"Restricting mutagenesis (by whatever mechanism) to a specific part of the genome would give the organism a selective advantage and is consistent with natural selection."
It is not consistent with natural selection being able to _build_ such a restricting mechanism. As Dembski showed in Searching Large Spaces, building such a second-order mechanism is an order of magnitude harder than building a first-order system.
"Even flu viruses show this pattern of having some parts of the genome more mutagenic than others, because natural selection favours it."
Where do you base the idea that this pattern _originates_ from natural selection? What data, specifically, supports that natural selection _originated_ this selective mutagenesis?
"And yet every example of genetic change we've covered is effectively random."
Incorrect. It would be random if it were evenly distributed. All that has been shown is that it is a non-deterministic algorithm. That is not the same as randomness or haphazardness. It simply means that the algorithm employed has multiple search options to try next. Neo-Darwinism suggested the notion of a wholly unoptimized search. If a search is optimized, it had to be optimized for a particular purpose. Which, of course, negates Dawkins suggestion that they only appear to have a purpose. If you want to say that it is these purposeful change mechanisms which have originated by purposeless processes, it is up to you to provide the evidence, since all of the evidence of complex adaptation in genomic change is purposeful, directed change.
"Also, note that it's very intellectually dishonest to use phrases like, "the cell even knows that" since you're implying higher order intellegence where none has been shown to exist, i.e. at the cellular level."
The point is to show that the genomic change is directed from the cell -- it is not a passive process, it is the cell actively reconfiguring itself.
"Even if an organism restricts mutation to a single gene, the mutated sequence will be randomly determined because of the fundamental biochemical mechanisms."
If the organism restricts itself to a single gene, then it is NO LONGER RANDOM. You no longer have the purposeless notion of change -- instead it appears that the change is quite purposeful! The cell even has instructions as to which gene needs changing! That is a completely different paradigm of change as is taught in standard school texts. It is one totally consistent with ID and Creationism, but one which has no merit in atelic notions of origins.
To expand a bit on the "no longer random" part:
Let's say I need a new gene. There are several possibilities:
1) I have no idea I need something to change. If a cosmic ray or copying error causes something to change, and its beneficial, great. However, if the change is detrimental or doesn't fix my situation, I'm toast.
2) I know I need something to change, but have NO IDEA what. Therefore, I can cause increased mutations to occur randomly throughout my genome, and hopefully something good happens before I suffer from error catastrophe.
3) I know I need something to change, and I know it is this, specific gene. Therefore, I can put my resources to bear on changing this gene until I can sense that I am no longer in need.
4) I know I need something to change, and I have this part list of things that I know works to make specific things happen. I'm going to rearrange re-usable parts until I get something working.
5) I know I need something to change, I know what it is that needs changing, and I know exactly what I need to do to change it.
1 & 2 are Darwinism. 3-5 are ID and Creationism. Darwinists like to claim that 3-5 can be the result of 1 & 2. However, Dembski's No Free Lunch and Searching Large Spaces show why complex adaptations cannot occur through blind searches. Intelligence _must_ be put into the equation, or the blind search makes error catastrophe a certainty LONG before adaptations can occur.
If you have _data_ on how 3-5 can come into being as the result of 1 & 2, I'd sure be interested in seeing it. Until then, I think that biochemistry pretty clearly shows that teleology is quite well at play in biochemistry.
... If the organism restricts itself to a single gene, then it is NO LONGER RANDOM.
So your definition of random is exclusive to a uniform distribution over the entire genome? I can't have random numbers with a normal distribution? Or a Poisson distribution?
Congratulations on redefining 'random' in order to better your own argument. This is getting to be a common trend with you. Yeesh. Have you even read a single biology/math textbook?
For the lurkers, here's a simple example. If I have the numbers [1][2][3][4][5] and I flip a coin randomly to change number 4 to either 6 or 8, guess what? The new sequence is random. It may have a narrow distribution, but because the new sequence isn't deterministic (i.e. you can't predict what it will be), it's random.
Where do you base the idea that this pattern _originates_ from natural selection? ... It is not consistent with natural selection being able to _build_ such a restricting mechanism.
Natural selection does not originate or build anything. It acts on existing diversity. You're clearly showing your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory.
it is the cell actively reconfiguring itself ... Let's say I need a new gene
This implies intelligence (as does the entirety of the rest of your ridiculous post). This has not been demonstrated and should not be a part of your assertions.
Cells do not have an 'idea' about how they want to change. They do not 'plan' new phenotypes.
Genomic change is random through recombination or mutation. Natural selection acts on those changes. It is observed that nature is reactive, not proactive. This is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Really, why am I bothering to discuss this at all with you? If you're willing to redefine "random" to suit your purposes, there doesn't seem much hope in expecting a rational criticism of evolution from you.
Also, Dembski? No.