@ragingloli “Expose yourself to a nuclear blast, survive, and then get pregnant and then tell me that your child will be completely free of mutations.”
That is a formula for extinction, or devolution at best. A species does not thrive in this manner.
@ragingloli “All those two said is that the importance of random mutations is diminished because of self repair mechanisms in modern organisms.”
James Shapiro writes:
“The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation.”
“Evolutionary genomic change occurs largely by a process of Natural Genetic Engineering.”
”…the degree to which these genome reorganization activities are not random is poorly appreciated. Non-randomness is evident at three levels: mechanism, timing, and sites of action.”
“These examples make it clear that natural genetic engineering occurs episodically and non-randomly in response to stress events that range from DNA damage to the inability to find a suitable mating partner.”
“Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can “sense danger” and respond accordingly (56).”
LINK
Barbara McClintock writes:
“Over the years I have found that it is difficult if not impossible to bring to consciousness of another person the nature of his tacit assumptions when, by some special experiences, I have been made aware of them. This became painfully evident to me in my attempts during the 1950s to convince geneticists that the action of genes had to be and was controlled. It is now equally painful to recognize the fixity of assumptions that many persons hold on the nature of controlling elements in maize and the manners of their operation. One must await the right time for conceptual change.”
LINK
“A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a “thoughtful” manner when challenged.”
Gifts of Speech
____________________
Claiming Randomness is a NON-answer. It is completely unscientific.
Random is used as a placeholder word until the cause or reason is actually demonstrated. That’s the basis of random being untestable, unpredictable… unscientific.
Unfortunately, the loose usage of the term has led some to consider randomness AS a cause, or AS a reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in genetics, rapidly being discovered as an Information Science, we must in all good conscious, release ourselves from the antiquated preference of attributing evolution as having anything to do with random mutations whatsoever. This position, my position, being clearly supported in the provided quoted links above from Barbara McClintock and James Schapiro.
I forget who said it. I think it was Dawkins, but it may have been Sagan or Hawkings, but I distinctly recall one of them equating evolutionary randomness as being a happy accident. This deceives scientists (and students) into promoting the very mysticism they deny. This is inexcusable. Nothing about it resembles science.
Am I wrong to assert that every phenomenon has a reasonable and predictable explanation? Once studied, cannot the source of all phenomenon be ultimately traced back to cause/reaction or thought/action? Science doesn’t even realize that by claiming randomness, that claim is akin to promoting magic and miracle. Can we allow science to promote non-answers such as this?
We are well to acknowledge the impossibility of such a thing. To date, no one has ever truly witnessed or created randomness of any kind. Encryption industries spend a tremendous amount of resources attempting to create randomness. Yet they are thwarted every year by a new generation of hackers who illustrate the flaws in such a pursuit. The most powerful computers in the world are paired with the most brilliant minds available to author newer random number generators. With a little research, one quickly learns of the challenges they face. Encryption sciences fully admit that true randomness has never been accomplished.
I believe that randomness is the biggest dogma that the scientific community faces, and they would do well to abandon promoting such a concept so loosely. It begs us to accept fantasy as factual.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
