Summations Only

Sorry. As there (are) not(evidences) for many concepts in science (f.e about randoness in mutations).

Obviously there is an analogy between these states. Idon't bother about their interpretations, but the article treats the matter seriously and is in accord with other scientists (Shapiro, Wright ect)

I have never said I have any evidence. In any case i am not qualified for this. and i don't believe it could ever be found. Untill there will be any evidence that it doesn't happen ,any body can believe it could.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

There is a strong analogy between the two states. As there is no evidence against my ideas i can keep them , can't I?As i keep saying all the time, I wholly accept shapiro's findings, relating to one cell organisms.. So what is the reason to relate them with my ideas? My empathy and neural system conceptions are applied to multicellular organisms, where Shapiro work stops.

You seem to forget that the hypothesis of random mutations is a null hypothesis.

So why random mutations ,being a null hypothesis, do you take it seriously?

Certainly not... Only that it can't be evidenced.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't remember you having brought any evidence. I have stated repeatedly there is not any evidence about empathy and propably it could never be. Also I remember you didn't answer my question about randomness or not of light changing direction when passing through crystal--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I quote from wikipedia:
It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. Your data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (eg: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that you do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, you fail to reject the null hypothesis).[5]

The Ledergerg and Luria-Delbruck Experiments show only that "random" mutations exist, not that directed ones don't exist.
In a broad sense there aren't random mutations in relation to life and consequently to fitness, as these mutations in their "randomnes" serve life's existence This the reason why these exist. As light passing through a crystal obeys a natural law, so do mutations.They follow some laws. Here is the analogy.

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.

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.

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.