Summations Only

Why do you ignore the third (and more propable after epigenetics and the recent immence flow of knowledge about RNA) possibility, that of information from environment causing guided mutations?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------You seem so sure.... Can you bring any evidenc for random mutations in metazoa?

So what is the evidence supporting creationism or, most importanly, random mutations in metazoa?
On another thread on the same question you gave me this.
I quote:
Abstract
"I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases. The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude. There is only a moderate tendency for loci with high per locus mutation rates to also have higher per nucleotide substitution rates, and per nucleotide rates of deletions and insertions are statistically independent on the per locus mutation rate. Rates of different kinds of mutations are strongly correlated across loci. Mutational hot spots with per nucleotide rates above 5x10(-7) make only a minor contribution to human mutation. In the next decade, direct measurements will produce a rather precise, quantitative description of human spontaneous mutation at the DNA level."
Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases - PubMed------------------------------------------------------------------------------and my answer was:
I Quote:
"So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!"
Have you since foumd a better evidence tha this?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Guided mutations does not mean strictly determined mutations. In the theory of environment-genes interrelation, there is always place for relative randomness in mutations.
It seems the gap between the evollution theories is closing rapidly. It had proved beyond any doupt that stress causes genes mutations.So the mechanism for it exists in metazoa. Randomness and environmental information are useful to natural life, so are used equally well by nature, most propably radomness more often in monocells, while in metazoa, where neural system is developed guidance is more propable.

The article you suggested is very interesting.
I quote from it: So environment causes gene mutations! I can add stress as an environmental factor causing gene mutations.
But i think there is a serious omission on this work. There isn't any relation as to if the error repairing actions are directed to special types of mutations, leaving others to perpatuate.
In that case we would have a serious evidence or not of guided mutations. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read please my message 137 to Catholic Scientist.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

If cells are directing repairing mechanisms only to some specific DNA damage and not all, then there is surely a matter of guided evolution. That is what i meant saying that this work suffered a serious ommission.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

It was a great step forward, don't you think?
Anyway accepting increased rate mutation, caused by environment is not far away from accepting guided evolution! (note: not mutation). Random mutations is a usefull mechanism not to be used by nature, in its scope to evolution, specifically in mono cell organisms. But here we reach at the main issue, the core problem we have to face: Are natural laws enough to explain life emergence and next evolution? Or we have to resort to the Supernatural?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I have no dificulty to accept all that, with the presuppposition we had solved firstly the core question: Are natural laws enough to explain life appearance and concequently species evolution ?
In the case of positive answer we accept that natural laws are guiding evolution (not mutations!). In the other case Supernatural is doing it.
In either case it is secondary, at least philosofically, if there are only random mutations, or only guided mutations, or both of them. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Can isuppose,after Percy's intervention, you agree that it is not so?

Percy,
Only few messages before ( 127) i have posed a question ) clearly inside the topic),which i recieved no clear answer yet, though it relates to the central question of biology.Your hastiness to close the issue, seems to me rather curious...

Can you clarify please if about similar environmental changes cause about similar or not mutations on other members of the species?

What if evolutionists avoid (for what reason?) answering crucial questions and use authority to get away? Of course i am off topic now , but you were the same just before me.When i posed a simple question on message 127, i just got an authoritarian NO, based on such a meagre evidence and against any contemporary scientific knowledge.

It isn't so bad after all, if it is not off topic. You just fight and redicule , if you can, my ideas. Choosing "proper" opponents it is not scientific at least.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I would easily agree, if we accept guidance as the act of an omnipotent all knowing Supernatural choosing the best, in our opinion, procedure. But this is not the case.
According to my thesis guidance is expressed by the information flow from environment to genome. It is not strictly determined. It is a loosely directed try and error process. In one cell organisms even pure randomness can be allowed for, if is economical, as nature can use all available means in its scope to preserve and evolve life. Maybe this is the procedure Supernatural had chosen to act . Maybe it is just a matter of natural laws . So your deductions do not seem so strong, as other mechanisms could have as well the same results.
As for the need of evidence I say:
After about 250 ys what is the evidence for random mutations in metazoa? Almost negligible, understandably though. Because of complexity of the subject (see discussion of pocket mouse issue) it is difficult to expect proofs. But the fact is remaining. Your laboratory examples are based on one cell organisms, not on metazoa.
How would we then expect clear cut evidence for guided evolution in order to just discuss the issue?
Still , accepting lately the importance of environmental effect on genome sequence is quite enough to justifiably discussing it in this thread .
We know of spontaneous mutations. Do we know for sure that these are not the result o some kind of environmental pressure?
Stress in chicken causes always the same behavior disturbances. Isn’t it an indication of guided genome change, due environmental pressure? The same I think applies to pocket mouse coloring.
Can we say with confidence that the repairing mechanism is not guided, so to ensure the perpetuation of useful mutations? Of course I should have brought the evidence in favor of my case, not just ask questions. I think we share the same fate. You don’t have it either. Can we agree on that? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.