[RD]

Definition RANDOM:- lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"

There was/is a reason for all the various forms of life : natural selection.

So we both agree it is not RANDOM

The changes were/are random,
 the prevailing environment selected for those random changes which were beneficial, a.k.a. natural selection.
 No teleology, No design.

[echochartruse]

Complexity is not proof of design ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

What is a Complex System?
It's a revolution because working with complex systems goes against traditional science practice. Until now, scientists have spent a lot of time breaking things down into ever smaller component parts – known as reductionism – to understand how each part works in isolation of other parts, only to find that this does not help to understand how the whole system works together...............Although there are a wide variety of systems that are complex, they all have two elements in common. They all exhibit emergence and self organisation.

self organisation!

[RD]

Complexity is not proof of design ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

What is a Complex System?
It's a revolution because working with complex systems goes against traditional science practice. Until now, scientists have spent a lot of time breaking things down into ever smaller component parts – known as reductionism – to understand how each part works in isolation of other parts, only to find that this does not help to understand how the whole system works together...............Although there are a wide variety of systems that are complex, they all have two elements in common. They all exhibit emergence and self organisation.

self organisation!

Are you suggesting self organization is proof of intelligence or an intelligent designer ?.

Crystals self-organise but they are not intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallization#Crystallization_in_nature

Computer automata self-organise but they are not intelligent,
(their complex stable patterns emerge from elements repeatedly following very simple rules).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

[echochartruse]

Are you suggesting self organization is proof of intelligence or an intelligent designer ?.

Crystals self-organise but they are not intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallization#Crystallization_in_nature

Computer automata self-organise but they are not intelligent,
(their complex stable patterns emerge from elements repeatedly following very simple rules).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

Truthfully we all have limited ability to see how evolution works but it doesn't happen over vast periods of time, like we were taught at school. I doubt that anything is truely random, its just that we haven't found the answers yet.

Evolution depends on environment, time and networking, (The ability to be influenced or not by whats around.). Yes even crystals network to grow.
How evolution knows to depend on nature time and networking is the question.
My opinion is that it is not scientific to think "it just happens".

DNA networks with RNA to form life. How does it know to network? What compels it to do it?
What compels them to network and form life? Obviously we just haven't found the answers yet.

[BenV]

Truthfully we all have limited ability to see how evolution works but it doesn't happen over vast periods of time, like we were taught at school. I doubt that anything is truely random, its just that we haven't found the answers yet.

Evolution depends on environment, time and networking, (The ability to be influenced or not by whats around.). Yes even crystals network to grow.
How evolution knows to depend on nature time and networking is the question.

Evolution doesn't know anything, so that's not a useful question.
 

My opinion is that it is not scientific to think "it just happens".

DNA networks with RNA to form life. How does it know to network? What compels it to do it?
What compels them to network and form life? Obviously we just haven't found the answers yet.

Or you're asking the wrong questions. Nothing "compels" chemistry to happen. And what's so wrong in accepting that sometimes things happen without a reason?

[norcalclimber]

Truthfully we all have limited ability to see how evolution works but it doesn't happen over vast periods of time, like we were taught at school. I doubt that anything is truely random, its just that we haven't found the answers yet.

Evolution depends on environment, time and networking, (The ability to be influenced or not by whats around.). Yes even crystals network to grow.
How evolution knows to depend on nature time and networking is the question.

Evolution doesn't know anything, so that's not a useful question.
 

My opinion is that it is not scientific to think "it just happens".

DNA networks with RNA to form life. How does it know to network? What compels it to do it?
What compels them to network and form life? Obviously we just haven't found the answers yet.

Or you're asking the wrong questions. Nothing "compels" chemistry to happen. And what's so wrong in accepting that sometimes things happen without a reason?

I agree with BenV here, I think lots of random things happen all the time.  I think that, even if our recent evolution may have had some control exerted on it by the life forms evolving, whether life occurs somewhere is random to some extent.  Actually it seems to me that if there is a god or creator, then random chance is actually very important to it. 

Let's look at the question of god logically real quick:

If there is a creator, and it created the universe, then we should be able to know the will of god simply by looking at its creation.  What I see is a whole bunch of laws of physics, but absolutely no evidence of direct manipulation.  This seems to say to me that if there is a creator, then it simply created everything and then let whatever could happen, happen.  This would mean that life evolving in the universe was not random, but the specific place it evolves is random.  This also implies that humans really aren't very special overall, and I agree with that personally.

I personally do not believe in a conscious creator.... I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "force" of sorts which causes things like what we call the universe to be created, but I don't think there is any evidence of a God which is watching over us and cares what we do, which is what "intelligent design" typically refers to.

[echochartruse]

I agree with BenV here, I think lots of random things happen all the time. 

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-Species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

Sorry I have to disagree

Even when "random / chance" can be explained, we still prefer to use the word. Its just getting our head around it.

How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107071822.htm

Distribution Of Creatures Great And Small Can Be Predicted Mathematically
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717174939.htm

[norcalclimber]

I agree with BenV here, I think lots of random things happen all the time. 

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-Species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

Sorry I have to disagree

Even when "random / chance" can be explained, we still prefer to use the word. Its just getting our head around it.

How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107071822.htm

Distribution Of Creatures Great And Small Can Be Predicted Mathematically
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717174939.htm

Now we're talking about modern evolution again though, and here is where I agree that modern evolution is not random.  The thing is, that's only the past 750 million years or so.  Life looks to have been on Earth for about 4.4 billion years, and random may have certainly ruled the day for the first 3.5 billion years of evolution.

I agree that many things which have appeared random are not actually, but there is a big step between that and saying that nothing is random.  I think free will is extremely important, and free will provides a certain degree of random inherent in everything, IMHO.

[echochartruse]

There was/is a reason for all the various forms of life : natural selection.

Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm

[echochartruse]

Now we're talking about modern evolution.........

Galaxy Formation Not Random, Says Astronomer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010226070416.htm

[echochartruse]

I think free will is extremely important, and free will provides a certain degree of random inherent in everything, IMHO.

"When scientists observe animals responding differently even to the same external stimuli, they attribute this variability to random errors in a complex brain." Using a combination of automated behavior recording and sophisticated mathematical analyses, the international team of researchers showed for the first time that such variability cannot be due to simple random events but is generated spontaneously and non-randomly by the brain. These results caught computer scientist and lead author Alexander Maye from the University of Hamburg by surprise:

[BenV]

Echo - we're not saying that evolution is random, but that mutation, one of the sources for variation that evolution can act upon, is.

I'm still not sure I understand your point of view on this - I'm don't know what you think is true, or what you're trying to convince us of.

Random mutation is one aspect of non-random evolution, there are other aspects but there is no evidence of 'design'.  Epigenetic factors can influence evolution, but as of yet the evidence seems to be that they alter the genome in response to environmental factors, and so are another aspect of natural selection.

[imatfaal]

Echo

I have read through some of the original academic articles upon which the sciencedaily.com posts are based upon.  Perhaps not surprisingly for a piece of journalism rather than an academic article they tend to be more sensationalist and less restrained.  Whilst I am not an expert, from the articles I have read, sciencedaily.com has extrapolated quite an extended wide-ranging headline from focussed and precise observations; whilst this can be correct it can also be misleading.

I am sure that someone so obviously interested and well-informed as yourself could gain a great deal from engaging with the original article - they are fasciniating and accessible (to a minor extent) to even an amateur such as myself.  I don't think they bear out your argument to the extent that the posts from sciencedaily.com might imply.

Fascinating argument.

Matthew

if you are unsure how to get free copies of such academic articles you can try this method to see if one exists on the internet.  Search on google scholar (under 'more' on google homepage) for the lead author and a few key words (ie Karin Kiontke vulva) - then click on All 11 versions.  There is often a version that provides pdf link (on rhs of screen) to the article.

[echochartruse]

Echo - we're not saying that evolution is random, but that mutation, one of the sources for variation that evolution can act upon, is.

--"random mutation over vast periods of time."

Today we agree evolution happens constantly throughout ages, what we do today effects our generations genome.

Protein coding genes of humans and chimpanzees are about 99 percent the same so therefore it is how the genes are regulated, turned on and off that makes us different.

Random mutation is one aspect of non-random evolution,

What type of Zen is this?
We get Cosmos out of chaos?
Random mutation just does not happen, why is science trying to prove "Random Mutation"?

As the genomes of various organisms became known, it turned out that complex and simple organisms differ less than anticipated in the sizes and makeup of their genomes; complexity of an organism is now believed to be reflected mainly in the manner in which expression is regulated.

A 'mutation' is linked to disease and cancer.
This is actually a misregulation of genes or fluctuations in genes giving choice for one of exact same genes in the same environment to alter. Why the fluctuation, we dont know yet but I'm sure it's not random,

Proteins read DNA sequence from beginning to end and translate this information in turn into new protein, which are essentially molecules that build the cells structure and control biochemical processes.  The environment, time and gene/protein networking all work together and results in adaptation/evolution.

Bacteria, fungi and parasites, unlike viruses, appear to have allowed the introduction of misregulations in the genes of some proteins of the innate immunity system, thus enabling greater genetic variability. In some cases, these misregulations may even constitute an advantage, giving the host improved resistance to infectious diseases.

The only way I see a misregulation of a gene effectivily assisting evolution is in a situation as my example of the Tassie Devils where prior to the TDFT disease they had clone type DNA, no variation in their geneome. A mutation/misregulation of genes: (cancer), occured due to the environment. This caused the Tassie Devils to breed at a much earlier age for their own survival. Now scientists find, their genes have diversified to regulate to combat the cancer in the near future.

mutation/misregulation of genes is not the only force of evolution, genes can be turned on and off, shuffled, co operate together, network to evolve.

The Tasmainina Devil's ability to know to breed earlier to have offspring that could contain a regulated gene to survive the cancer is one of the mechanisms in their evolution, its not random but for a purpose. How do they know to do this?
However it appears intelligent to me, not random.

[BenV]

Echo - we're not saying that evolution is random, but that mutation, one of the sources for variation that evolution can act upon, is.

--"random mutation over vast periods of time."

Today we agree evolution happens constantly throughout ages, what we do today effects our generations genome.

Protein coding genes of humans and chimpanzees are about 99 percent the same so therefore it is how the genes are regulated, turned on and off that makes us different.

Random mutation is one aspect of non-random evolution,

What type of Zen is this?
We get Cosmos out of chaos?
Random mutation just does not happen, why is science trying to prove "Random Mutation"?

Science isn't trying to prove random mutation, as it's just a fact that mutations occur at random throughout the genome during cell divisions.  There's no getting away from the fact that random mutation is one source of variation on which evolution can act.

I'm not sure what you think this has to do with DFTD, but they don't "know" that mating earlier will help. The disease must be altering their population structure in some way, and this means they are mating earlier.

Does anyone know the 'normal' mating patterns for Tasmanian devils? Is it a hareem structure? Do the males fight for mating access?

[Geezer]

Protein coding genes of humans and chimpanzees are about 99 percent the same so therefore it is how the genes are regulated, turned on and off that makes us different.

I don't think that's quite right.

Humans and chimpanzees are very similar in very many respects. I think the small differences between our genomes account for the small differences between chimpanzees and humans.

[echochartruse]

Science isn't trying to prove random mutation, as it's just a fact that mutations occur at random throughout the genome during cell divisions.  There's no getting away from the fact that random mutation is one source of variation on which evolution can act.

"In all organisms, genes get duplicated every so often, for reasons we don't fully understand," said Ariel Fernandez, professor of bioengineering at Rice University. "It is a coping mechanism,

RANDOM = lacking any definite plan or order or purpose;
Evolution is not random just that we don't fully understand yet.

...the supposedly random shuffling of large chunks of DNA that frequently lead to cancer -- aren't so random after all...

Why Our Peripheral Vision May Not Be as Random as We Think

A pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), also known as a deterministic random bit generator (DRBG)[1], is an algorithm for generating a sequence of numbers that approximates the properties of random numbers. The sequence is not truly random in that it is completely determined by a relatively small set of initial values, called the PRNG's state.

NOT RANDOM - what I am arguing is that RANDOM is not scientific. Work carried out on disease has found that gene ‘mutation’ is not random. Not fully understood YET but definitely not random.

In my point of view if it was entirely random then there must be a greater force controlling it and this gives way to creation.

MUTATION is where a cell has been misregulated, say.. duplicated and causes a disease. Regulated is when genes have been turned on or off, shuffled or rearranged they are not mutated.

2 identical twins can have the same DNA exactly. Due to gene regulation or misregulation they differ. Misregulation causes disease, sickness and regulation distinguishes individuality.

RANDOM MUTATION as you speak and in our text books is old hat and has been proven to be not random. Our DNA is constantly changing due to environment, time and networking. Unfortunately science has not found another word for the incorrect word Random and it gets used too much when things are not at all random and/or can't be explained yet.

I'm not sure what you think this has to do with DFTD, but they don't "know" that mating earlier will help. The disease must be altering their population structure in some way, and this means they are mating earlier.
Does anyone know the 'normal' mating patterns for Tasmanian devils? Is it a hareem structure? Do the males fight for mating access?

Devils are solitary animals with the females having more contact with each other than males, they are nocturnal and mate underground.  Said to start breeding in their second year. The young are weaned at 5-6 months. Males usually breed with more than one female and it has been observed that female Devils are very selective with whom they breed with. Females choose their mate.The cancer will kill around 3 months after contracting.
http://www.devilsonverandah.com.au/tasmanian_devil_breeding.htm
"To our knowledge, this is the first known case of infectious disease leading to increased early reproduction in a mammal," they wrote in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Protein coding genes of humans and chimpanzees are about 99 percent the same so therefore it is how the genes are regulated, turned on and off that makes us different.

I don't think that's quite right.

Humans and chimpanzees are very similar in very many respects. I think the small differences between our genomes account for the small differences between chimpanzees and humans.

1.   The chimpanzee and human genomes are strikingly similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96 percent sequence identity.
Biologically, DNA is the common language of every living thing. By opening up the cells of any living thing - bacteria, plants, moulds or ourselves - we find DNA controlling every activity. A close look at DNA shows that humans are remarkably similar to the rest of the living world - sharing about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
While the DNA of almost all organisms is distinct in its fine detail, the overall structure of the DNA found in every living organism is the same.
However each species has its own characteristics and among humans only identical twins share the same DNA.
Even the DNA of plants is similar to that of humans. We share 60% of our DNA with a banana.

OK so from 96-99% depending which science journal you read.

which indicates to me that DNA is same across the range depending on what is turned on or off, shuffled etc.

Exactly why, how DNA knows to turn on and off, shuffle, rearrange is amazing and not random. Why the Tassie Devils are breeding earlier for their survival is amazing, not random but hopefully their earlier breeding will contribute to their offspring being able to reshuffle their genes to cope with the disease.

[Geezer]

1.   The chimpanzee and human genomes are strikingly similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96 percent sequence identity.
Biologically, DNA is the common language of every living thing. By opening up the cells of any living thing - bacteria, plants, moulds or ourselves - we find DNA controlling every activity. A close look at DNA shows that humans are remarkably similar to the rest of the living world - sharing about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
While the DNA of almost all organisms is distinct in its fine detail, the overall structure of the DNA found in every living organism is the same.
However each species has its own characteristics and among humans only identical twins share the same DNA.
Even the DNA of plants is similar to that of humans. We share 60% of our DNA with a banana.

OK so from 96-99% depending which science journal you read.

which indicates to me that DNA is same across the range depending on what is turned on or off, shuffled etc.

Why would it have to? Humans are very closely related to chimpanzees, so it's hardly surprising that our genomes are very similar. While a 1% difference does not sound like much, relative to the total genome it still represents a colossal amount of information. I would think it's quite sufficient to account for the minor differences between the two species.

[BenV]

Echo, you're still mixing two different aspects. Mutations happen in DNA with no discernable pattern - they are random.

With the devils, it sounds like DFTD is changing selection pressures. If females chose a mate they may be more likely to do so with a male that lacks a facial tumour. You're right, this is not random, but you seem to think that someone said it is.

[echochartruse]

Thus, a more interesting issue for discussion is "why does the non-randomness of mutation keep getting ignored?".

Read more: Are mutations truly random? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56267/#ixzz0nlPErxwC

Another reason that a scientific finding gets ignored is that it runs counter to deeply entrenched doctrines or habits of thought. In this case, there are so many scientists devoted to the Darwinian catechism that mutation is "random" that they have continued to repeat this long after it was known to be untrue, and they will even change the definition of "random" to provide more wiggle room to continue saying that mutation is "random".

Read more: Are mutations truly random? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56267/#ixzz0nlPYInUf

If the Tassie Devils new genetic ability to breed at a younger age is not random-, why not?
Why is mutation split between random and non random what makes it random what makes it non random?
If a fish decides to walk on the earth via random mutation, then you would suggest there is not a cause to do so? That it just happened of its own free will?

Why is it that only one type of fish was effected by random mutation which led to more random mutation to eventually evolve into human?

Are certain species more susceptible to randomness than others?

‘Mutations arise randomly with respect to selective advantage in the current environment.’
I read this in a few scientific sites and books and find it very contradictory, … they choose randomly selective advantages,… clever things!

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-Species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107071822.htm

Distribution Of Creatures Great And Small Can Be Predicted Mathematically
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717174939.htm
Galaxy Formation Not Random, Says Astronomer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010226070416.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071806.htm
and so on and so on

every action has an equal or opposite reaction, I believe nothing is random, it just takes time to prove and understand. By suggesting randomness in my perspective, suggests a greater force is in control, one that is above testing or proof.