For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
For sure macroscopic physics is deterministic, but quantum physics is less so. The world may seem deterministic or not, that depends. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing determinism. I would if I had the palest answer to it, whatever answer, but I don't and have never read anything convincing from anyone.
No, it doesn't show that.
It has been answered. In evolution, "random mutation" means a mutation that is not correlated to the adaptive needs of the organism or the state of the environment. That is the complete and full explanation.So, your question "Are the mutations undergone by genes truly random(uncaused) or are they 'random' (inexplicable)?" remains unanswered.
No it's not. You're a creationist.Creationism is nonsense to me ...
Mormon?...but people here insist calling me creationist, mormon ...
It has no Achilles heels. I have correctly answered every single one of your stupid questions. The Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution. Asimov's number does not apply to evolved hemoglobin as opposed to (non-existent) random chance hemoglobin. That was Asimov's effing point, you patzer.... theist, and so on just because I question natural selection, which has many Achilles tendons, like Cambrian explosion and hemoglobin production (amongst many others).
This is the thing tho' as the 'Cambrian explosion' and haemoglobin production are all things that have been raised by the Intelligent Design mob in their attempt to refute Darwin's theory because they have a belief that there is a 'God' who created everything including species and they wish this to be taught as Science in their school systems. So you must be able to understand why many here think you have this as your agenda as well. This is reinforced by your apparent refusal to understand that NS is not random in the sense you require for your thoughts to make sense and that you appear to ignore the mathematical proofs that show that evolutionary algorithms can solve large intractable probability problems where brute force solutions cannot. Now personally I'll take you at face value and you are honestly undecided about NS and the Theory of Evolution but I think you are actually concerned with Abiogenesis rather than specie development as NS explains species in the best manner we have discovered so far. Is it an eternal truth? Maybe not but then it is Biology not Logic and so far it is the one than has made the most sense and been a pathfinder into many other areas of Science.PauloL wrote:... and so on just because I question natural selection, which has many Achilles tendons, like Cambrian explosion and hemoglobin production (amongst many others).
But my question was answered to my satisfaction by Londoner. Londoner's answer is that mutations among genes are not random/nao causado but are random / aleatorio.So, your question "Are the mutations undergone by genes truly random(uncaused) or are they 'random' (inexplicable)?" remains unanswered.
Of course, under NS, mutations can't be caused, but empirically as by observing mutations in M. tuberculosis we can't countenance they're aleatory. This is why I told you no easy answer.
Of course they are caused!
You still can't seem to grasp that in evolutionary theory, random only means "mutations that are not correlated to the adaptive needs of the organism or the state of the environment." Why can't you grasp this simple point? Is it because you prefer not to? Mutations are caused by lots of things!It is completely wrong.Lamarck theory (once considered completely wrong)...
Asexual reproduction is not Lamarckism in any way, shape or form.the capacity of some female amphibians to clone themselves if they don't find a male to mate (and clone after clone until a male comes), not to mention the neural algorithm carried by each stork allowing them to build and authentic engineering nest just at the right time, and the capacity that the whole stork can be "compressed" to a DNA string able to pass generation after generation and rebuild them, show that nothing related to life can be considered simple.
I love the "of course" part -- startling ignorance stated as if self-evident fact!
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:18 am Paulol wrote:
Is the following any help?Davidm keeps on semantic details, but doesn't explain how natural selection overcame the problems of probability with hemoglobin molecule.
Natural Selection
The struggle for existence
plus random mutations
I would argue that they were once seemingly random, but that with human science, specifically epigenetics, they are becoming calculable. The environment has everything to do with it. Know the environment, know how all elements react with one another as well as the four forces, electromagnetic radiation, etc, know the changes to expect.
No child, don't eat that mud pie which contains a little uranium, or stay in the sun for too long. Can you say, "malignancy?"
plus geological time spans
= natural selection