Summations Only

We don't need to accept that at all. If there is a set mutational response to a specific stimuli then we would expect the same stimuli to result in the same mutations. You don't need a supernatural creator to do that.

Massive mountains of genomic data showing sequence divergence of orthologous genes due to synonymous mutations, not to mention different rates of change in genes and pseudogenes. The pocket mouse example is another piece of evidence since differnent mutations for dark fur occurred in different populations.

If the same mutation occurred in response to the same stimuli when other options were open. The evolution of dark fur in pocket mice is the perfect example, and I laid out what I would have expected to see if guided mutations were true.

Repair mechanisms fix DNA damage based on the chemistry of the DNA. It is not based on the changes in fitness that the repairs will induce. There is no way for these repair mechanisms to differentiate between a mutations that will have no effect on fitness and those that will.

RAZD writes: So let's ask: IF we accept that "directed\guided evolution (zi ko)" occurs, THEN how does that produce novel features? ie what's the next step in his thesis to increased diversity of species.

RAZD writes:The "information flow from environment to genome" is where the individuals survive to breed, yes?Change the ecological environment and different individuals survive to breed because there is different "information flow from environment to genome" -- and this can lead to different genomes in different populations, novel traits, and eventually to speciation, yes?Thus the directed part of the evolution would have to be in manipulation of the ecological environment, yes?

Isn't this just selection?

RAZD writes:It has always seemed to me that evolution just shows the how of the process: that science, in general does not, cannot, really address the whys (purpose\causal\intent), because of the way science is formulated -- not because there is any intended attempt to eliminate it from science, philosophical or theistic consideration, but because science is just not capable of addressing those issues.

RAZD writes:From my proposed thread Introduction to Evolution, Message 1): If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic change in species, or phyletic speciation. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
...
(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show phyletic change in species (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The "the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population" is the formation of novel traits, the topic of this thread.Remember that mutations affect the genotype and selection (ecological or sexual) operates on the phenotype (the expressed traits of the individuals), that it is a two-step dance, and not just hopping along on one leg.

When I started this thread, I had hoped that we could move from the theoretical - take it as accepted that mutation followed by natural selection is the mechanism for novel features to evolve - and actually demonstrate it in an animal big enough for creationists to think it's 'proper'.

Surely if there was a pre-existing adaptive program in insect we would expect it to target the same gene, if no tproduce the exact same mutation, in the various instances of melanism that we have studied?