Non-random mutations drive evolution
It's difficult, if not impossible, to argue for something based in non-evidence with evidence, don't you think? The scientific theory of random mutation based evolution is founded on a lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. I can't verywell reach into my non-evidence and display that to you. The only real argument to be made against your position is the nullification of your "facts".
That leaves me to start with the underlying argument of intelligent design, as the opposite of random, being non-random, is dependent on the precision of choice.
To that argument, I implore you recognize the reality of fact versus belief, and belief is nullified in the face of science and fact.
If you stray away from intelligent design yet argue that evolution is non-random, you have no grounds for argument as there's no evidence to suggest anything other than random mutation. There's been an argument made that the effects of the mutation aren't random, and as the DNA is scattered across the dominant species do to environmental benefits, but then the effect is given reason, not the mutation itself. For instance, to reiterate [Neil Degrasse Tyson: Cosmos], if there are brown bears in the antarctic, and along one of their family lines, there's a genetic mutation and the brown bear is born with White fur, being what we now call a polar bear, the polar bear will better blend in with their stark white environment and be able to hunt their prey better than the less camouflaged brown bear.
In this, the mutation is random, being a misspelled DNA code within the family line, an error that can not be predicted through any kind of study taking causation correlation into consideration. This bear existing alone does not count as evolution, evolution happens when the White bear is better able to feed his family than the brown bear, and the white bear has more white bear children, and that trend continues until the polar bear becomes a species of the bear family. This is not random, but this is not mutation, the is the passing on the genes, gene's that originated randomly.
The understanding of evolution is random mutation of DNA that spreads over time to create a species. This change in special dominance within the environment over time is the non-random evolutionary part of the process, but the mutation itself is random as the topic is "non-random mutation."
That being said, there should be SOME way to prove that mutations are random, and so far, I haven't seen it. I have seen plenty of studies showing very obvious NON randomness in mutation. Here are two. In both cases, the mutation fit the need of the environment perfectly, and were repeated in experiments. Especially in the experiment with the extra tails, in which ALL of the tests the organisms grew extra tails, with the same exact genetic mutation.
"To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same gene, called FleN."
"In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"
It's important to remember that I'm negating an assertion. I'm not saying “this is true.” I'm negating the idea that the other thing is true. And, in science, something is not true until it's been proven, and that has not been proven. I'll say it again, I can't look at the lack of proof and yell out “Look at the objectivity of this non-fact,” because there's no objectivity to be had. It's a lack of knowledge masquerading as knowledge, and the only way to argue a lack of knowledge is, as I am doing, to negate the assertion of a falsifiable “fact.” Remember, Janesix holds the assertion, not me. The claims made are, in fact, easily falsifiable with a more intricate understanding of them, and the intricacies show, with all but certainty, that evolutionary mutation, referring to mutations themselves, are, in fact, random.
"Researchers have reported cases of cichlid fish, palm trees and finches adapting to different ecological niches and splitting into different species despite living in the same place"
“In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same gene, called FleN.”
“'In this case, it could be that there are only a few solutions in the evolutionary space,' Dr. Xavier said.”
“In a video showing the 3-D structure of one of these biofilms, the ordinary bacteria win, and the hyperswarmers have practically gone extinct.”
“ … indicating that this ORF was involved in regulating the number of flagella and chemotactic motility in P. aeruginosa.”
The two articles I provided show that mutations can be predictable, given enough information. In the first case, it is easy to predict that the next experiment will produce the EXTRA TAILS> Why THAT particular mutation, time and time again? Because the organism need it to survive.
To answer that, I only need to quote your link.
“In this case, it could be that there are only a few solutions in the evolutionary space,” Dr. Xavier said.
I've already explained the science behind this. I'll emphasize an underlying point however. The article focused on one gene, possibly the most limited gene of the organism. Who knows what other changes were made genetically that effect the outcome. You don't, and I don't. They probably weren't worth mentioning to us, as we aren't smart enough, not being scientists, to see any correlation in the vastness of the oucomes. The article shows only a common trait in a single gene efecting only two components, second controlling the first. It's not that all the family lines mutated, it's that the one's who didn't, died out in the mutation vs environment effect I've so vigurously explained. The mutations are randomly given from a set of possibilities.
"A process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|