[Antonello]

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.

Since your post #22 specifically referenced a quote that said 'The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions', and since those pathways are a result of selection, perhaps you were not quite as clear as you may have thought. Nevertheless I accept that it was an honest misunderstanding.

If I am understanding correctly now, this means you believe that somehow the statement you quoted said that the mutations themselves were not random. I would ask that you explain that conclusion.

>Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.

You can prove this statement? I am stuned.

I assume you are implying that God directed the mutations, and are daring me to disprove supernatural intervention in the experiment. My only answer is to clarify that my claim that nothing directed the mutations was only meant to cover the parameters of the experiment, and doesn't address possibilities not in evidence.

How many point mutations could have occurred?

That number is not only indeterminable, but also irrelevant. If you think differently feel free to explain how the number of mutations that didn't occur affect the results of ones that did.

How many did occur?

According to the article, millions.

Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations?

I would highly doubt it, since the actual occurrence of the mutations was random both in location and in timing.

If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?

So conversely, since I have answered your two - well, three but who's counting ;-) - questions, does that mean you are saying I am not pretending to know more than I do?

[js1138]

There are at least three posters on evolution threads who spend an inordinate amount of time suggesting that mutations are somehow directed. Some seem to suggest that the direction comes from an intelligent agent within the cell itself.

I would love to see an ID advocate produce an actual hypothesis based on this conjecture, or at least tell us what thought is lurking behind their posts.

It really sounds like a revival of Lamarkianism.