Are mutations truly random or are they guided?

I had given up posting on this forum anymore, because its clear the rules for moderation are not applied equally (thus most on the other side of this debate all quickly leave this site)-however as I browse through here, I see the evolutionists are up to their same old tricks-which I couldn't just let slide.Once again you and Perry and others are trying to run away from the random aspect of the entire ToE, as if natural selection all by itself can do anything. The fact that you can neither adequately demonstrate the accuracy of either the random mutations aspect of it, nor the natural selection aspect of it, does not prevent you from claiming that the random mutations part is a "very small part of it." How bizarre this aspect of your argument really is. Natural selection says absolutely nothing other than some organisms live more than others-yet you want to claim that the actual changes from one generation to the next are a small part of populations changing. Your talking points are made for dopes.You side claims it takes too long to "see" evolution and that's why it is hard to demonstrate it scientifically, you claim your theory can make predictions but don't know what they are, you claim the mechanisms for all of the variation are still not clearly know yet you are sure they are random, you say you don't know how it all started but are working on that, and now you want to say that well, look let's not get all hung up on the small matter of how the changes happen in a species, let's just concentrate on the fact that once the changes happen, animals survive better (or maybe not, we are still working on that too, perhaps its all just lucky horizontal drift!).For a scientific theory that wants to preclude consideration of all other ideas, its not much of a theory. Or I am just arguing from incredulity again?From the incredulity that you have the right to call something so vague and unverifiable a theory. And from the incredulity that your side thinks that just because your theory is hard to prove and impossible to show, and full of gaps of explanation and empirical evidence-that if someone has another theory that is equally unable to be proven, since it can't be seen yet, it has no business being considered.

Neither you, nor anyone else, can give any examples of positive random mutations cropping up spontaneously in animal populations, such that would develop into new, functioning systems or organs. For a theory that depends ENTIRELY on a continuation of these type of developments happening in every animal population, your non-existence of actual examples of them is remarkable to say the least.Care to list just a half dozen or so examples of such beneficial random mutations in modern mammals so that we can all be so assured of your certainty of such events? There must be millions of them after all, when you think of all the complex systems in nature that have been formed, so that should be so very easy to highlight (billions actually).

Once again, like so many of the assertions in the ToE we just have to take evolutionists word for it that this is how it happened, because of course you can't prove this assertion any more than all of the other ones. It must have been random at one time, and then got selected for, and that is how it became non-random.....and so just believe us...So even when we have examples of evolution being 'guided" by the individual, your theory is so flexible it can simply say, "well, yea, the evolution is guided NOW, but...."It should be renamed, The Incredible, Mutating, Adapting, Twisting, and Re-conforming Theory of Evolution of Whatever We Need it to Say That We Don't Have to Prove Theory.

This is a good expalantion for why your side gets beat up so bad in live debates (see Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero).You have little to say to defend your own theory, and rely on the tired old saw of claiming a monopoly on knowledge, and go read a biology book. Man what a bore your (Taz, Dr. A, Percy, ad infinitum...) answers are.It is YOUR side that says these random mutations are so numerous as to be able to explain the existence of all of life's complexities-yet you can show none.You make the erroneous claim, over and over btw, that I am seeking some magical point mutation of a completed new system. Absolutely not; but since your side claims all of these complex systems start with some mutation-a mutation big enough to cause a reproductive advantage-surely you should at least be able to show a few starting points right? There are billions and billions of them happening all the time your side claims (how else could we get billions and billions of completed complexities?), so show a few happening in modern times. What does the starting point look like? A shriveled ear? An indented forehead? Where does a new body part begin?Percy of course tried to squirm out this dilemma by mentioning bacteria, but even then he couldn't give any examples of anything. The fact is that when you talk about bacteria your sides argument gets even weaker-we have witnessed in our lifetimes billions and billions of generations of bacteria-and not a single new complex system has seen to have been formed-nothing leading down the path of greater complex organisms. If you can't show it in billions of generations-how many is it going to take to just get ONE? There isn't enough time in all of history times 10 to make even one very very simple new system for life, if we go by the rate at which bacteria changes!So, the only hopeful monster in the room seems to be your theory, claiming for all its worth, a divine exclusivity on the facts-while providing no evidence whatsoever. You say its random mutations, you say random mutations can give advantages over other individuals, enough to cause a building of a great pyramid-well you are simply being asked to show some of this. Instead your side can only attack the doubters-instead of fortifying your own argument. That is why your side loses debates, and why your side requires all the blind faith you claim in others. Edited by Bolder-dash, : Blinded by the audacity of your empty claims, I somehow missed a parentheses.

Strawman. Your side is claiming is HAS evolved from simple to complex. So what has happened to bacteria. In a trillion billion generations it has gone from bacteria to.... bacteria?How many more chances do you think your side should get? You claim it takes time...I don't know how much longer we can wait.

Whoohoo, read a biology book! Good one! Strong reply!Man you got me good with that one! How long did it take you to think of that devastating rebuttal?And then you back it up with even stronger rhetoric-"show me where God poofed out a magic organisms"! Powerful stuff, A! I think the media has got it all wrong, Dawkins isn't Darwin's Rottweiler, instead you are his rabies infested laughing hyena, chewing out the opposition's bloody spleens with your gnarly yellow fangs. Awesome! Who can argue with you there?But it gets better-with your biting wit, you declare-"we can show you lots of random mutations, all of them" So there!And then your canines cut even deeper--"Please tell me how you can tell a beneficial mutation which is a starting point from one which isn't." Wow, I hadn't thought of that! Gee I don't know how one can tell-because I have never seen one. I assumed you could tell, because you are the one that has the theory that they exist-the basis for all of life in fact. I was so naive to think that since they are the foundation of your theory, you knew what they looked like. Touche, Docteur A! Morsure extraordinaire!Well, how about some beneficial random mutations that COULD be starting points? Surely you at least can name a few of those right? Because they possess such useful reproductive advantages, obviously you can demonstrate lots of these, right?Or am I just leaving myself open for more cuts of your intellectual incisors?Go read a biology book! Ouch, I am bleeding!! Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Hmm, they show evolution, by random mutations (you do mean evolution by random mutations, correct? Because certainly YOU would never post something off topic) occurring? Interesting.I believe I had seen here before where posters are cautioned by the moderator that if they are going to make wild claims, they must back them up with evidence or be punished......Oh, wait, no sorry I am wrong, I have only seen where 'creationists' are cautioned on this website for making claims without reference, I have never seen an evolutionist cautioned for anything of the sort.My mistake.

Oh evidence abounds does it?I see you are highly skilled in the Dr.A school of mental vivisection. I guess they don't call you coyote for nothing.Let's see, there is the ongoing E. Coli experiments that demonstrate , they demonstrate hm, ...the ability of random mutations to develop, um, um.... how to say "nothing" in your school of verbal disemboweling?Did you just pull the first thing you could find on the internet that looked scientific or had the name of a bacteria in it, and hope that no one would notice?Yes, the evidence does abound doesn't it. Its so overwhelming we can't even see it! Sort of like the beneficial random mutations that abound everywhere around us. It sort of gives a new meaning to the word abound. In fact it does give a new meaning-whereas abound once used to mean plentiful, it now appears to mean scarce or non-existent. Quite amazing.E Coli! Ole!! Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

When you asked the question, look at some of the early replies you got. People saying that random mutations are just a small part of evolution, and others saying well there is plenty of evidence for it if you just give yourself an education.Well, random mutations aren't a small part of the Theory of Evolution, because without them no evolution takes place, and there isn't plenty of evidence for random mutations causing full scale changes in organisms, because they can't identify a single one. Its part of the common shell game they play here, and I was not trying to derail your thread, I am just pointing this out and trying to curtail the obfuscation. I think it would be great to get rid of the people who say the same two things all the time (1. they are not important anyway, its natural selection's magic that does the changes, and 2. well, there is plenty of evidence, i am just not going to provide any). So far that's all you have got in responses in a nutshell. it is as frustrating to me as perhaps it is to you.I am still waiting for someone to actually discuss your question. Show how they know random mutations guides any evolutionary process that equates to higher complexity. I have seen so many attempts here on this forum to force them to provide better evidence, and the attempts are futile-because of exactly what you are seeing here. Attacks calling people dumb creationists even when that is never brought up, people saying well what is your theory then, can you think of something better, and people complaining that you can't prove your magical God poofed it theory either, so why should we have to prove ours.....and on and on.The fact is they won't address this because they can't. they can't show it in nature, and they can't even show it in a lab. It is a story. Some choose to believe it and some don't.I, like you see plenty examples of animals adapting to their environment. They don't wait for random mutations to change them, they have mechanisms that give them ways to change when it is needed-even if we can't explain what that mechanism is. People in high altitudes develop better lungs. People who climb mountains develop different muscles in their legs. People who live in cold environments have different blood platelets. Put people in the sun and they get darker, put them in the cold and they get lighter. And on and on and on the world goes. we don't have ANY evidence at all that any of this takes places because of random mutations-and yet we are forced to believe its the way-because well the Theory of Evolution is a fact-so if you can't prove it just create a scenario that sounds plausible. " It takes time, you can't see it happening, we are working on it...etc. "And here we also see another favorite diversion-people trying to discuss bacteria resistance and relate that to a ToE which claims that all changes happen this way. Well, a bacteria resistance isn't changing the bacteria, other than making it resistant. Its not making a new kind of bacteria, its not leading to a new type of organism, its simple one small part of all the defense mechanisms we see in nature. Usually once the pathogen that it is developing resistance is removed, the resistance simply disappears. the bacteria is simply still bacteria. So it proves nothing about how life could develop and become more complex.If you are going to say that eyes and ears and breathing and sweating, and copulating, and the entire network of information within a tightly controlled environment of the cell all came about through random mutations-I think you should do better than bacteria resistance to a threat.To me their argument is an argument of incredulity. They can not possibly imagine any other way that it could be-so even if they can't prove it, it still must be this way-and no other way is worth considering, because we don't see how it could be. That is not science, that is faith-their faith. They have no imagination that their might be ways of adapting (a type of neo_Lamarckism as you say) that we simply don't understand yet.But that is absolutely all you are going to get here, along with the requisite insults to creationists, and all the other diversions. If you say what it is you believe, they will pull out the "Lamarck has been proven wrong" card. If you question their dogma they will throw out the "go read a biology book card". Science has proven it over and over they say. Still without addressing your question.So I am with you-SHOW US THE EVIDENCE! I have asked for them to give examples in nature. Bacteria resistance is not an answer to life's complexities. How do complex systems begin if they start from random mutations? What kind of random mutations begin a complex new life system. How do they know they are random and not guided?Answers-NO. Insults-Plenty. Diversions-Plenty. Moderation on the insults-None.I have seen enough people try here-and they get nowhere. I am still waiting for an answer. Good luck.

I have a better idea Percy.You can continue to blame all of the creationists for being the one's off topic, continue to allow all the sniping, silly one line posts about trolls and reading biology books, drive away all the people with dissenting opinions like you have already been so successful doing, hand out your little banning and suspension, and continue to allow the bantering and emptyness of the dr. A's and coyotes of the forum, and continue to turn your site into a dull, uninspiring soundboard for all of you evolutionists to brag about how right you all all the time.You asked why your site was better several years ago? You obviously should know the answer-you drove away all the opposing viewpoints. You are not looking for provocative discussion. You want to control what is said. I will argue with you elsewhere, not where you get to hand out your little principal detention slips to the ones you don't agree with.I wasn't the one off topic, I was the one asking for examples. You continue to prove me right. This is what i was warning the newcomers about. Enjoy the circle of pleasure you are advocating.Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.