Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)

Post Reply New Topic

Deterministic evolution/Prometheus fans gets a nudge ...

A study published Sept. 30 in the journal Royal Society Open Science, fisheries biologists Michael Garvin and his colleague Anthony Gharrett, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, in Juneau suggests that "changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random".

http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolut ... andom.html

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said

Not random, but not following a design either.
Kind of like pulling a row of square and round pegs out of their holes and then moving them forwards until they find a sequence of holes that match. The sequence is important to the success, but getting there is a recurring process.

However, let me ask you this philosophical question ...

What about say the movie Prometheus where humans end up looking like the aliens, because the alien DNA was the "primordial goo". In that sense , is it pre-determined evolution (in view of the above research of non-random DNA mutation)? Note: NASA (American government space agency) wipes down their space crafts to prevent "seeding DNA" in the places their vessels go. So, it's not a wild idea.

In other words , does "DNA seeding + non-random DNA mutation = pre-determined evolution ?

Depicted: Prometheus alien "seeding a planet with alien DNA"

Here's why I don't believe alien seeding ever happened here.

Our DNA follows a very long family tree, millions of years old, all the way back to something from the sea. If anyone seeded us way back then, they wouldn't be around to see what came of their experiment.

For the best explanation of this, I'll leave it to Mr Dawkins:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ClZROoyNM[/youtube]

p.s. Loved Prometheus.. saw it for a third time recently.

Here we go again, cherry picking words and sentences to fit a particular agenda. In this particular case you are pouncing on this article as if it presents new evidence, it does not. No one who understands the basic concepts of Evolutionary biology would ever suggest it is random. May I add another book to my list of books I recommend you read "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins.

Yes it is possible ET's seeded the planet with pre programmed replicating molecules, it is also possible that the emperor Zorg landed the rebellious Thetans on the primordial earth, chaining them around volcanoes and blowing them to bits with atomic bombs. Again it is possible that the universe was created by The Word, who exists with God outside space and time. Finally it is possible that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and we should all live in fear of the 'The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.'

All these are possible, but are they plausible? I would say anyone with a rational mind would have to say NO.

I will acknowledge that the prometheus thought bubble has a higher probability than The Word, or the GGA but this is only because it has no need for the supernatural. forces. However this does not mean I would attribute a 10% likelihood that this is the case, I am not a mathematician, so unlike you have (10%) I will not even attempt to attribute a probability percentage, safe to say I suspect the idea to be highly improbable.

Why do I find the Prometheus proposal highly improbable?

1. It is not parsimonious. We have far simpler explanations for the advent of life which are partially backed by laboratory experiment.
2. To date we have NO evidence for Extraterrestrial life, and, given our current understanding of physics we may never find any. The concept of close to light travel leading to the contraction of time is mathematically sound, yet the power needed is beyond our wildest dreams, same goes for wormholes and other forms of space warping.
3. Given the nature of our galaxy, and the speed constraints through space, why would a civilisation come here (to quote Douglas Adams) "?Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun......" I suspect "Goldilocks Planets" are not all that rare. So why travel all the way into our solar system?


I could offer ever more subjective arguments against the Prometheus proposal, but to be honest the first on my list pretty much sums up my thinking.

The title of the article is pretty dodgy. Everyone know evolution is not random - the question the article asks is whether mutation is.

We know that organisms have evolved ways of controlling the rate of mutation, and ways of correcting mutations. If this holds up, there's no reason why it couldn't have evolved by random mutation.

Prometheus isn't scientifically sound. Our DNA has changed significantly since the origins of life. We've undergone multiple genome duplications, for example. Millions of years of evolution won't produce the same structures, particularly in very different environments.

NASA's precautions are totally unrelated (and I suspect you're not painting an entirely accurate picture - I think it more likely they disinfect than remove DNA). If some bacterial DNA landed on a comet, it wouldn't produce humans, or any other form of complex life.

And no, DNA seeding + non-random mutation does not = pre-determined evolution. Evolution is only pre-determined in the sense that everything else is.

The primary mechanism of evolution is not mutation, but natural selection. Mutation merely provides new information for natural selection to act upon. Natural selection is far too complex for anyone to predict.

+1

Beautifully put, almost poetic.

Randomness is in chaos.

Evolution is not directly random but subject to chaos.

Does true randomness even exist?

Pet owners have 'seeded" Florida with 'alien DNA' in the form of escaped Burmese pythons ( much like your aliens spread DNA to Earth). But that doesnt mean that pet owners have successfully conspired to "predetermine the evolution of life in Florida". So I don't see how your equation works at all.

nothing is random. there is no aspect of anything that exists that is random.
"random" implies manifesting from an "undefined cause", but it does not imply the absence of a cause. the word "random" is not associated with the word "miracle" in any true sense.

miracles are like accidents in reverse. there are no such things as either miracles or accidents.


mutations are always based upon the possibilities for their occurrence. mutations are not miraculous intrusions of new realities into the genome, they are selectively catered for in the broad spread of time, and when the time is right, they spring forth into new entities that are masters of their current predicaments.

This is a tentative finding that some parts of your chromosomes are more prone to mutation than others, therefore - it is absolute PROOF- that aliens did it!

Thank you for providing information. I will have to spent a few hours of research on this because much of it I don't understand. I wish I did not clash with you on the other thread.

I don't think so, so pre-determined evolution seems inherent to me. However, people argue the 'Big Bang' was random, so .... otherwise, they would have to say that the universe was not created randomly.

Dont spend too long investigating

ET = you Prometheus idea
The Word = Some, maybe many, biblical scholars believe an entity called "The Word" is depicted in early biblical writings and it is The Word who speaks the Universe into being. The Word is a deity who exists alongside God

The Great Green Arkleseizure (GGA) = A character invented by Douglas Adams and is a satirical take on creation/creator beliefs

More to the point I am concerned that you have quoted me wildly out of context. Now either you have done this deliberately just to goad me, or you are completely unaware that you have done so. If the former is the case then "Meh who cares", but if it is the latter then it explains all the back and forth about misleading quotes in the other threads. If it is the latter then I GENUINELY would like to help you understand how you are misquoting, and how this is leading to the accusation of intellectual dishonesty from multiple posters.

^
That's a good response to her puzzling response to you.

I also cant tell whether she was being sarcastic, or whether you really got her worried about the physical, and metaphysical, implications of: the Great White Hankerchief!

Lol!