Can mutation and selection increase information?

An analogy is not an argument. It can be used to explain an argument. Make your argument about biological evolution then, if necessary, explain it with an analogy.

Analogy is still not argument.

Ah, the good ol' equivocation on "random".Genetic changes can respond to environmental events. They are still random with respect to fitness.

Probably referring to the (irrelevant) fact that in many situations environmental stress can increase mutation rates.

ITYM "neutral and deleterious"?

Cool! You respond to my pointing out your equivocation with two more equivocations.When we speak of random mutations we always mean random with respect to fitness. So your two ways in which this isn't random are true but irrelevant.It does appear that this sort of phenomenon evolved as a response to stress. But it does not mean that the organism is searching to adapt to a specific challenge, because the effect of the mutations is not specific to the challenge. That is, random with respect to fitness.Unlike creationists, scientists are always poking and prodding and testing. When and if someone discovers the process isn't exactly random with respect to fitness you will have an argument. But not now.

They do not appear to be goal directed. In some circumstances they are a response to environmental stress.They are random with respect to fitness.Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.No?Didn't think so.

It's possible but the evidence indicates it is not. Got any evidence it's goal directed?The mutations we see in response to stress are the same as the mutations we see without stress, just more of them. If the organism is lucky one of them might adapt to the stress. The organism has to be very very lucky. Most organisms won't get an adaptational mutation. BUt a slim chance is better than no chance. List the observations and explain why the support your claim, please. The vast majority of mutations are neutral. What evidence do you have "those that code for the same amino acid" are detrimental? Evidence please?And what does that have to do with the fact that responses to stress are random with respect to fitness?

Yes. So what? We have plenty of evidence that the processes that increases mutation rate are not goal seeking. Naming wildly different processes doesn't affect that. Not at all similarly. Analogies are not evidence. The two processes are totally disssimilar. Not according to the evidence we have.Got any evidence for your claim?Didn't think so. What evidence have you studied to conclude that there is less evidence to reject it than for it?[multiple citations required]I'll start. Mutation as a Stress Response and the Regulation of Evolvability:

quote:

---

Our concept of a stable genome is evolving to one in which genomes are plastic and responsive to environmental changes. Growing evidence shows that a variety of environmental stresses induce genomic instability in bacteria, yeast, and human cancer cells, generating occasional fitter mutants and potentially accelerating adaptive evolution. The emerging molecular mechanisms of stress-induced mutagenesis vary but share telling common components that underscore two common themes. The first is the regulation of mutagenesis in time by cellular stress responses, which promote random* mutations specifically when cells are poorly adapted to their environments, i.e., when they are stressed. A second theme is the possible restriction of random* mutagenesis in genomic space, achieved via coupling of mutation-generating machinery to local events such as DNA-break repair or transcription. Such localization may minimize accumulation of deleterious mutations in the genomes of rare fitter mutants, and promote local concerted evolution. Although mutagenesis induced by stresses other than direct damage to DNA was previously controversial, evidence for the existence of various stress-induced mutagenesis programs is now overwhelming and widespread. Such mechanisms probably fuel evolution of microbial pathogenesis and antibiotic-resistance, and tumor progression and chemotherapy resistance, all of which occur under stress, driven by mutations. The emerging commonalities in stress-induced-mutation mechanisms provide hope for new therapeutic interventions for all of these processes.

---

{emphaisi added}*Remember that to biologists studying mutations "random" means "randiom with respect to fitness".Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : Fix bolding

IOW it's a story you made up, you like, and is contradicted by the evidence. Make up your mind.

Still nothing to do with the fact that the mutations are random with respect to fitness.You need evidence, not analogies.You admitted you have none.You have failed.When, you've dug yourself into a hole, what should you do?

The issue is with the word "directed".

quote:

---

1. guided, regulated, or managed:a carefully directed program.
2. subject to direction, guidance, regulation, etc.

---

All the evidence we have is there is nothing guiding, regulating, or managing the mutations we are discussing.Got any evidence for your position?

The subject is not the universe of possible searches. The subject is a particular "search" (not everyone thinks it is a search).Mutation rate can increase under stress. Do you have any evidence those mutations are not random with respect to fitness?{Rhetorical question. You have admitted you don't. So all this current blathering is off topic and pointless.)

It doesn't matter what any "random" search may or may not be. We are discussing one particular "search". You have admitted you have no evidence that particular "search" is related to a goal in any way.Blathering on about anything other than that particular "search" is pointless. Please address the subject.

O rly? {Of course there is lots of evidence to reject it; ignoring it doesn't make that go away). For which there is absolutely no evidence. I already posted one paper demonstrating your hypothesis is false; how many more shall I post? Another admission of having no evidence for your claim.