manner in which radiation randomly alters the contents of computer memory (RAM). Fortunately, computer systems have built in defences to detect and correct these random changes, so we are usually unaware of them.

Quote
Echo: What you are referring to has nothing to do with the phenomenon I mentioned. The situation I described is truly random. It can effect lots of different electronic devices, but the random errors it produces in computer memories (RAM) are of the greatest concern.

Some memories operate by storing a small amount of charge in a capacitor. The presence or absence of charge represents a binary state (a 1 or a 0). Alpha particles from the materials that are used to make the device bombard the capacitors, and they can occasionally discharge the capacitor sufficiently to change the state of the bit of information stored.

Actually, it took companies like Intel quite a while to figure out what was actually going on, and there are some interesting stories about making massive lead boxes to conduct various tests.

The RAM manufacturers publish data on how often this situation could arise (worst case) for any one device. The circuit designer then decides on an appropriate strategy to deal with the problem that best meets the needs of the intended application. It might have just happened in your computer, but it will be corrected automatically when the CPU accesses the corrupted cell.


This is not random genetics but I understand what you are saying.

We have the cause and the outcome, it is just we don't fully understand the process, so we call it random.
Should we find the process and still don't understand the choices made to establish the specific error then it is still random', until we fully understand in its entirety.

I can find evidence that we are coming closer to understand what initiates changes in genetics so that less and less are being described as random

DNA Sequence Itself Influences Mutation Rate, New Research Indicates hhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100524092348.htm

By saying it is random doesn't prove it.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #28 on: 14/06/2010 02:54:45 »
Echo:

The manner in which radiation effects RAM memory cells is random and the similar effect that radiation has on DNA that Boredchemist pointed out is also entirely random. The mechanisms are somewhat different, but the source and the outcomes are very similar. Random changes occur.

There may be other things that effect DNA, but at least some of the changes are quite random.

 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #29 on: 26/09/2010 22:50:26 »
Echo:
There may be other things that effect DNA, but at least some of the changes are quite random.

I think what you are saying is that we have not found the specific pattern, purpose, or objective of the change? Is that right? If not can you explain what you mean when you say Random please.
 

Offline tommya300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #30 on: 27/09/2010 10:16:09 »
Echo:
There may be other things that effect DNA, but at least some of the changes are quite random.

I think what you are saying is that we have not found the specific pattern, purpose, or objective of the change? Is that right? If not can you explain what you mean when you say Random please.

ran·dom   /ˈrændəm/  Show Spelled
[ran-duhm]  Show IPA
 
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades .
a. (of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b. (of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c. constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
–noun
4. Chiefly British . bank3  ( def. 7b ) .
–adverb
5. Building Trades . without uniformity: random-sized slates.
—Idiom
6. at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way: Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

Let me randomly step up and ask you to, Rationalize, a one in a million occurrence
« Last Edit: 27/09/2010 10:18:29 by tommya300 »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #31 on: 28/09/2010 00:51:50 »
Let me randomly step up and ask you to, Rationalize, a one in a million occurrence

See above to illustrate my point.

The person suggests that asking a question was random.
I believe it was predetermined, not random at all. It was calculated, thought about and executed.

In my opinion the word 'Random' slips into science too often. Because people don't think. The word 'Random' is acceptable by science and used too much and I don't know why, except to save humility, embarrassment instead of saying 'I don't know'.

Just as calculating the possibility of random atoms aligning to make a living cell ignores the basic principles of chemistry. Atoms don't just randomly align into molecules, they react with other atoms based on certain rules.

It appears there are more definitions than the ones in the previous post for 'Random' http://www.yourdictionary.com/random

random    Featured Word
adjective

    * unexpected and surprising.

Quote
The problem is that a random number generator doesn't produce a random sequence. It probably doesn't produce anything that looks even remotely like a random sequence. Of course, it is impossible to produce something truly random on a computer. Knuth quotes John von Neumann as saying: "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin."
http://www.meaning.com/wiki/Truly_random

Quote from:  author Randomness. Deborah J. Bennett. 224 pp. Harvard University Press, 1998.
"Is a random outcome completely determined, and random only by virtue of our ignorance of the most minute contributing factors?"
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/1998/5/chance-encounter

Quote
Whether well-educated in mathematics or not, people have always been fascinated by randomness and intrigued by the fundamental question of the real nature of randomness, of how can you tell randomness from something that is not. The theory of deterministic chaos tells us that a simple, deterministic rule can produce a behavior that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from random. For instance, the logistic map Xn+1=4Xn (1-Xn) produces a sequence of random numbers as the equation is iterated and n increases (start for instance with X0=0.3, then calculate X1, X2, X3  and so on). If such a simple rule generates a list of numbers that apparently follow no rule, could it be that what we call random is in fact produced by (hidden) deterministic rules that happen to exhibit stochastic (chaotic) behavior? If so, does this mean that we will eventually find the pattern behind all randomness, as Einstein wanted to believe we would?—J. A. Rial, Geology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


« Last Edit: 28/09/2010 00:54:24 by echochartruse »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is there proof that genetic changes happen randomly?
« Reply #31 on: 28/09/2010 00:51:50 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums