[echochartruse]

I'll say it like this........

I don't think mutations are random but caused through effect.

Mutations are the effect of [random changes (by chance)].
These changes are not firstly initiated within the gene but through random causes whether they are related to inherited and/or acquired and/or other environmental conditions including time.

Therefore the mutation is not random at all. The mutation occurs deterministically through associated networking within genome, environment and time. (How, may/may not be proven yet)

Hey! I knew if the water supply to Tassie devils was going to be toxic, then how stupid would I be if I thought it wasn't going to effect them. (the toxin is the random part).

The gene change/mutation allowing them to breed earlier can/could be calculated, whether or not we know how yet. "with a discernable pattern".

The toxins gave them the chance.

The change in the gene is not random. 'random mutation'

Everything has a cause and effect. The genome just doesn't decide one day to choose a different path and mutate, without purpose or process for an unknown reason for the advantage of itself.

When we fully understand how genes are regulated then things may become more predictable and less 'random'

[BenV]

I still don't understand you, echo. The Tasmanian devil example is completely irrelevant when discussing whether DNA mutates at random or not.

You still seem to want evolution and mutation to mean the same thing. They don't, and no one here is saying they do.

Again, random mutation is one of the sources of variety in DNA that non-random natural selection can act upon.

[echochartruse]

I still don't understand you, echo. The Tasmanian devil example is completely irrelevant when discussing whether DNA mutates at random or not.

You still seem to want evolution and mutation to mean the same thing. They don't, and no one here is saying they do.

Again, random mutation is one of the sources of variety in DNA that non-random natural selection can act upon.

I'm not saying mutation = evolution at all.

Random mutation is disease such as cancer. The cancer which is random mutation is allowing the devils to adapt genetically to survive by being able to genetically alter their genes so they can mature earlier and breed earlier. This in turn may or may not help their off spring to survive the Cancer. Though the cancer it self is evolving. Scientists hope that an immunity can be passed down to the offspring. Normally the devils breed at around 2 yrs of age now they are maturing earlier and breed at 1 yr old. This is the first recorded case.

Mutation sounds permanent but it is not. mutations are alterations/adaptations which can change.

Nothing is actually random, just that we have not found or discovered the process/cause/effect. Random would suggest a higher intelligence beyond our understanding.

The Tibetans have developed genes to help them live 14,000 feet above sea level or higher, where the atmosphere contains much less oxygen than at sea level, most Tibetans do not overproduce red blood cells and do not develop lung or brain complications.

'But the Tibetans have evolved genes that others living at similar elevations have not developed, according to Lynn B. Jorde, Ph.D., professor and chair of human genetics at the U of U School of Medicine and a senior author on the study.'


bold italic mine


This could be so for the devils which have a mechanism in place already after 10 years which enables them to breed earlier in hope to allow immunity to be passed on.

many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations.

[echochartruse]

The researchers identified fast evolving human genes by comparing our genome with those of other primates. However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.........This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations.

bold italics mine

[Geezer]

This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.........This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations.

As Darwin knew nothing about genetic mutation, describing this as "non-Darwanistic" strikes me as a heaviy biased editorial slant. All this appears to say is that mutations might occur more rapidly than previously though.

[echochartruse]

As Darwin knew nothing about genetic mutation, describing this as "non-Darwanistic" strikes me as a heaviy biased editorial slant. All this appears to say is that mutations might occur more rapidly than previously though.

Ok, instead of random mutation, think of it as we know it now as 'Genetic Mutation'
I would agree with that.

Please forget the word 'random' there is nothing random about it.

"Genetic adaptation by networking within the geneome, influenced by environment and time."

[BenV]

Random mutation is disease such as cancer.

No it isn't. Random mutation is simply genetic change with no pattern. It is one of the sources of variation on which natural selection can work, and it exists.

Sometimes, yes, it can lead to diseases. So you know that random mutation happens, but for some reason you then claim it doesn't.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[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.

I disagree the so called 'mutation' you speak of doesn't just happen. firstly there is a cause for the genes to change/alter/ shuffle/turn on or off.
The "mutation" is not the source for adaptation or evolution. The change comes from the environment, hereditary, time,
Yes genetic change is within the process, a mechanism,there is nothing random about it. We will eventually understand all changes in our geneome.
Change/mutation is not the source for evolution it is one effect that evolution requires.

Yes I do agree change in our genes must happen before we can evolve.

mutations are defined as permanent which would halt evolution, random is not so random when we understand how/why

I have used the words you yourself use to explain things (random mutation) but truely does anyone think genes change without cause that they are their own source of evolution an not an effect or mechanism within evolution. does anyone truely think that these changes are permanent or random?

[rosy]

echochartruse-
So... evolution:
1. a random copying error in gene replication causes an alteration in the genetic sequence
2. the synthesis of proteins based on the DNA-RNA-protein transcription/translation sequence makes a protein which differs slightly from that which occurs in the un-mutated cells (or indeed no protein is made or a previously dormant gene is newly able to be transcribed, or more or less of a particular protein is synthesised)
3. the (subtley) altered protein make-up of the cell alters the organism, making it (dependent on its environment) more or less able to reproduce successfully (or indeed pretty much equivalently capable of reproducing - a neutral mutation)
4. the organism has more/the same number of/fewer/no offspring, and thus is, or isn't, more numerous in future generations

As far as I can tell, your problem is with step one, but this is astonishingly well demonstrated in humans, bacteria, mice, you name it... and yes, those "copying errors" are both permanent and random. To suggest they could be anything else is frankly ludicrous (or requires the intervention of some form of intelligent, intervening deity... of course the thing about intelligent deities is we can't disprove them, only point out that there's an entirely satisfactory and more parsimonious solution which does not require one).

Possibly what you need to do is go away and read up on transcription. In which case you could start with wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)
Once you understand why random mutations are not, or should not be, a conceptual problem, maybe you could come back and discuss this further.

[norcalclimber]

As far as I can tell, your problem is with step one, but this is astonishingly well demonstrated in humans, bacteria, mice, you name it... and yes, those "copying errors" are both permanent and random. To suggest they could be anything else is frankly ludicrous (or requires the intervention of some form of intelligent, intervening deity... of course the thing about intelligent deities is we can't disprove them, only point out that there's an entirely satisfactory and more parsimonious solution which does not require one).

I agree that some copying errors are probably completely random... but I have to disagree with you when you say that positing some of what are call "transcription errors" are not random is ludicrous or would require some creator.  I think it is quite possible (as I've stated before) that some "errors" are actually "chosen" by the epigenome.  At the same time, I think it would be wrong to say that no mutation is random.  However, if after a few more decades of study it is proven that the epigenome can "choose" mutation, I think it is likely that the vast majority(but certainly not all) of mutations are probably not random.

[echochartruse]

Possibly what you need to do is go away and read up on transcription. In which case you could start with wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)
Once you understand why random mutations are not, or should not be, a conceptual problem, maybe you could come back and discuss this further.

Well i have gone away and read some more but still do not understand how science even equates 'random' as scientific as each day we find the reason for our once process we thought was 'random'

and I would not use wikipedia to prove anything as you may find I have written it there myself.

In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.
Miller is a cell biologist and the Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown.
Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the "design" concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design -- or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the "s" curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.
"There is, indeed, a design to life -- an evolutionary design," Miller said. "The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of 'design,' and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed."

by the way I'm not speaking of a diety, that man called god you speak of and I wish others could understand that.

One Gene Found To Command Many Others To Build A Winghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010413083229.htm

'The Intelligent Genome,' by Adolf Heschl

Genes 'regulate' for a purpose and through a process we may not understand yet but not willy nilly and random without a reason, but usually with intent out of necessity for survival.

'Genes Know How to Network'http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/04/21-03.html?rss=1
not random but for a purpose

Genes know their left from their righthttp://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n9/full/nrg2194.html

Sometimes I think some scientists themselves think they are the only diety that can 'design' a gene for a specific purpose that all other gene variations could only happen randomly.

[echochartruse]

I agree that some copying errors are probably completely random...

There’s no way for the RNA polymerase to ensure that the correct letter is always incorporated at the right spot. “Statistically, we would expect to see a hundred-fold more errors than we actually do, so we know that some error correction must be happening. Otherwise, many more proteins in our bodies would malfunction,” says Dr Cohen.

Biological experiments have shown that the RNA polymerase slides both forwards and backwards along the RNA sequence it has created. What’s more, it has miniature scissors that can then cut out the last few letters of RNA.

So how are errors corrected? Intelligent typesetters would remove the last few letters when they spot an error. The new model suggests how the backward sliding stalls when passing an error, so wrong letters can be snipped off and copying can resume.

bold mine.

'Various Species' Genes Evolve To Minimize Protein Production Errors...Their study also suggests that the cost of errors in protein production may lie in the malformed proteins themselves, rather than the loss of functional proteins. So now we know.....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724123220.htm

The team is now exploring other predictions of this surprising hypothesis, such as what specific chemical changes allow proteins to resist translation errors. "It's the tip of the iceberg," Drummond says.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051002115542.htm

[echochartruse]

Again, random mutation is one of the sources of variety in DNA that non-random natural selection can act upon.

example please...

[BenV]

It's the entire basis of genetic clocks.

[echochartruse]

It's the entire basis of genetic clocks.

I dont understand 'genetic clocks' can you give me an example of 'random mutation is one of the sources of variety in DNA that non-random natural selection can act upon'

[aanico74]

Intelligent design? It is possible. Through the process of evolution. Probably evolution is what we call Intelligent design rather than the specie itself.