Are mutations truly random or are they guided?

Yes. Here's a review paper on the subject. Like the paper you quote, it's ten years old, so this shouldn't be news to most EvC regulars.Organisms can react to stress in a way which has proven successful for their ancestors, and has therefore been selected for. This can increase variation in specific areas of the genome which are more likely to produce something useful in relation to the cause of the stress in the environment than other areas. It has obvious advantages over a general increase in mutation rate that's spread randomly over the whole genome, as it doesn't increase detrimental mutation rates in irrelevant areas.The paper, HERE, discusses some possible mechanisms in relation to starvation induced stress. A kind of apparent Lamarckian effect can be the result, because a positive adaption in relation to a new environmental factor can be speeded up.The answer to the question in the O.P. title, "Are mutations truly random or are they guided" is that some mutations are partially guided by a combination of environmental factors and the history of the species involved (whether or not it has inherited the tendency to react positively to a specific kind of stress).The initial ancestral tendency would, however, have been a random variation. The end result is an example of evolvability itself ( or adaptability if you like) having been selected for.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it. It's based on the observation that random variations within species are common, and that advantageous ones are selected for. There's plenty of evidence to support that in the literature, as I'm sure you'd agree.So, by all means present an (observation based) alternative explanation for the origin of the stress related reactions I was talking about if you disagree. There's certainly no obligation to agree with me. There's a reason why the words "environment" and "individual" are spelt differently. It's because they mean different things. The individual cells do not really guide evolution, they react automatically and unconsciously to starvation induced stress in a way that they've inherited. I said: If you look at what I'm describing, and you understand it, you will be able to see that it's all due to variation and natural selection, the very key words used to describe biological evolution 150 years ago. The theory does evolve, of course, but it's only micro-evolution so far.

What about my phrase "partially guided", especially when we consider that a rock rolling down a hill is guided in its route by the contours of the hill. But I agree that the mechanism doesn't "know" anything specific. We could say that the rate and region of variation can be guided by the environment in certain circumstances. Actually, some of the more sophisticated I.D. types get very excited about this kind of thing, and see it as designed/front loaded evolution. I think that they may as well skip all the details, include naturalistic abiogenesis in their view, opt for a "front loaded" universe designed to be as it is, and become Deists.Then they wouldn't have to worry about not having any positive evidence any more.