Replies

For instance, the formation of an amino acid by what is actually a rule-based, deterministic chemical reaction is described as "random,"

You're comparing mutations which drive evolution to a deterministic chemical reaction? If that's true, then we must know the mechanism which drives mutations, as we know the mechanism which drives chemical reactions, or we must have at least experimentally observed the same mutation occuring repeatedly under the same conditions. Which of those is the basis for saying mutations are deterministic?

I wasn't aware that it was an accepted evolutionary doctrine that the mutations aren't really random as the dictionary defines it. Can you give me a link for that?

If that's true, then we must know the mechanism which drives mutations, as we know the mechanism which drives chemical reactions, or we must have at least experimentally observed the same mutation occuring repeatedly under the same conditions. Which of those is the basis for saying mutations are deterministic?

The chemical basis of mutations is quite well understood. There are framshift mutations, which arise from an addition or deletion of a base - intercalating agents often bring this about - , and substitution mutations, which generally arise from modification of a base so that G, for example, looks like A during the proces of replication. Among the mechanisms are alkylation (attachment of an alkyl group to the base), nitrosation (substitution of an amino by a hydroxy as a result of reaction with nitrosonium ion), and several others I've forgotten.

You're comparing mutations which drive evolution to a deterministic chemical reaction?

Your imagination is running away with you. I was describing actual creationist dumb-dumbing on the odds of an amino acid forming, as exemplified earlier on this thead by Darwin_is_passe. He was not talking about mutations at the time. I gather you just want to steer the topic back to mutations. When you want to talk about something, just bring it up. You don't have to artfully misinterpret everything.

If that's true, then we must know the mechanism which drives mutations, as we know the mechanism which drives chemical reactions, or we must have at least experimentally observed the same mutation occuring repeatedly under the same conditions. Which of those is the basis for saying mutations are deterministic?

You're just babbling. Various mutagens are known, but "deterministic mutations" have nothing to do with Darwinian theory. Get a grip.

I wasn't aware that it was an accepted evolutionary doctrine that the mutations aren't really random as the dictionary defines it. Can you give me a link for that?

Try reading the thread before jumping in.