rObeph
I have done some research on your concept that mutations are not really random. You seem to be referring to the hypothesis of “Directed Mutation”. I found a very succinct definition of directed mutation and it’s implications (the underlines are mine):
"The phenomenon of directed (adaptive) mutations has kept the attention of biologists for several years. It contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology. According to the phenomena, directed mutations arise not as a result of a blind variation on the genetical level and consequent selection (as the paradigm insists), but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole. However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified." --Vasily V. Ogryzko, NIH Bethesda Maryland
It (Directed mutation) “contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology.”
Are you and coyote really prepared to go here? Directed mutation, which is still unproven and rejected by most Macroegans, has the potential to upset the entire apple cart upon which the hypothesis of Macroevolution so precariously rests.
“but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole“ I warn you that you don’t yet know what lies down the DM road and this statement sounds a lot like ID to me.
“However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified.". Are you really prepared to throw most of accepted Macroevolutionary theory out the door when the mechanism for DM is still unknown? And what is your plan if the only plausible explanation of DM should turn out to be ID? At this point in time, you really don't know what is ahead on this road.
One of the papers of J Cairns introduced DM to the world of Darwininian biology. And even he has serious doubts. "Mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their utility" -- J. Cairns.
“There exists no acceptable mechanism by which a life form can steer its own evolutionary way; that is, shape its own genome. What besides natural selection can do this?”
From Science Frontiers #75, MAY-JUN 1991. © 1991-2000 William R. Corliss
"The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."
A.S. Moffat in American Scientist.
DM, which is unproven, has no mechanism and is flat out rejected by most in the MacroE world, has the potential to destroy the precious “Tree of Life” you Darwinistas love so much. It may mean that I have more in common with alligators or brown pelicans than humans from Canada or Europe. I mean we have all been exposed to the same Florida heat, climate and disease for several generations. And, if this is true, who is the parent? Did one of my ancestors give birth to the first gator or was it the other way around?
Are you really prepared to tear down the "Tree of Life"? Are you really prepared to stuff most of Macroevolutionary theory into the trash can?
I ask you again, are you really prepared to go there?
I have a name for coyote's unnamed force. Why don't we call it the Tinkerbell force? When we can't explain something with science we can always use pixie dust.
Even if DM should prove to be true, it still doesn't answer the question of "How did all those 6 billion complex chemicals get into the right order and right slot?"
I'm sticking with my version. The possible combinations of all those 6 billion complex chemicals is such an astronomically huge number (4 raised to the 6 billionth power) that even with a boost from DM, it still is unrealistic. There has not been enough time. No where near enough time. Not enough time by a factor of billions and trillions of years.
And do you have an answer for my original premise? Can you point out even one code or language that you can positively demonstrate arose without intelligence?
