XPost: talk.origins, free.metaphysics, talk.religion.pantheism   
   From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/8/2025 8:35 PM, Dale wrote:   
   > On 9/8/2025 7:54 PM, RonO wrote:   
   >> On 9/8/2025 11:41 AM, Dale wrote:   
   >>> On 9/8/2025 9:37 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/7/2025 8:53 PM, Dale wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> random mutation ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> is random really a definition of disorder ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> induction ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> if disorder then evolution ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> not a hypothesis of deduction as reversed induction ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> if evolution then disorder ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> even if it was a hypothesis, it is not a theory because it isn't   
   >>>>> testable until life at full evolution can test it by disordering   
   >>>>> everything including it self ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> no data left to statistically analyze ?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Whatever you are trying to do here it doesn't matter.  We already   
   >>>> understand that mutations are not "random" as in the usual   
   >>>> probability estimation methods sense.  We know that transcribed   
   >>>> sequences are more prone to mutation.  The act of making RNA exposes   
   >>>> the DNA to higher mutation rates.  We know that CpG dinucleotides   
   >>>> suffer mutations at a higher rate than other dinucleotide   
   >>>> combinations.  Certain sequences suffer mutations more often than   
   >>>> others.  There is a single base substitution that occurs in around 1   
   >>>> in 14,000 live births.  We know this because it causes a dominant   
   >>>> phenotype (achondroplastic dwarfism, munchkin dwarfs) and in around   
   >>>> 98% of the changes at this site the same base substitution occurs,   
   >>>> but we do not know why.  The mutation rate for most of your genome   
   >>>> is around 1 X 10^-8 and this site mutates at around 1 X 10^-4.  When   
   >>>> people claim random mutation they really mean arbitrary.  We know   
   >>>> that they are not truly random, but when they occur is arbitrary and   
   >>>> unpredictable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> what is the statistical confidence of the things to be known ?   
   >>>   
   >   
   > ...   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Statistical confidence for what?   
      
   There are a lot of ways to measure mutation rates, and I'm not going to   
   go into them all.  The most recent data involves sequencing whole   
   genomes and comparing parental sequences to progeny.  For humans with   
   around 6 billion base-pairs (they do not compare the sequence of the   
   whole genome) they find around 30 to 60 single nucleotide substitutions.   
     About 10^-8.   
      
   For the achondroplastic dwarfism you have a birth rate of around 1 in   
   10,000, but some of those are due to dwarfs having children.  Accounting   
   for only the ones that could be de novo you get 1 in 14,000 live births.   
     One study sequenced around 300 de novo mutations causing   
   achondroplastic dwarfism and 98% of them were the same transition   
   mutation (C to T).   
      
   We do not know how many of these high mutation rate loci there are, but   
   there could be a lot of them because the range of de novo mutations   
   found in the trio analysis that has been done have ranged from something   
   like 17 to over 100, and high mutation rate loci may be a significant   
   fraction of those detected, but we haven't sequenced enough trios to   
   identify them.  You could sequence thousands of random trios and none of   
   them would have the achondroplastic dwarfism mutation, but we know that   
   there are more loci with an even higher mutation rate than the dwarf   
   mutation.  We only know about the few because they result in a visible   
   phenotype, but there might be thousands that mutate without much of an   
   effect on phenotype.  We'd probably need to sequence around a 100,000   
   trios to get enough multiple hits to identify the loci with a high   
   mutation rate and get some idea of the frequency of such mutations.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >>   
   >   
   > inference ?   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deduction   
   >   
   >   
   > random is not logical ?   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)