You can have a search that is goal directed but can be random, systematic, or guided.
No, you can't. Words mean things. In biology, a goal directed mutation is one that is non-random. It is a specific change to a specific base in a specific gene that results in a specific outcome. That is what "goal directed" means in biology. A random mutation is just the opposite.
Now consider the bacteria responding to an environmental stress. It begins to hypermutate certain regions of the genome in order to adapt. The goal is to adapt to the stress; although I don't suggest the bacteria has a conscious intention to to do this. The search space is restricted to certain parts of the genome. Within this space we assume the search is blind and random.
Those are random mutations, not goal directed mutations. Increasing the random mutation rate is an increase in random mutations. Those mutations will include beneficial, neutral, and deleterious mutations. Increasing the rate at which a random number generator operates does not turn it into a non-random number generator.
Perhaps it does but I couldn't find it in a glossary of biological terms. Perhaps you could supply a link to a suitable definition.
If you are using them to mean the very same thing, then just use the term "random mutations".
However I think you might be confusing "goal directed search" with a "guided search". In fact if the organism can go to a specific base in a specific gene to get a specific outcome it's not a search at all.
If mutations are produced without any meaningful connection to what would help or hurt the organism, then it is random with respect to fitness.
Another example is the immune system. In response to an infection the immune system starts producing many variations looking for an antibody for the invader. This is goal directed but the immune system can't go directly to the specific mutation that will produce the antibody and it might have to use a blind search to find an antibody that works. (Not a perfect analogy since the immune system starts with a library of antibodies that have worked for past infections.)
Those are random mutations. It is not goal directed mutagenesis.
goal–directed: aimed toward a goal or toward completion of a task. As I have explained a search can have a goal while still being a blind search, as opposed to a guided search. And a blind search can be a random search. (Maybe I should be writing "goal-directed" rather than "goal directed".)
There is already a term that describes this process. It is called random mutagenesis.
All you are doing is redefining terms to make them sound more guided when they aren't.
No, he just uses a different definition of information than Shannon; must people do. Shannon's definition is very restrictive but suited for the purpose for which he was using it.
But is that definition applicable to biology?
Random mutation degrades existing information. Take a page from a book and start randomly mutating the letters and pretty soon it is unreadable and any information on that page is lost.
Then you would define every difference between the chimp and human genomes as a loss in information. In other words, your definition is not relevant to biology and evolution since evolution can proceed without needing to gain information as you define it.
We already know that most evolution happens by the loss of information.
Then why do you keep saying that there has to be an increase in information in order for macroevolution to occur? It would seem that evolution does just fine without needing to meet the requirements you have set for it.
To use an analogy, you are saying that a baseball player has to hit a ball 2,000 feet in order to get a home run. All the while, baseball players are hitting balls 400 feet and getting home runs. You have lost touch with reality.
However in this case the original cell has ALL of the genetic and extra-genetic information for EVERY cell including the information to switch off the un-needed functions in each specialist tissue. That is the difference between a complex organism and a single celled organism.
I would agree that the production of tissues is what separates complex eukaryotes (animals, plants) from less complex species (protists, prokaryotes). It comes down to the evolution of switches in the genome that respond to chemicals released by neighboring cells. It is interesting to note that complex animals share some of the more important switches which are called homeobox genes.
We could look it up in a dictionary and get some information. We can read a recipe and get more information. We can taste it and get more information. We now know what it is, how to make it, and what it tastes like. We know that we have acquired and increased information; we can qualitatively say we have more information even if we can't quantitatively say how much.
The problem is that none of this is relevant to biology. The cell doesn't read DNA like a recipe in order to make proteins. DNA isn't an abstract written language like human languages. DNA contains physical information like all other molecules. DNA contains the information for a cell in the same way that oxygen and hydrogen contain the information for water.