Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

The question I was asking had to do with the interpretion of the Wright paper. No one wanted to answer because it was obvious the question went to the heart of mutations, are they random or non-random for fitness.Now Wounded King has produced a paper citing Wright, Shapiro and others as propounding the interpretation I gave to Wright's paper and you all laughed at.Now you are so pendantic as to call out Merlin's interpretion of Wright's paper as wrongheaded and then you procede to give your statement that case is closed, and Wright never claims directed mutations.Well you should read Wrights paper that Wounded King cited and I have cited before on this board;"A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution".
Read the paper and tell me that Wright never claims directed mutations.

Do you believe the majority of scientists on this board agree with this statement?",,,If we discover a process producing specific beneficial mutations it will fit within the modern synthesis..."

All data is subject to an opinion. One scientist may assert the data shows this conclusion, while anothr scientist asserts the data shows a different conclusion.
Data does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted.

I have been citing Wright, who is interpreting her findings.

Percy, you make that statement that is off the wall as far as modern synthesis thought goes and then you don't want to answer for it's validity.
This is a debate forum. You can't make statements like that w/o being accountable.
My position is that if your statment is true, then there is no question that there has to be a plan to evolution, it cannot be random.Here is the statement I am taking about. Taq, Wounded King what do you think about this statement? Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I agree Percy.

HI Wounded King,Just wondering if you have read Shapiro's book, " Evolution a view from the 21st century"?If so do you belive his science is wrong? Or is it that he strikes a cord that challenges some of the accepted Modern synthesis beliefs?

I do not understand the data from a scientific standpoint. I am not qualified to say one way or the other if there is evidence of directed mutations in the data.I can only rely on the author who provides the data, and I still think Wright, based upon all her writings is of the opinion there is some type of directed mutations.The last paper I read by Wright, the Review, was dated I believe 2000. Since then Shapiro has given the opinon there is evidence of mutations that are beneficial and non random. He talks about ..."adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small."So I am still not convinced that all mutations are random for beneficial adapation.I guess I will go back to my old thread in re Darwinism and is there a need for changes in the Darwin's theory, neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis, with a discussion of the developments since the 1960's.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I think your logic is flawed in this response. You interpret the data as not showing a non-random beneficial adapation. Wright and Shapiro, as confirmed by Merlin's paper posted by Wounded King, do argue for non-random adapation for fitness.You, Wright and Shapiro have a different interpretation of the data. How can you be sure your interpretation is correct? If Wright and Shapiro are qualified to interpret the data and reach their opinons, I can surely rely on their opinions.If you step outside of your data and look at the wholistic marvel of evolution, it is pretty hard to rule out non-randomness for beneficia adapations.
Ziko also has a good point. Why do we need a bigger ratio for non random adapation for fitness, when one is all that is needed?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, how did Life on Earth come about?
How did this lengthy process of mutation begin?
What exactly is your definiltion of Natural Selection?
Did natural selection just happen?
What is your defintion of "natural"?
Did nature just come into being?You can't just say, well that is not a question for Evolution. It is the most crucial question there is.Please show me the "DATA" for the statement: Thats a belief isn't it Percy?It's your faith in Nature.