Are mutations truly random or are they guided?

quote:

---

You side claims it takes too long to "see" evolution and that's why it is hard to demonstrate it scientifically

---

Evolution is demonstrated by the fossil record, biogeography, morphology, developmental biology and genetics among other things. The only theories that fit the facts are evolution and some form of creation that looks exactly like evolution. Without any scientific evidence for creation, or a creator, and no obvious need for one science prefers evolution.We don't need to understand the mechanism to be sure that evolution has happened. This discussion is NOT about whether evolution has occurred.

quote:

---

you claim your theory can make predictions but don't know what they are

---

who said that?

quote:

---

you claim the mechanisms for all of the variation are still not clearly know yet you are sure they are random

---

I don't think it's fundamental whether they are truly random or not. I wouldn't be surprised if we find more mechanisms whereby organisms selectively increase mutation under some circumstances. I also wouldn't be surprised if we find some elements of Lamarkism. There's nothing to rule out changes to genetic material based on life experience. Why does that matter particularly?However it's impossible for a cell to 'choose' specific mutations- there is no way a cell could know that a given change will have a particular effect.

quote:

---

, you say you don't know how it all started but are working on that

---

Correct. But not relevant (for the hundredth time) to evolution

quote:

---

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?

---

[off topic]Scientists don't want to preclude discussion of other scientific ideas. They do want to preclude discussion of religious ideas dressed up as science. People who believe these things for religious reasons cannot properly discuss the evidence for and against evolution, and nor can they be scientists because they MUST believe that evolution is not true, whatever the evidence says.Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to drop evolution if a better theory came along, with powerful evidence to support it, and I'm prepared to bet that most scientists would too. Why wouldn't we? What we 'believe in' is the process of science, not the content.[/off topic]

quote:

---

(Of course, since we know from creationist dogma that their are No Beneficial Mutations, Amen, this is in fact a mechanism for royally screwing organisms up in the very locations where they are most vulnerable, as devised by a God who was either retarded or perversely vindictive.)

---

It's the fall, Dr A, remember, the fall. It's all our fault....

quote:

---

Point #1 : the mechanisms that you envisage do not exist. Yes, the cell is complicated, but scientists have given us a fairly good idea of what each bit of it does. We know what the ribosome does, we know what tRNA does, we know what aminoacyl tRNA synthetase does. Yes, the biological mechanisms are complicated, but biologists understand them. There is no mysterious mechanism left over which might do the thing that you envisage some cellular mechanism doing.

---

I don't think we understand the cell as well as you think we do. Look at how much we are discovering (and still have to discover) about the genome, and how surprising some of those things are. I think there's plenty of room for new discoveries about gene regulation - and it's possible some of those have an impact on the mutation rate, or more probably on the repair rate.Now of course the cell cannot direct mutations in any intentional way. So the answer to the question 'are mutations guided?' is undoubtedly no. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.