From Newsgroup: talk.origins



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 ?
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 9/7/25 6:53 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 ?

Nobody will understand what you're trying to say here. Grammatically
correct, complete sentences would help for a start.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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.-a We already understand that mutations are not "random" as in the usual probability estimation methods sense.-a We know that transcribed sequences are more prone to mutation.-a The act of making RNA exposes the DNA to higher mutation rates.-a We know that CpG dinucleotides suffer mutations at a higher rate than other dinucleotide combinations.-a Certain sequences
suffer mutations more often than others.-a There is a single base substitution that occurs in around 1 in 14,000 live births.-a 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.-a The mutation rate for most of your genome is around 1 X 10^-8 and this site mutates at around
1 X 10^-4.-a When people claim random mutation they really mean
arbitrary.-a 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 ?
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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.-a We already
understand that mutations are not "random" as in the usual probability
estimation methods sense.-a We know that transcribed sequences are more
prone to mutation.-a The act of making RNA exposes the DNA to higher
mutation rates.-a We know that CpG dinucleotides suffer mutations at a
higher rate than other dinucleotide combinations.-a Certain sequences
suffer mutations more often than others.-a There is a single base
substitution that occurs in around 1 in 14,000 live births.-a 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.-a The mutation
rate for most of your genome is around 1 X 10^-8 and this site mutates
at around 1 X 10^-4.-a When people claim random mutation they really
mean arbitrary.-a 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?

Ron Okimoto+

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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.-a We already
understand that mutations are not "random" as in the usual
probability estimation methods sense.-a We know that transcribed
sequences are more prone to mutation.-a The act of making RNA exposes
the DNA to higher mutation rates.-a We know that CpG dinucleotides
suffer mutations at a higher rate than other dinucleotide
combinations.-a Certain sequences suffer mutations more often than
others.-a There is a single base substitution that occurs in around 1
in 14,000 live births.-a 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.-a The mutation rate for most of your genome is
around 1 X 10^-8 and this site mutates at around 1 X 10^-4.-a When
people claim random mutation they really mean arbitrary.-a 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?

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 ?
--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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.-a We already
understand that mutations are not "random" as in the usual
probability estimation methods sense.-a We know that transcribed
sequences are more prone to mutation.-a The act of making RNA exposes >>>> the DNA to higher mutation rates.-a We know that CpG dinucleotides
suffer mutations at a higher rate than other dinucleotide
combinations.-a Certain sequences suffer mutations more often than
others.-a There is a single base substitution that occurs in around 1 >>>> in 14,000 live births.-a 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.-a The mutation rate for most of your genome
is around 1 X 10^-8 and this site mutates at around 1 X 10^-4.-a When >>>> people claim random mutation they really mean arbitrary.-a 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 ?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2