Perhaps the term ‘random mutation’ is misleading and inappropriately named. One can sometimes predict where and how these mutations will occur, but the full potential of such predictions is yet to be fully explored.

Yeah. I suspected from the start that I’d not made myself clear enough in what I meant. There’s a difference between absolute randomness, and something that’s so complex that it appears random. For many systems, we still don’t know which is which

We agree, except for never understanding random mutations to the fullest, but I’m not fishing for a debate on that one (nor would that debate end anywhere, only time will tell).

Statistically speaking, randomness could simply mean a lack of correlation. I don’t think science will ever fully understand DNA enough to understand and find a cause of ‘random’ mutations.

Some may have occurred as a result of genetic predisposition or environmental exposure, but they don’t address 100% of occurrences. Enlighten me! (And don’t tell me God did it!)

Haha, no, I’m not going to tell you a god did it.
First of all, absolute randomness means that there is some physical matter that changes without causation from the physical reality. Like having a can of coke that opens without any actions or reactions to the environment or internal configurations of matter.

We haven’t shown that there exists matter without causation. It’s true that we’ve observed occurances we haven’t found cause for yet (e.g. decay of atoms), but there’s no definite proof that they happen without relation to physical reality. And, as of yet, few things in the world have remained completely inexplicable for long.

In light of this, I’m scientifically inclined to remain undecided on whether there exists such a thing as “random matter” as opposed to “causation we haven’t discovered”.

Theoretically, I consider it a much harder problem to explain how random works than it is to explain complex mutations (actually, the definition of true randomness entails that it can’t be explained). If we have no causation, we can’t apply the scientific method: Something happens and there’s no physical reason why — no reasoning can be used to explain the occurance. In this sense, one might say that random is a bit unreasonable

I have a great deal of respect for the randomness and intricate nature of biological systems.

Assuming there is such a thing as randomness, we haven’t reached a definite conclusion on that one But I agree, nature’s amazing.

I think we sould name the new creation (if successful) Frankensteineum.

Haha. I second that.

You’ve got a real neat blog! And a good concept too… did you do it all by yourself?

Thanks.
Not sure what you mean by “good concept”?

John

I have long suspected that this would be the way forward in biology. This makes the convergence between biology and computer science inevitable.

Biology ( a part of it ) will be conducted in a computer, only to be implemented in the field.