ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Jason,

Excellent question thanks for raising your hand. I'll respond as someone who
has studied mutation rates as a tool in understanding evolution.

First mutations are random, but there is actually variations in the
randomness. By that I mean there is a difference in transition vs.
transversion rates. Because of biochemistry. it's easier for adenine to
mutation into a guanine then into a cytosine or thymine. Also different
genes have different rates of mutations. Housekeeping genes (genes involved
in critical biochemical functions) have lower rates of apparent mutations
because any mutation can be deadly. Conversely there are other genes that
have much higher rates of mutations because they are not as critical to cell
functioning.

There is evidence that mutation rates can speed up in animals due to stress.
Think about what happens if you sit under the sun at noon, UV rays cause
your body to make many mistakes in replicating your DNA and hence your
mutation rate skyrockets.

So really mutation rate are random that you can not predict what mutation
will occur next, but they are not always consistent. Once mutations have
created a phenotypic difference then the pressures of the environment can
select for similar characteristics that are well suited for a particular
habitat (ie there are similar ecological niches in different parts of the
world that are filled by similar but different animals).

Having said all this, I don't think any of this is necessary for people to
understand evolution. I will say that people who study molecular evolution
tend not to be very religious in nature. To accept this type of randomness
you need to have a deist approach to the world at best, i.e. assume that god
developed the "rules" for random mutation and then let it loose to evolve.

Hope that helps,
Rita



> 
> He hints at an argument that particular ecological conditions give rise
> to particular forms of plants and animals.
> 
> This hints at underlying rules to evolution, or at least that there is
> a form evolution follows.
> 
> (I'm just a student of this stuff...so I raise my hand and ask: Can we
> really call it chance, or random-ness?  I'm convinced of the
> possibility that the paradigm/semantics of random genetic changes
> supplying organisms fit enough for survival isn't necessary for
> understanding evolution, even in lieu of ID.  Maybe we don't understand
> the subtleties of the mechanism, right?
> Is it possible that ecological changes trigger ancient genes, instead
> of demanding genetic mistakes? Good God, is there really any such thing
> as chance?)
> 





> ___
> JasonJayStevens
> exhibits . annArborHands-OnMuseum . [log in to unmask]
> art . potterBelmarLabs . www.potterbelmar.org . [log in to unmask]
> 
> The views and representations stated in this e-mail are the
> individual's. They do not bind the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum or its
> Board, staff or volunteers, and they do not necessarily reflect the
> Museum's institutionally-held viewpoints, opinions or policies
> 
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 6:22 AM, Ian Russell wrote:
> 
>> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology
>> Centers
>> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
>> institutions.
>> ***********************************************************************
>> ******
>> 
>> At 01:02 09/06/2005, Amanda Chesworth wrote:
>> 
>>> What I think concerns me the most, however, is when I see scientists
>>> just
>>> adding fuel to the flame by not recognizing the twists in logic, the
>>> invented arguments (like micro and macro evolution), the great haze of
>>> confusion spread by misinformation.
>> 
>> At 22:59 08/06/2005, William Katzman wrote:
>> 
>>> I have read part of one anti-evolution book state that there is a
>>> conflict
>>> between religion and evolution, precisely because evolution says that
>>> the
>>> process of natural selection and that of mutations is RANDOM.  Thus
>>> the book
>>> argued that people who believe that the process is random can't
>>> believe that
>>> God has any hand in any of it or ever did, and therefore don't
>>> believe in
>>> God.
>> 
>> "No-chance-ism", in my experience, seems to be the principal root of
>> militant creationism, especially the Intelligent Design variety.
>> 
>> And Amanda is right. There seems little headway against the endless
>> flow of theoretical objections to evolution, because they are
>> emotionally rooted in something else. A major cause of creationist
>> militancy is "no-chance-ism".
>> 
>> However, you could try this:
>> 
>> 1. By definition, Darwinism = Chance
>> 
>> 2. By definition, Intelligent Design = The Hand of God
>> 
>> 3. According to traditional Christian theology, Chance = The Hand of
>> God
>> 
>> 4. Therefore, logically, seen ONLY from the viewpoint of traditional
>> Christian theology, Darwinism = Intelligent Design = The Hand of God
>> 
>> 5. Seen from the scientific viewpoint, even for the many scientists
>> who are Christians, chance is unpredictable chance. It has to be
>> viewed like this. It is how science works. This is what science is.
>> And because of this self-imposed limitation, science is not qualified
>> to comment on the theological viewpoint.
>> 
>> This only applies if the "Hand of God" operates invisibly within the
>> laws of probability (science is only able to make non-specific,
>> statistical predictions about coin-tosses or quantum events). Because
>> of course Darwinism MUST be based on observable randomness. So
>> 'chance' has entirely different meanings theologically and
>> scientifically.
>> 
>> I find this approach works pretty well, depending very much on how
>> gently it is presented. Line 3 is the sticking point for most militant
>> creationists, who show a distinct deist tendency to conceive of a
>> limited god who periodically "intervenes" (they use this word a lot)
>> by breaking through natural processes and chance events he is
>> otherwise powerless to control. Line 4 looks equally outrageous from
>> either viewpoint, until the logically separate nature of the
>> viewpoints is digested. (NOMA again.)
>> 
>> So there seem to be two lines of attack:
>> 
>> A. We can insist that militant creationists cease to believe in their
>> Creator, as a necessary pre-condition of shutting-up about evolution.
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> B. Whatever our personal beliefs, we could ask them, with careful
>> respect, to consider the implications of a bigger Creator and
>> Sustainer than they have previously imagined, ruling over 'natural'
>> phenomena and working within his own laws of  'chance'.
>> 
>> If Dawinism is your religion, go for A. If you want results, I
>> personally recommend B.
>> 
>> 
>> [log in to unmask] * http://www.interactives.co.uk
>> *
>> Give people facts and you feed their minds for an hour.
>> Awaken curiosity and they feed their own minds for a lifetime.
>> *
>> Ian Russell
>> ***********************************************************************
>> More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
>> Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
>> http://www.astc.org.
>> To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
>> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
> Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
> To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> [log in to unmask]

***************************
Rita Mukherjee Hoffstadt
Exhibit Developer
New York Hall of Science
47-01 111th Street
Queens, NY 11368 
718-699-0005 ext. 373
***************************

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]