Are mutations truly random or are they guided?

The mutation(s) which allow tanning and light skin, rather than heavily pigmented skin.Oh, and you forgot to say, "Amen!" after your post. I say this because you are presenting religious dogma, not scientific information.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A mutation is neutral only in relation to selection pressure.With a changing environment, what is neutral one millennium might be beneficial or deleterious the next.As people migrated out of Africa dark skin became deleterious, as it led to a lack of Vitamin D (produced by sunlight in the lower layers of the skin). A mutation for tanning ability in the Mediterranean or light skin in northern Europe was beneficial, though either would have been deleterious in Africa.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Some known mutations, such as sickle cell anemia, are both deleterious and beneficial at the same time in some specific environments (i.e., malarial areas).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I quoted you in order to provide a context for my comments. That way other posters don't have to search upthread to see what I was responding to.And sickle cell anemia ranges from very deleterious to slightly deleterious, but in the presence of malaria it can be beneficial. The same mutation reacts differently depending on circumstances (whether reinforced or not) and the environment.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When reinforced it can be fatal. I'd call that perceivable.I'm not sure what you are getting at?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Oh, don't wait around for us. You go on and do your own research and see what you get. Who knows, you might just come up with something.Your side does do research, doesn't it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No wild claims, and evidence abounds. It is just that creationists have their fingers stuck in their ears up to the metacarpals and refuse to either acknowledge or even try to understand that evidence.But I'll give it a try, realizing that it is probably futile. Give this site a try: Welcome to the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project SiteNow, I'm not going to try to spoon feed this to you. You will have to look at the website, and the individual papers yourself. That is the way research and science are done.These studies directly contradict your contention that evolution does not occur by random mutations, and they also provide the evidence to back up the not-so-wild claims.Until you have taken a good look at these studies, don't bother to get back to me.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You must be an amazing speed reader to have sampled those papers in this short time.Or a creationist, relying on creationist websites which have to lie as the evidence does not support their claims and beliefs.Have you no attachment to data and facts, to well-researched theory? Have you no desire to learn what actually happened in the past?It would seem not, as you don't present scientific evidence in your posts. You rely on ridicule in support of your dogma.Thanks, but no thanks. I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads. And based on your posts, I certainly won't be swayed in your direction.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Good points, RAZD, but not every population has the ability to tan.These differences are due to one or more mutations somewhere along the line during the migration from Africa to northern Europe.The populations at the extremes, Africa and Scandinavia, do not tan. Those groups in the middle do. To me that suggests multiple mutations.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We are apparently talking past one another.Tanning ability is genetic, due to mutations.On the trek northward from Africa the need for Vitamin D resulted in selection pressure for lighter colored skin. Very dark skin passes little UV.In the general Mediterranean area selection pressure favored the summer/winter differences we call tanning.In the far north selection pressure favored much lighter skin as the sun provided much less UV for the production of Vitamin D.In the far north people were unable to live until artificial sources of Vitamin D were discovered. The skin simply could not get light enough to provide a sufficient supply.These traits are passed on within their respective populations.They are genetic, due to mutations.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.