Summations Only

How are they directed, and by what information?

We want to see evidence, not fantasies.

Projection at it's finest.You have started a thread with nearly 250 replies in which you put forth ideas with zero evidence, zero predictive power, and zero knowledge of biology. Even when this is pointed out you continue to push it, almost like it was . . . oh, I don't know . . . a dogmatic belief. When asked for evidence for the randomness and unguided nature of mutations we cite several peer reviewed scientific papers that support our claims. Your response? You accuse us of being believers in a dogmatic and suspicious science.Perhaps you need to rethink your approach to these forums?

Speculations are one step below hypotheses. A hypothesis is testable. You have yet to describe a testable hypothesis. Therefore, you are still way below the hypothesis stage of science.

I would suggest the title, "Is Mutation Guided by Information, Empathy, and Neural Networks?". At this point, it is simply a question. There are many papers out there with titles that are questions. They are usually written to communicate highly speculative ideas such as the one zi ko is pushing.At this point, until zi ko describes an experiment that can answer the question it will remain a question. Not a hypothesis. Not a theory. A question.

From your Shapiro quote: How is this any different than random mutations? The key phrase is "at some frequency". This indicates that these same processes also produce neutral and detrimental mutations. IOW, they are random with respect to fitness.

That is the exact opposite of how things work. We usually need evidence before we believe something. However, I do have some fantastic snake oil and a bridge I would love to sell you.

Until you have evidence FOR your ideas there is no reason for people to take them seriously, is there?

Only if your hypothesis is non-random mutations.Also, we have presented the evidence for random mutations. You have not presented any evidence for your ideas. So which do you think we accept?

Do you even understand what a null hypothesis is?

A null hypothesis can most certainly be evidenced. If it is evidenced then the hypothesis is false. That is the whole purpose of the null hypothesis, to describe the evidence that falsifies the hypothesis.We can add null hypothesis to the scientific terms that you do not understand.

Go read message 34 in this very thread. Then why should we accept it as true? How is light scattering through a crystal analogous to mutations? Are mutations guided by the crystal structure of salt?

For random mutations, they have been shown to exist. They are evidenced. That is why it is the base assumption when looking at mutations. If you can not show that the results are any different than those expected from random mutations then it is assumed that they are due to random mutations because random mutations have been shown to exist.How is this a problem?

Actually, it showed that the mutations in the experiment were not guided by the environment. Instead, the mutations resulting in bacteriophage resistance were the result of random occurrences prior to the bacteria being exposed to bacteriophage.One of their hypotheses was that the mutations were guided. They tested for both directed and random mutations. Random mutations were supported by the data and directed mutations were not. Those are the facts of the matter.

zi ko,Your cyrstal analogy is very weak because there is nothing obviously analogous between crystals and mutations.A better analogy is a set of dice. Would you say that the roll of the dice in Craps obeys the laws of science? Would you also say that placing a bet on two sixes does not increase the odds of the dice coming up as two sixes? IOW, is the roll of the dice in Craps random with respect to the bets on the table?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.