Evolution not completely random according to an experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claim that evolution is not completely random, referencing an experiment conducted at Princeton University. Participants explore the implications of this claim on the understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, with a focus on the nature of mutations and their guiding processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) suggests that the experiment indicates a new guiding mechanism in evolution, prompting questions about the nature of mutations.
  • Some participants reference existing scientific acceptance of non-random processes in evolution, implying that the concept is not new.
  • A participant mentions the idea that nature conducts its own experiments, which may align with the OP's claims.
  • Another participant provides a book recommendation that discusses the human genome, possibly as a related resource for understanding evolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to have differing views on the implications of the experiment, with some asserting that non-randomness in evolution is already established in scientific discourse, while the OP introduces a potentially new perspective. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of the experiment's findings.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not clarify the specific mechanisms proposed by the experiment or the definitions of randomness in the context of evolution. There are also no detailed responses to the implications of the OP's claim.

WaveJumper
Messages
772
Reaction score
1
Evolution mutations not completely random according to an experiment

I wondered for a while where to post this link, but since it will probably provoke questions on the origins of this new guiding mechanism of evolution, i decided it had to land here(it will be a matter of time till someone raises the question "Do proteins have a mind of their own?"). Here is the link to an experiment carried out in the Chemistry Department of Princeton University :


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?section=topstories



What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
Also see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/prediction_selfpromoting_hype.php" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like they invented the wheel.

The non-randomness of the process of evolution has been accepted by science for a long time. Nature has been doing her own 'experiments' which merely need to be observed.

You might enjoy this book:
"Inside the Human Genome" by John C. Avise
 
The OP is no longer a member here, so this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

New CRISPR-based tool for find-and-replace editing of DNA
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
How Does Philip Johnson Challenge Darwinism in Evolution as Dogma?
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
13K
Why is the tendency towards complexity a fundamental aspect of evolution?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
20K
Could We Build Unnatural Forms of Life?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Undergrad Probability Distribution of Random Variable X from a Double Dice Roll Experiment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Graduate Help me understand a simplified CHSH (Bell's) experiment
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Evonomics: Evolution and Economics Explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Graduate Decoherence, Unitary Evolution and Information: Some ideas
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Medical NeuroQuantology another gem, hiding in plain sight
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
April Fool's Physics Papers 2026
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
628