Biologists surprised to discover that some "random" mutations may not be so random

[Mott the Hoople]

I wouldn't even attempt to slog my way through the peer reviewed article, it is beyond my pay grade!

Isn't punctuated equilibrium widely accepted by now?

As a hypothesis yes. As a theory it has had the same problem that Natural Selection had when Darwin postulated it. Darwin didn’t know what the mechanism behind natural selection was. Ironically, and unbeknownst to Darwin, Gregor Mendel had discovered that mechanism around the same time Darwin published “On The Origin of Species”. Only Mendel’s work wasn’t published until after he died.

So it’s a similar situation with punctuated equilibrium. It has been observed but the mechanism was not known or identified by Gould/Eldridge. Now with this evidence there could now be evidence for a mechanism for punctuated equilibrium, if you see my point?

[Mott the Hoople]

I understand but I am talking about the random mutations that will not survive in an environment. Those are eliminated.

Well, I’m not trying to come off as splitting hairs with you but that’s true of natural selection regardless of if a genetic mutation is random or not. It’s just until now it was believed that genetic mutations were always random. The paradigm shift, and it’s a major one, is we now have evidence that on some instance the genetic mutations are not always random but are directed by adaptive mechanisms to protect the beneficial genetic codons.

However, regardless of if genetic mutations are always random or not, they still have to be naturally selected. Which is and always has been a non random process.

I guess what I’m trying to point out is the cause of a genetic mutation, whether it is random or not, has no bearing if that mutation is eliminated. Natural Selection determines that and not the mutation. However a directed mutation does appear to have a higher probability of being selected, if you see where I’m coming from? It still has to be selected. Which I think you would probably agree with.

[AProudLefty]

Well, I’m not trying to come off as splitting hairs with you but that’s true of natural selection regardless of if a genetic mutation is random or not. It’s just until now it was believed that genetic mutations were always random. The paradigm shift, and it’s a major one, is we now have evidence that on some instance the genetic mutations are not always random but are directed by adaptive mechanisms to protect the beneficial genetic codons.

However, regardless of if genetic mutations are always random or not, they still have to be naturally selected. Which is and always has been a non random process.

I agree. Abiogenesis and evolution are not random processes. The laws of physics aren't random either. The errors are just eliminated much like with computer programming.

[PostmodernProphet]

black Jewish atheists are not natural......

[PostmodernProphet]

malaria immunity intelligently designed by malaria?......

[Cypress]

I agree. Abiogenesis and evolution are not random processes. The laws of physics aren't random either. The errors are just eliminated much like with computer programming.

But to be clear, natural selection is only one type of force driving evolution, and it is not random because it is adaptive to the environment.

Genetic drift is a evolutionary force which actually is random, but it is not adaptive like natural selection is.

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree. Abiogenesis and evolution are not random processes. The laws of physics aren't random either. The errors are just eliminated much like with computer programming.

Not always. Sometimes the errors get through and you end up with a Post Modern Prophet or a Lesion Troll.

[Doc Dutch]

Not always. Sometimes the errors get through and you end up with a Post Modern Prophet or a Lesion Troll.

Good point but it may not be due to random mutations. They could be either a "Crack baby" and kids who got dropped a lot by their mothers.