[allmendream]

Shoddy thinking is reading a pubmed abstract about phylogenetic comparison and thinking that they actually TESTED mutation rather than ASSUMING it. And then Gibsoning the article to try to make it say that mutation is not random, when they never even tested mutation.

You are either a fool or utterly dishonest. Either way a Gibson quote shows you have no interest in approaching the subject honestly.

[GourmetDan]

"Shoddy thinking is reading a pubmed abstract about phylogenetic comparison and thinking that they actually TESTED mutation rather than ASSUMING it. And then Gibsoning the article to try to make it say that mutation is not random, when they never even tested mutation."

Again, the reason I quoted that article was to demonstrate that mutation is not random as you had said. You have already admitted that you use the word 'random' when the word 'probabilistic' is the correct term to accurately describe the phenomenon.

You are either a fool or utterly dishonest. Either way, misrepresenting mutation as being 'random' when it is probabilistic shows you have no interest in approaching the subject honestly.