The silence is deafening.

So it seems it’s okay for you cast doubt on modern evolutionary theory every chance you get amongst those who do not necessarily have a good working knowledge about evolution, but it’s not okay for me to show why those doubts are misplaced.

So I will leave you and your readers and supporters with the following revealing points:

1) Despite several invitations to do so, you have steadfastly refused to give a definition of ‘random’. You have also refused to say whether or not you agree that the definition I gave, or to say why you disagree. So this is very curious, especially as this whole argument has revolved around whether or not mutations are random. Surely we need an agreed definition of ‘random’ before we discus whether or not mutations are random.

2) You say that the links and quotes you provided suggest that mutations are not random and, when it is pointed out to you that this is not what the authors are saying, you refuse to discus it any further. You don’t agree that if mutation are non-random it must mean that mutations are directed, but you refuse to offer an alternative word which does not mean the same as ‘directed’. And you refuse to give a mechanism whereby mutations could possibly be non-random.

3) You provide a quote from someone I’ve never heard of who turns out to be a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist, and a creationist who specifically went to Israel to find evidence to support his creationist views and to find evidence against modern evolutionary theory. And, when this is pointed out to you, you refuse to discus this any further. Why?

Sonic, it is a waste of time to just cast doubt. You must have a position. All conclusions in science are tentative. That does not mean you can’t have a position. The theory of evolutions by means of random mutation and natural selection is virtually unassailable. Yes, it might one day be disproven, but not by the wishy washy nonsense you have bought to our attention here.

If you cannot defend the doubts expressed by others about modern evolutionary theory, then it is beyond me why you even bother to bring them up here time and time again. And if you actually agree with those views, it is high time you actually said so and started defending thoses views.

regards,
BillyJoe

I attack sonic’s musings on non-random mutation.
I attack him when he fails to give substance to his musings.
(But ‘attack’ is too harsh a word, there is no malice involved, just a desire to protect the truth)

In my opinion, if mutations are not random, they must be directed.
(Please see the accepted defintion of randon in my previous post)
In my opinion, if mutations are directed, that implies a supernatural agent.
If sonic has a different explanation, it is high time he expressed it.
And if he agrees with Lee Spetner who he quoted favourably, it is high time he said so also.

And really, Mlema, I have patiently tried to explain things to you, over several days and over several posts, even when I was strongly suspicious of your motives. I can’t se that you have anything to complain about.

I don’t know what more I can say.
You don’t upset me, you amuse me.

The only person who has upset me was Jeremiah who trawled the internet looking for clues to my identity, threw hints that he knew where I lived, made veiled threats to harm me and others in my life, and stated that he was an army boxing instructor.

As I said above, you amuse me. You amuse he how you never come to any conclusions about anything or, at least, to state what your conclusions are. There’s always some study somewhere to throw some doubt on something. I’ve often asked you what you believe to be the case regarding evolution, but it seems untill there is absolute proof (never), you are not prepared to reach a conclusion.

You think there is evidence that mutations are not random. If I am wrong that this does not also mean that you must believe that mutations are directed, then I would like to know by what possible mechanism mutations could be non-random but also not directed. Without a possible mechanism, non-random mutation is not plausible, especially when evidence for it is easily explained by assuming mutation is random and selection non-random. You don’t like the word ‘directed’ but you don’t offer an alternative. My guess is that your alternative word will mean exactly the same thing. Prove me wrong.

You won’t give a definition of ‘random’.
You don’t like the word ‘directed’, but don’t offer an alternative.
You won’t explain how mutations can be ‘non-random’ but also ‘not directed’.

And then you link to a creationist.
Go figure?

Billy JOe I learned a lot from this conversation. I’m still learning, but not interested in writing about it any more because I don’t like to be simply told: “you’re wrong (without saying in what way)” and “try to understand”. I’m mean, what do you think I’m trying to do except understand? I suppose finding in you someone who I can always manage to irritate may appeal to the curmudgeon in me, and for that I apologize. All I can say is I’ll try to be better. If I try to avoid making purposeless comments, will you do the same?

I want to be clear- there is a problem, a problem such that this might very well be my last communication that I ever address to you.
I don’t think the problem is about the science- but let’s start there.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
“In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.”
“Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.”

I like to look at the evidence and discuss it. I know of no experiment or observation that ‘unambiguously’ supports the notion that mutations are not random with respect to survival (fitness), but I have noticed that some of the findings from the actual sequencing of the genomes (something that couldn’t be done not long ago) make the notion less implausible.
For example, the notion of ‘junk’ DNA is in danger of being tossed as a myth; it seems that might be relevant to this discussion.

It is does seem clear that mutations are not completely random with respect to when they occur, how they occur, in what locations on the genome they occur…

I do think this observation about the insect genome indicates that there might be ‘favored pathways’ for the genome to follow in actual fact. While this may not be a necessary aspect theoretically, it does appear to be a fact in terms of how life on earth has actually evolved.

You are correct about this: I don’t like the word ‘directed ‘ in this case. I find it to be a loaded word that leads to illogic in people. Often people are violently for the concept (theist) or violently against it (atheist) — when passions run that deep the reasoning often gets motivated by philosophy rather than observation.

At this point I could go on, or I could stop. You will have a rejoinder. In the past I might have responded to that. There could be a back and forth and perhaps some learning might occur. This has been a good arrangement until fairly recently. So while we may have disagreements about this, I don’t think they explain the recent shift in behaviors that I have observed.

You see, at this point it seems I have done something to upset you so much that you are now trying to hurt me. Maybe I’m over reacting, maybe I’m misinterpreting.
But you have lied to others about me, you don’t apologize. It seems you again recently said false things about me on a thread. You have attacked people I’m talking to- relentlessly harassing them to the point they tell you to go away… It’s weird.

Look, maybe you aren’t really upset with me, but certainly you can empathize with why I am concerned about this apparent shift in behaviors- it certainly seems that I have done something to upset you to the point where you would viciously attack someone for communicating with me.

I feel like a dunderhead for not knowing what it is that I’ve done.
I feel like I should apologize for not knowing what to apologize for.
It’s frustrating.

If you would be so kind as to point out my transgression, I will probably acknowledge the error, apologize for having done that, and determine to cease such behaviors in the future.

Balls in your court.

But let me just point out in conclusion that sonic:
1) Has not given a definition of ‘random’
2) Denies that ‘non-random’ means ‘directed’.
2) Has not given a mechanism by which mutation could be ‘non-random’ but not ‘directed’.

Let me also point out that Lee Spetner who sonic quoted favourably:
1) Also has not given a defintion of ‘random’.
2) Believes that mutation is ‘directed’.
3) Believes that God is the director.

I’m going to remember this thread if this topic ever comes up again.
Be warned, sonic.

I have tried time and again to explain things, even almost in point form. I just don’t understand why it is so hard to grasp. I don’t think I am any less clear than ccbowers who is delivering the same message in almost the same words. But you (?pretend to) understand him. And I have to disagree that Aardwark writes clearly. I mean I understand him, but if you cannot understand what I’m saying, if baffles me how you could possibly understand him.

Also, you voice agreement with other posters without demonstrating that you have actually understood what they have said. And you agree with posters with contrary views. That’s a big red flag for me.

And I’m not trying to change your mind. And I’m not insisting I’m correct. I’m trying to show you what the mainstream view is. I’m trying to show that sonic’s views are fringe views that have been well and truly debunked, and that the evidence for those fringe views can be well and truly explained by the modern synthesis that those fringe views are purporting to overthrow.

Regards,
BillyJoe

PS: Read Spetner, but, remember, he is no evolutionary biologist and it shows. He knows about probabilities as applied to physics, but it doesn’t translate into evolutionary biology – which is quite a bit more complicated – and he doesn’t even know that he doesn’t know that.

But I will leave you alone now.

What am I supposed to think other than you want me to change my mind but you’re unable to show me why I should?

Sometimes when I talk to a person I think is wrong, I try to understand the way they’re understanding something – that way I’m better able to see what they might be missing, and maybe even able to share that with them. For you though BillyJoe it’s all about being correct.

I still don’t honestly know how you can say you’re “correct” – except that as long as you keep saying “random mutation non-random selection random mutation non-random mutation random mutation non-random selection blah blah blah…” you feel you’ve got the consensus behind you and you are on the side of correctness. But I suppose if you didn’t do that you wouldn’t have spurred me on to reading the article several times. So, thanks for that.
And again, I apologize that I’m simply not able to gain any understanding from what you say. Obviously others do, but I kinda think it’s because they already know what you’re yammering about.

Maybe after the first time you say to someone: “it’s useless” you ought to quit. Isn’t that how you’re supposed to handle trolling anyway?

Now leave me alone will ya? I’m still reading the interview with Spetner that you indirectly linked me to.
but sincerely BillyJoe, I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Okay, I was correct right from the start.
You are a shameless troll.

It was fun, though, dissecting sonic in front of his unctious and unquestioning acolyte.