Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

mutations are “random” with respect to fitness. They occur spontaneously without respect to whether the organism needs it or not. Of course, organisms have mechanisms that help them deal with their environment, such as the one discussed in this paper – hypermutation of a specific region. There is no known mechanism that allows the bacteria to specify the specific mutation that happens but it does allow them to “try” many different mutations and the end result is the population gets “just the right mutation” they need to survive.

Yes mutations are random to fitness but not random to life's preservation. At the bacteria level they more or less are random, but not at metazoa with neural system, which provides the mechanism to let organisms to know what is about "the right mutation" for them.

I don’t know of any situation that would not be considered a mistake).

I could relate the situation when there is neural system.

why do only 2 out of 1 billion get the proper mutation?

Maybe becouse they are enough for life to continue to exist.Mutations here are really random to fitness; nature (universal laws) can allow randomness to play a role and this is done quite often.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

And you can't just wipe off the universal law that I always win at roulette just because in fact in the long run I lose. It's still a law, even though it isn't actually true.

It is a very weak analogy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes mutations are random to fitness but not random to life's preservation. Those are the same thing.

They are not the same. Try to replace with one another in different expressions and you will realise it.Why use then fitness and not life preservation?Life preservation has a much wider meaning.Any way for the sake of conversation let us accept they are the same.Mutations then are random to life preservation.So life has not any tedency to preserve itself.It is just ahuman fallacious impression, in spite of all common knowledge. Then how do you explain the "repairing mechanisms" inside cells biologists talk about?

Humans are born with mutations that cause lethal diseases that kill children before they ever reach adulthood. You are clearly wrong.

You must note the word about in my answer.Mistakes is a common thing in nature.What that could mean?

The 2 out of 1 billion is the same rate whether there are a billion bacteria or just 10. Again, you are clearly wrong.

Nature has its own way.You can't judge it. The real question is if we believe or not it has the tedency and the ability to preserve itself.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I think zi ko believes there is a designer involved.

You propably took me wrong. I believe disigner is nature itself with its universal laws.

Living things have some methods of preserving their lives but not others.

It does't make any difference.All have tried hard to preserve it.

Life has the ability to adapt to changing environments through the processes of mutation and natural selection.

As far as yoy accept universal laws you can not talk about random mutations.But you can use it knowing that nature allows this to happen in the frame of preserving life by it.Anything regards life is never random. Even "randomness" is not really random.Only in nonorganic world you can.As life becomes more and more complex "randomness" is reduced as an evolutional factor.It is neural system and information traffic it takes its role.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

You want to switch freely between the randomness of mutations and the non-random nature of reproductive success. They are different things. One is not the other.

But are not they closely related, as they both tent to preserve life? Of course this only is my belief based on obsevation. You can not see any tedency in nature. But this again is a belief.

Ahh, so if this process produces lethal mutations then it is a "mistake". If it produces beneficial mutations then it is "guided". Sorry, but this is a clear and obvious bias. The same process produces both.

"Guided" does not mean "unmistakable". What is anyway your evidence that information is not guiding evolution? What is your evidence against the case of information is co-acting in instinct formation? If you don't bring any incotrovertible evidence about it , then your opinion is just a belief , as mine's is

You have no evidence of the processes you claim exist, yet you want evidence that they don't exist? Do you also want evidence that unicorns don't exist?

I show you two cases of guided mutations:
1.The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of greate environmental changes .
2.The rapid changes in finches beaks in Galapaguos islands in respond climate changes.

You have asserted this but also have admitted that you have no evidence to support your assertion. What conclusions are people to take from this? I assert all the above is the result of Yahweh making thing evolove in the way Yahweh wants using psioinc enchantments. I too have no evidence to support this. We are on an equal footing, no?

What i meant is that i have no evidence by my own work. But there is evidence brought by Shapiro, wright, Yablonca ect, showing that information from environment guides evolution direction by direct action and not just indirectly through natural selection. Every day observations specially on instinct function and animal intelligence enhances this opinion. But it is still a belief.But you can choose to think that random mutations is the only resposible for them. It is again a matter of belief. You dont have any proofs about it.

You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!

Gould and others dit it.

The changes in finch beaks in the Galapagos are not thought to be due to new mutations as far as we know. The expectation is that they're due to changing allele frequencies in certain genes. You can read a brief summary of the causes of finch beak changes at Molecular basis of beak evolution at Wikipedia. The cause of the changes in timing of development that affect beak size don't seem to have been tracked down to specific alleles.

You seem to accept that there is more to evolution than genes, as Jablonca says. Mayby neural system and environment information? We are not sure yet. I agree!

But you've seem to have left out the issue I was addressing. You stated your belief that random mutations and selection both tend to preserve life. This is incorrect. Random mutations if allowed to spread unchecked will worsen adaptation. But random mutations filtered by natural selection so as to remove those that are ill-adaptive improves adaptation, or using your preferred term, "preserves life."

"Random" mutations and natural selection together with environmental information guiding "apparent "randomness in mutations lead to evolution. Deleterious or neutral mutations are inevitable by products of the process of preserving life. This the main moto. You prefer word fitness. I don't thing it expresses as clearly the real thing.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

How can you say that after 200+ posts where we discussed a paper that demonstrated those tendencies?

From a technical point of view Taq you are right. No one can prove tedency in nature. We can see only facts. But in spite of any deleterious mutatations the fact is that life is preserved;this is what nature is addressing at and this is what matters at the end. The existance of deleterious or neutral mutations does not cancel this tedency. Of course any body can choose the belief that fits to him.

My evidence that fitness is not guiding mutation is that the increased mutation rate was specific to ssDNA, not the leuB gene.

Again your evidence maby it is misinterpreted by you.You have to prove, at least for yourself, there is not any tedency behind these "facts".
I don't imply any Creator. I mean universal laws.

You've examined mutations in fossils? Wow!

Come on Percy! The original issue was:
"The relative lack of intermediate fossils during periods of great environmental changes ."
This is I am refering to.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

That is not what Shapiro says and you know it. You have had that pointed out to you many times. No one believes random mutations are the only factor in evolution. This you have been told many times. Why do you keep ignoring what you have been told?

I refer you to message 271 by Percy.
I never had ignored natural selection.Is there anything else you thing i ignore? Try to unndestand what i am saying.

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

So what are these mutations?

The increased rate of mutations that led to rapid evolution renders them directed .

Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

The Wright et al. paper demonstrates that we can.

Let's suppose you are right in your deductions. You still have to prove that the same mechanisms or principles apply to higher types of life. Also that the "obvious" lack o tedency on this experiment was not the result of nuture's "knowledge" that tedency on that particular case was not necessary; so the tedency to life preservation was not clearly evident, but it was there.

Where did you show that? If Wright et al. used a population of just 100 bacteria they would not have been preserved given the fact that the beneficial mutation only occurs once in every 500 million divisions.

But what if nature can "know"that 500 million divisions is a usual happening and could rely on this fact?
I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.

I guess you have never heard of the multiple mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's history? The Permian extinction saw more than 90% of species disappearing from the face of the Earth.

But in spite of this life managed to preserve itself so successfuly.