Mutations themselves are random. We know many mechanisms that cause them, but any nucleotide can randomly change to any other nucleotide in an unpredictable manner. Roughly speaking, every nucleotide in the genome has the same chance of being mutated*. So it is fair to say that mutations are truly random. What opponents of evolution, who like to yammer on about how impossible it is because it’s all supposedly done by random chance, consistently ignore is the fact that selection is very definitely not random. Hence the name “selection”. Mutation provides genetic diversity; selection picks which one work and survive.
*As with every rule and generalization in biology, exceptions abound.
Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli
Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas
Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
The aforementioned anti-biotic resistant bacteria
For a pretty spectacular one in humans, how about this one: A very muscular baby was born in Germany. Doctors found that the boy’s mutant DNA segment was found to block production of a protein called myostatin that limits muscle growth.
Lactose persistance:
Most mammals develp lactose intolrance as they grow into adulthood. Several human populations have undergone a mutation that inhibits lactose intolerace, meaning that those populations can continue to use milk and dairy products to feed adult populations. This means that rather than having to slaughter cattle or goats to survive, they can allow those animals to graze on grasses, then continue to use the same animals as sources of food for several years, feeding adults as well as children.
(Strangely enough) Sickle Cell Trait:
The creation of sickle cells disrupts the life cycle of blood born parasites (particularly Plasmodium falciparum), giving an advantage to carriers of the Sickle Cell Trait over their neighbors who do not have it. That is why Sickle Cell Disease is pretty much endemic to large areas of Africa, Southern Europe, and Southwest Asia in exactly the ranges of malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Of course, it also has the disadvantage of making people sick if both parents happen to carry the gene, but such people tend to live long enough to procreate, themselves, so the overall advantage to the population remains.
Both are examples of natural selection, along with the previous example from DT of ‘diseases acquire mutations that give them resistance against antibiotics’.. The information was always in the gene code, and was selected upon. It may be beneficial in the sense that it helped that population survive, but by no means do any of these mutations add genetic information to the genome that wasnt already there, nor increase the complexity of it.
It’s hard, philosophically, for people operating at an intuitive or common-sense level to see how random processes can convey information. There is a strong philosophical prejudice that information can only be by intelligent design.
But (to repeat) such things as the evenly-spaced furrows of sand-dunes in a desert contain “information” – the evenness of the spacing is information: it allows you to make a good guess about where the next sand dune will be found. And it’s produced by wind and sand, without ever a hand or mind involved. It’s information that comes from the energy of the wind, and from the nature of sand itself.
Same for mutations, especially under the winnowing process of differential survival. It doesn’t “feel” right to the Aristotelian mind – but we left Aristotle behind a long, long time ago.
The process of evolution using genetics and specifically, mutation, has been demonstrated with genetic algorithms very successfully.
Genetic algorithms have designed: jet engines, antenna used on satellites
( google “genetic antenna” for some cool pics ), pylons used on the international space station, and much more. Ecosystem simulators that started with simple asexual agents evolved sexual reproduction, sometimes between more than two partners; and the development of symbiotic relationships is quite common.
Genetic algorithms are able to design things that no human could ever comprehend to design, and this is obvious if you look at genetically developed antenna.
The theory of evolution has been irrefutably proven using computer science. Sometime in the near future, all complicated engineering and science is going to use genetic algorithms - that’s how successful and powerful they are at transversing solution spaces.
Well, not quite. GAs demonstrate that evolution could be responsible for the complexity of living things, but do not prove that it is responsible. DNA, the fossil record, and experiments do that.
And you are almost certainly wrong about the use of GAs in the future. They represent one technique for traversing search spaces, but not a particularly efficient one. Given any domain knowledge, you can design a far more efficient search algorithm, that will give the desired results in a lot less time. For instance, researchers have developed GAs for generating tests for integrated circuits - but no one in the real world uses them. You can develop far more efficient methods, for instance using knowledge about the circuit to direct which path to take in the search tree.
That biological evolution is responsible for the diversity and development of life just demonstrates that there are no brains behind our development. If there were, we could have been here in 50 million years tops with a lot fewer extinctions on the way.
You don’t seem to know anything about genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms and their kin are the ultimate tool for inventing solutions to complex, multi dimensional problems, and np-complete problems. There are no superior algorithms (if you know of one, please cite). Furthermore, GAs can come up with solutions to problems radically faster than human counterparts (if the humans come up with a solution at all ), which means that GAs are at least useful at quick prototyping. Humans cannot design better than GAs just because they have knowledge of the systems. GAs search solution spaces without any knowledge, presumptions or prejudices - and while that sounds counter-intuitive, it actually means they can come up with solutions beyond human comprehension, which they routinely do.
DNA only arises from previous DNA. This is all that has ever been observed. DNA requires complex de-coding machines including the ribosome, so it can be decoded into the specifications to build the proteins required for life. The information required to build ribosomes is itself encoded in the DNA, so DNA info cannot be encoded without its products of translation, forming a vicious circle.
What is the relevance of the economics of the temple at Jerusalem?
And, yes, genetic algorithms explain the origin of information from non-information. We’ve covered that all here. The flow of energy through a system can impart information to that system. It is demonstrated daily.
Boil a saucepan of water. The water will organize itself into columns of circulating water. That is information. It’s a very simple level of information, but it is information that did not exist prior to the flow of energy.
Do stuff like this for a billion years, and you might be astonished.
By the way, reef shark, don’t think we haven’t noticed that you completely ignored the “whale legs” discussion once you were proved wrong. Don’t you have any response? Do you concede that you were incorrect? Or are you just going to keep moving the goalposts around to avoid having to acknowledge facts that you find uncomfortable?
Be funny if Jesus came back and said the he didn’t think the Illuminati weren’t too bright…
Be ironic if God made Adam from his rib, like God made woman from Adam’s rib, that would prove both creation and evolution wrong.
If the Sun is the source of illumination, the idea of God making the two great lights on earth leaves me in the dark about those who take idea of rotating their tires too lightly.