You still have to prove that the same mechanisms or principles apply to higher types of life.
What I can say is that mutations are random with respect to fitness in the species that have been studied. You are trying to claim that mutations are NOT random with respect to fitness, and yet you can not point to a single study where this is the case.
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.
Then supply the evidence from the paper that it was there.
But what if nature can "know"that 500 million divisions is a usual happening and could rely on this fact?
What if it didn't?
But in spite of this life managed to preserve itself so successfuly.
So regarding the issue of tendency for life preservation we are equally footed. It is a matter of belief.I believe there is, you believe there is not, becouse there isn't any evidence of it.I can understand it.Can we agree as honest men on this?
It is a matter of belief.I believe there is, you believe there is not, becouse there isn't any evidence of it.
Belief - acceptance without evidence - is not science.
I believe that aliens kidnap you (yes, you) when you are asleep and perform experiments on you. It is a matter of belief.I believe they do; you believe they don't because there isn't any evidence of it.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
So regarding the issue of tendency for life preservation we are equally footed.
No, we aren't. I have an evidenced mechanism where life is producing mutations that are random with respect to fitness. You claim that they are guided by life's knowledge, but you have no evidence for any mechanism by which this happens. My claims are based on evidence. Your claims are based on wishful thinking.
It is a matter of belief.
No, it is a matter of evidence. I have it. You don't.
I think "respect to life preserving" is more appropriate, as wider and more representative term.
The chances of life being preserved is defined by the random mutation rate. I really don't see how this helps resolve anything. We are right back to the probability of a specific mutation occuring and how it relates to fitness.
In the case of this paper, there is a 1 in 500 million chance of a bacterium getting the needed mutation. This probability changes as a function of the state of the DNA, either single stranded or double stranded. The probability is not affected by the NEEDS of the organism which makes the mutation random with respect to fitness. If the needed mutation were in a gene that was not actively transcribed then this mechanism would lower the chances of life being preserved. This same mechanism also increases the deleterious mutation rate in important and vital genes that are actively transcribed.