Only anti-evolutionists have ever claimed that selection is random.
One would expect the same adaptation response to the same point mutation. But what directs the same point mutations to occur in regions that were identical in both heat resistant and non heat resistant critters?
The article is unclear about how many mutations took place versus the number of possible mutations that could have taken place. Perhaps that info would help me understand the significance a bit better.
Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all. The mutations occurred randomly, but only those that granted a benefit regarding the changing environment were selected. Therefore only a few of the thousands of mutations that were observed made the cut. And it was those same few in each execution of the experiment.
Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random. I though it was clear I was speaking about the point mutations but sometimes clear just isn't enough.
Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.
You can prove this statement? I am stuned.
The mutations occurred randomly, but only those that granted a benefit regarding the changing environment were selected. Therefore only a few of the thousands of mutations that were observed made the cut. And it was those same few in each execution of the experiment.
How many point mutations could have occurred? How many did occur? Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations? If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?