random mutations

Larry,I appreciate this post. It was extremely fair to my position. And even shows how consistent my debate has been over time. I believe the Sue quote is like from November of 2000(I didn't check the date).The past argument that mutations are Random as you notice was a semantic stalemate. But we were able to cut the meaning of Random as Spontaneous out.I argue that mutations are contingent or currently unpredictable by mankind.The process by which populations of organisms adapt to their environment is extemely contingent.
Mutations occur independent of any one particular environmental advantage for a given organism. This appears to be what you mean when you say random in terms of fitness. If so, we have no argument with the idea of random in terms of fitness.However, I believe that mutations occur because the environment changes and organism must be able to evolve to survive a continuously changing environment. Thus, I would not say that mutations are random. Mutations exists to give organisms the ability to evolve to an ever evolving environment. Thus, the fact that all life mutates is not random. Now, if you disagree with this argument, fine. But in order to disprove it, you would have to make me aware of live organisms on this planet that do not have the ability to mutate or evolve. Funny though. Because that would disprove the Theory of Evolution. A theory you have demonstrated that you agree with.The word Random in itself is not terribly troubling. It is its association with the term Spontaneous or its implied meaning( without a planned cause). Let me explain. There is a belief that given that the environment of this planet changes and so does the life on it, the fact that these two process exist and sometimes are intertwined is a cosmic coincidence. There is no scientific evidence for this assumption. You see, I am saying that there is a purpose behind mutations and other evolutionary processes. They make life adaptable to changes in populations and their environment. These individual process, however, are extremely contingent and their purpose is quite obvious at the macro. Just like it is wrong to say that evolution occurs at the individual level, it occurs at the population level. It would be horribly wrong to say that life does not change for the purpose of being able to modify itself in an environment that is constantly changing, simply because the process by which individual organisms mutate is not directed by environment and is contingent and independent of environment.These sort of issues center around the fact that anticreationist often try to define the creator. And in their definition, The creator can’t use nature processes and contingencies in order to create. If you are viewing creationism the way that I defined before, this tact is clearly a strawman. Now, if we were discussing creation science, it would not be a strawman. But we are not discussing creation science or even young earth literal biblical christian fundamentalist creationsism. So as I hope it is clear, the subtle difference behind our respective uses of the term Random has a direct bearing on a major aspect of my argument.

You wrote:"What did this mean? It appears to be at odds with your famed consistency. Random in relation to fitness is the primary way anyone is going to address the issue so perhaps you can explain what the above was meant to convey? Or are you arguing Horizontal Gene Transfer is not random in relation to fitness? Clarify..."Cute. But there is no disagreement in my position.My point is clear the word random has an element to its definition that means without plan or order or purpose. I am clearly arguing that their is a purpose to mutation. So I would not use the word random under this definition and I have not.Also, I am saying that process by which mutations occur is contingent and complex, thus making them unpredictable by mankind. From a mathematical standpoint, this is what is meant by the term random. And I always need to separate the two meanings from one another. Since you are clarifying your use of the term random to just mean unpredictable and not to mean without design, I don't have a problem with your usage of the term Random. Thus, my issue was never with the phrase "Random in terms of fitness", but in clarifying what you meant by the word Random. It can be ambiguously used.

Larry,I just don't see your point.Geneticist and Biologist do not describe mutation as contingent, but random. The double meaning of the word random allows the possibility to say they are without design.I define it as contingent too make it clear that I am eliminating the ability to blur the meaning of random to mean simultaneously unpredicatable and without design.I(Thmsberry) define mutations as contingent.
Geneticist and Biologist (individuals not Thmsberry) define mutations as random, these mutations are governed by forces outside of the scope of Biology (Not supernatural, Ha, Physics and Chemistry).Yet, Horizontal mechanisms can not be termed random under this criteria. Their unpredictable is not based on forces outside of the scope of Biology. They are contingent on the interactions of Biological systems.Maybe we will need another exchange on this issue. But I am totally missing your claim of contradiction. I can be more precise in my definition of a term than people who are not me.And also, I clarified my view on your use of the term "random in terms of fitness". So let me know where exactly you need futher clarification.