Summations Only

Just a few posts ago you were claiming there was no evidence for random mutations so I guess this represents progress of a sort. Including the ones that render an animal infertile or produce embryos which will never develop into a viable organism?You seem to have decide to not only redefine randomness without telling anyone what your new definition means, but also fitness so as to allow deleterious mutations to be beneficial. Its an incredibly poor analogy, other than saying that both obey the laws of nature you have provided nothing suggesting that they are analogous.TTFN,WK

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.

I really can't believe that this thread has lasted for 300 posts and that this is the best that you can offer. You don't have evidence, you're not qualified to evaluate the evidence, and actually assert that there's no way to find any possibly relevant evidence. The evidence that has been presented here by people who are actually qualified to evaluate it in fact disproves your theory hypothesis supposition wild-assed guess demonstrably false statement. So what what have you been going on about for 8 pages?Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

I n view that many times i have been misunderstood, i think i must clear up my position regarding evolution-randomness:
Life can make use of randomness for its purpose, by filling a gap in its try to percervance with this mechanism, amongst others, e.g directed or semidirected mutations,derepression,engineering systems, DNA restructurion by slicing, horizontal transportation,e.c.t. Detrimental mutations prove that nature-life has not a strict predetemined line of evolution, but it is a continous try and error process in which information from environment, logical use of resources, in a frame restricted and guided by physical laws, and chance are all used. So in a broad sense randomess is not really random.

Surely there is more fun to be had doing sodoku than trying to guess what the hell you are saying.
I'm going back to Frako's god machine - it knew how to punctuate correctly.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I said there is no evidence of random mutations , not that they don't exist. Yes.
I n view that many times i have been misunderstood, i think i must clear up my position regarding evolution-randomness:
Life can make use of randomness for its purpose, by filling a gap in its try to percervance with this mechanism, amongst others, e.g directed or semidirected mutations,derepression,engineering systems, DNA restructurion by slicing, horizontal transportation,e.c.t. Detrimental mutations prove that nature-life has not a strict predetemined line of evolution, but it is a continous try and error process in which information from environment, logical use of resources, in a frame restricted and guided by physical laws, and chance are all used. So in a broad sense randomess is not really random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry i have to repeat myself.
Information had been already adequately proven by others that , when is essential to survival, it affects genome (I MEAN DIRECTLY NOT THROUGH SELECTION).
Empathy is type of information, so by inference it can affect genome. Do i have to prove it again?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

And then you accepted that there was evidence for random mutations as they are commonly understood. How could the Luria-Delbruck experiments "show only that "random" mutations exist", as you concede, and yet not also be evidence for the existence of random mutations? I'm sure it isn't intentional but nearly every time you endeavor to make your position more clear you instead make it even more incoherent and impenetrable.Perhaps once again it is time to ask you to actually coherently define some terms, in this case it appears that your definition of 'Random' is required so we can know exactly hat you think you are saying.If you insist on 'Random' to mean that all outcomes are equiprobable then no one will quibble that mutation is not random in that sense, but in that case you are using it in a sense rarely used in the biological sciences where it principally means a stochastic phenomenon which can be described with a probability distribution.You seem to be essentially making a philosophical claim that the apparent randomness is not truly fundamentally random, but since your hypothesis does not include any criteria on which the two could be told apart it is entirely worthless in scientific terms. Many creationists and IDists have a similar approach claiming that the apparent randomness of mutations serves to mask subtle interventions to direct evolution by the Intelligent Designer/ God. You haven't proven it once, not even close. You have certainly claimed it ad nauseam but that isn't the same thing at all. Your supposedly logical inference is radically flawed.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I already showed you the evidence. Do we need to go through it again? What percentage of mutations are directed or semidirected? And what is a semidirected mutation?

The thing is zi ko that you have not proved that empathy has any effect on the genome. You have referred to Shapiro et al several times and appealed to the authority of wiki and posted them on this site but none of that supports you point.You even ask in apparent confusion why what you post should have any connection with you ideas.Think about that for a second, would you? You are asking us why Shapiro and wiki (which you are so fond of posting) needs to have any connection with your ideas.Does this make sense, to you?

I will try again.
Information(as its meaning is usually accepted) it it has been proven that it affects genome. Do i have to prove it again? Empathy as being a type of information,in cases being essential to survival , one can suppose rightly i think, it can affect genome.
Does it make sense?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

The question is "random in relation to what?"
I quote:
Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, ...... For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71] Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Do i have to prove it again that information affects genome? Others, as Shapiro ect had done it well.
Empathy is atype of information. Do you want me to say that empathy in spite of this it can't affect genome? Wouldn't then i should have to bring evidence about it?

My telephone number is also a type of information.
Therefore my telephone number affects genomes.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.