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.
This is his post that you were responding to, wasn't it?
3--EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM!!!!! IT NEVER WAS!!!
Sorry. Pet peave of mine.
It has a element of chance, but entirely too much emphasis is placed on it. Mutations are the mechanism for evolution, but they are mostly harmful for the species, and so are surpressed. The process by which mutations are selected follows very specific rules which apply under specific conditions. The nature of the rules and conditions is a subject of some debate, but the fact that it HAPPENS just isn't. It is impossible, as you suggest, for the incredible complexity of life on this planet to have arisen purely by chance. It is a very common misconception that this is how evolution works, but it's far more rational a system than that.