Summations Only

So you do understand. Could you then please explain to me how it has this predictive value?

Buying lottery by a man is not equivalent of "buying lottery" by nature, becouse nature has a great purpose to fulfill , e.g preserve life . Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them. Becouse if i call them random , which it can be true at the low level of one cell organisms, according to your dedefinition, then i will find it difficult to apply this concept to higher organisms, in relation to mutations, whic lead to changes are more clearly evident that they are guided, as f.e in instinct formation etc. It is testable as far as somebody doesn't accept nature's innate strife for preserving life through using environmental information, something so obvious to me and well proved in epigenetics . You don't deny this fact as regards epigenetic changes due to environmental effect on paragenome, but you stop arbitrarily there. You don't accept any effect on genome in the long run maybe thousands of years, without any scientific evidence to support your opinion, as scietists have not the means ,e.g time, to make the neccessary following. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I don't try to. I believe they all are guided as they both, "random"and guided mutations serve nature's strife to preserve life.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
2.By a supernatural entity.
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness. Of course somebody could prefer the last one; But in any case it is a matter of belief, and not a scientific conclusion, as many here tent irrationally to to think.

Nobody said universal laws possess sentience or purpose. But they could lead to creatures that have them. What does me prevent to say that aple is directed by gravity? I think you misunderstood me.I was refering to tobelievers to random mutations as well.... I think those too are pretenting it is science and not simply a belief.

0K. Nature cannot be. But universal laws, in the way they are, are tied to produce purposeful creatures, although they don't 'pocess sentience or purpose', in given circumstances.So i don't understand your reaction.We have reached at the most crucial point of our conversation.It will be a pity if you quit now. So we agree on this one.It is very important. But here we are faced with some questions:
1.How from an endity (universal laws) which does not pocess purpose or sentience result purposeful creatures.
2.These creatures with purpose characteristics: a)are all the creatures seen in nature? b) is this characheristic existing in all of creatures functions?
c) if it is not, how it is restricted and why to the one or the other direction or debth? d)why there is not, as far as i know, any relative scientific research research? e) etc.

Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Answering to to each of your remarks, i fear it would just recycle old arguments we had in previous posts. I only willrecite GG Simpson:
the final explication must go to GG Simpson, in 1953 (pages 86f):"This sort of limitation and the fact that different mutations may |have widely and characteristically different rates of incidence show that mutations are not random in the full and usual sense of the word or in the way that some early Darwinists considered as fully random the variation available for natural selection. I believe that the, in this sense, nonrandom nature of mutation has had a profound influence on the diversity of life and on the extent and character of adaptations. This influence is sometimes overlooked, probably because almost everyone speaks of mutations as random, which they are in other senses of the word.A population in process of adapting to chnage in its environment or to an environment new to it may be expected to have some adaptive instability. It may be adapting by utilization of expressed and potential variability but it may also be adapting in part by adaptive mutations. Sooner or later and in some changes of adapation, if it is true that mutation is the ultimate source of material for evolution, adaptive mutation must be involved. In spite of the general "randomness" of mutation in the special senses noted, there is adequate evidence that aadaptive mutations are often available under such circumstances."
Also some paragrafs from:
Evolution and Chance
by John Wilkins
[Last Update: April 17, 1997]Fear of the ordinary sense of chance and random which Gould describes above arises largely from a desire to find meaning in the events of the world around us. Science is not the appropriate place to find this meaning. Neither can meaning be imposed upon scientific explanations......
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 causes of mutations are not evolutionary processes; the changes to organisms that result from mutations are."I suggest this article by Wilkins. At least it shows some doubts about the randomness of mutations.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I don't think that predictability and predictive value are the same and Gould surely was talking only of predictability of mutations. That gives me a good idea. Nature's innate intelligence or God know about that property of randomness not to be used in evolution. So no real randomness... I prefer to think that innate intelligence acts on an a micro atomic level.

How you then are you able to talk about randomness in mutations as regards preserving life (or fitness as you call it)? Lottery is not random when it happens at times, rate or positions apropriate to the needs of the people who play (or use) it.

I think it is quite clear what Simpson means by adaptive mutations in the following passages, taken from Wilking's article:"This sort of limitation and the fact that different mutations may have widely and characteristically different rates of incidence show that mutations are not random in the full and usual sense of the word or in the way that some early Darwinists considered as fully random the variation available for natural selection. I believe that the, in this sense, nonrandom nature of mutation has had a profound influence on the diversity of life and on the extent and character of adaptations. This influence is sometimes overlooked, probably because almost everyone speaks of mutations as random, which they are in other senses of the word.A population in process of adapting to chnage in its environment or to an environment new to it may be expected to have some adaptive instability. It may be adapting by utilization of expressed and potential variability but it may also be adapting in part by adaptive mutations. Sooner or later and in some changes of adapation, if it is true that mutation is the ultimate source of material for evolution, adaptive mutation must be involved. In spite of the general "randomness" of mutation in the special senses noted, there is adequate evidence that aadaptive mutations are often available under such circumstances. "
Simpson wouldn't go to such pains in defining adaptive mutations, if it was only for simply beneficial mutations. All we know them so well.I think it might be usefull as well to quote Dawkins from the same article:"It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]
Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. 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] " Any theory so widely but not so scientifically, in my opinion, established as it is thought, as the random mutation theory is, should have predicted and verified some facts. This is what i mean by predictive value.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

These experiments just demonstate a limited momen of evolution life
I quote GOULD from WILKINS article (evolution and chance):
"Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness." If this is so, why "randomness" should be seen as random? Nature or God could just use it.
if this is the case, and it seems it is. "It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work." [Dawkins 1996: 67]
"...It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance." [Dawkins]
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

The Lederberg experiment:
The evolution mechanism in one cell organisms is an instance in the evolution history, not the whole of it. You cannot draw conclusions for the multicellular organisms, wrhere evolution mechanims are surely more complex. I think we need an example of predictive value of random mutations in multicellular organisms too.
Random mutations is, somebody can easily say, a special for the case choice between other mechanisms by nature. The concept of of the organism-environment information interchange is very much connected with the the concept of neural's system and for the same reason of empathy's intervention in evolution process .

So ,it is a matter of choice of belief, as many times i had been saying.

It applies only to mono-cell organisms.It would be more scientific if you mention that and even more responsible if you had added that this "randomness" maybe is part of nature's or God's plan.Surely it is not only your fault. I discern a fiddling with of the whole evolutional community, who wand to attach to the evolutional process an aura of moral meaning.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

If i am right, i don't think you ever mention any study in metazoa to prove random mutations. Just to prevent any recycling of old arguments, these studies must specifically state that their results could not be explained by environmentally directed mutations. Existence even of tiny signal of directed mutations, as you say, it shows that there is , never mind how rare it is, the mechanism to suceed it. So why you so insistantly used to ask me to present that mechanism?
In spite of this random mutation noise the evidence is negligible. I suggest neural system to bridge this division.
That you see things that aren't there is unlikely to surprise anyone at this late stage in the debate.If you remain unable to bring the needed evidence, i insist there is fiddling with.