a graph for borger to explain

quote:

---

Oh, and your implication that the imability to predict where a mutation will occur somehow disproves non-random mutation is, well, ... Hmm, I'm trying to be kind. Cockamamie. Is that kind enough?

---

Okay, let's rephrase the question - which has as yet not been answered. IF non-random mutations exist, how would they be identified (i.e., how do you tell the difference between non-random as to position and statistically more likely)? If the non-random mutation hypothesis is true, what evidence would we be able to find in support (or to falsify) the idea? (Please don't simply repeat "IG5, IL-1b, and ZFX/ZFY" ad nauseum - please specifically show how these sequences are non-random).

Shhhh, Mark, you'll give it away. I know all about PB's continual referral to "non-random mutations". I'm merely trying to figure out a way of phrasing the question where he has no choice but to give an example. As far as hotspots go, all they are is a statistical "figure of speech" as it were - as I've argued with him before. I'm basically trying to get him to focus on a modern example that can definitively be attributed to non-randomness and how that can be distinguished from random. After all, if PB (and now Williams, apparently) are so all-fired sure that non-random mutations exist, they ought to be able to use that to predict something that would be different from random chance, beyond a mere statistical fluke.I agree on the ancestral bits, although I think it's possible to show rapidly evolving, non-conserved sequences between closely related organisms. Of course, that requires an a priori acceptance that the two organisms ARE related by common descent... Which, I guess, is the point.I know PB probably won't respond beyond re-asserting what he's already stated. However, maybe Williams is different ("hope oft springs eternal", or words to that effect).

quote:

---

Easy. See Cairns, Hall, etc. In short, the discovery of mutation(s) that are the result of an adaptive response to some environmental stimuli. Or, mutations that cannot mathematically be attributable to a chance copying mistake in the DNA.

---

Exactly. I am aware of the Cairns paper - and the fact that it is disputed, to say the least.That being the case, perhaps you or PB could give an example of an actual organism where this has been observed. That's really what I'm after. The Rosenberg paper, as has been pointed out already, doesn't lend support to "non-randomness". Fast evolving genes, hotspots, etc, are all well explained within standard theory. You state that "there's nothing to hang a hat on". I think from the published literature that there isn't even a hat.