Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Near]

ecco:

I wasn't asking what you didn't think.​

Yes, I have. And when I asked what you think, you don't respond with what you think. You make a comment and then stated that the comment is not what you think. Let's review...

I had asked what causes the "determining".

In post # 456 you replied (my red emphasis):

"The determining can be through physical necessity, but I see no reason to think so."
​

In other words, your response was what you didn't think. So I responded:

"I wasn't asking what you didn't think."


​

ecco said: ↑

if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?​

You are not a determinist? Then why did you post...

• 379 Science typically presupposes determinism.
• 381 I'm not limiting myself to theism, but also materialistic (non-theistic) determinism
• The scientific method assumes determinism
• 437 Determinism can be both atheistic and theistic.
• 438 Physical and biological determinism does.

Strange. You were a determinist until I asked "if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?". Then you state: Fruitless question; I don't care to answer it. I'm not a determinist. Hmmm. Sounds like a last minute copout. Can't answer the question, deny the subject ever came up.



We haven't, except possibly in your own mind where you cannot decide whether or not you support determinism.

Well, I clearly misread the statement as "I didnt ask you what you think". My bad, its just that atheists have been making it a point to say, "you can believe whatever you want im talking about the facts", so apolgies, I usually skim through things that appear like rhetoric.

Anyways, Im not a determinist, im just enjoying the entertainment value that comes from attempting to represent it. I think its comical when athiests go against determinism, because it is the materialist view!

I dont need to support or go against determinism. The value in the discussion in my opinion is about possibilities. For example, your own statement about how you said nothing predetermines your choice. I found that one quite ironic for reasons I mentioned.

So what if Im not a determinist? Dont tell me your personally invested in going against people's view for the sake of it.
Im interested in what you have to say about why you believe nothing predetermines the choice which you mentioned. If not physcologically, biolologically, or physcially determined, what does your choice come from? Yourself? If so, what are you? A spirit? A body? A brain? Mere matter that must obey the laws of the universe or something more?
The way I see it, you cannot hold the materialist position, and a position of universal indeterminacy if you are of a scientific view. But if you just have some belief unsupported by science, like belief in randomness as a cause, then your just someone who has blind faith.
It's your dillemma, and you have yet to show a shred of convincing evidence for your side. I alredy refuted the argument about quantum indeterminacy, since it deals with measurements, not causality.

Recap: I object to the idea of mutations as causally random, I raise the point that scientifically speaking, randomness is not a cause of anything. The one who says that randomness as a cause for something currently lacks sufficient evidence.
Therefore we at least should not support the claim that mutations are random.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just so you're aware, the first link isn't working (I'm just getting a blank page) and the second link isn't letting me see the abstract. The third link does nothing to support your case. Just because the article uses the term 'Afro-Asian' does not mean that it is a scientific term. It is just used to refer to an ethnic diaspora in the world.

Sorry - links work just fine for me.

And you only need one question mark, you know?

And that pertains to the subject at hand in what way? Or was that just thrown in for the sake of needing an ad-hominem attack or distracting comment???

And you are doing it again: you are putting words that I have not said in my mouth. I have no insinuated ANYTHING of what you have said regarding race. My great-grandfather had to leave his country of birth because of the racist policies of the Young Turks government had towards the population of Armenia. And you're starting to sound like you're trying to bait me in to admitting I'm some form of social-Darwinist with your questioning. And it makes you come across as petty and insipid.

I believe you started this by putting words into "MY" mouth - insinuating racism. Don't like it? Stop playing the game you started.

Well if those young Turks had not been practicing racism thinking they might be biologically superior to someone else in some way........ And that was my fault how? I'm not trying to bait you into admitting anything - but the truth. That any theory that teaches biological superiority down to the genetic level is more racist than mere ignorance due to skin color. I am not insisting you continue to believe in such unscientific or raciest theories. Simply admit to yourself that what they teach fosters the very racism that caused your father to have to flee his homeland. It is no different than a Christian thinking he is somehow superior to a non-Christian. Racism is racism - in all its varied forms.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race
"(1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair).

(2) A descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock.

(3) A tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage.

(4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation."

I brought nothing to the discussion but those distinguishable characteristics that sets apart humans biologically....

"1. A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance. Twice fifteen thousand hearts of England's breed. (Shak) Greyhounds of the best breed. (Carpenter)

2. Class; sort; kind; of men, things, or qualities. Are these the breed of wits so wondered at? (Shak) This courtesy is not of the right breed. (Shak)

3. A number produced at once; a brood."

And animals. It was you that then chose to attempt to insinuate that I was promoting racism - when we were discussing nothing more than biologically inherited characteristics, that you then wanted to ignore when it came to humans and only apply to animals. While wanting me to accept a theory that teaches we are nothing but animals and that it is eminently possible - no required - that eventually one race or breed become superior to another - dominating the gene pool due to natural selection.

Thoughts like that is what led Hitler to want to exterminate the Jewish people so they could no longer continue to breed with the Germans and contaminate the bloodline.

And a dog is not on the same level as a human. Can a dog compose a treatise on the morality on war, or have a discussion on the merits of one form of political movement over another? Humans have travelled to the moon and back. I think that says it all. We are not in the world to be caretakers of the world. We are simply part of the world we live in, and it also says something about humanity when we choose to label ourselves as caretakers of the world.

Of course a dog is not on the same level as a human - but then I have no problem with this - because I understand we are not just animals that evolved into intelligent animals. I understand that intelligence was a gift from God - to enable us to become caretakers of this world - and in which we have utterly failed (as a species). At the same time I understand there is "NOTHING" biologically that separates us from the animals. From dust all are - and to dust all will return. All are made up of the same protons and electrons - it is only that image (Mind) which we were given. The ability to reason above that of natural instinct.

Because if you really believe that animals are capable of evolving into sentient creatures - then how do you justify subjugating what may in the future become a sentient race, just like we did? On the grounds they are not human? Specieism instead of racism?

The questions go so far beyond what you have contemplated, that the surface is just now being scratched.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that pertains to the subject at hand in what way? Or was that just thrown in for the sake of needing an ad-hominem attack or distracting comment???

I drew attention to it because it irked me. Simple as.

I believe you started this by putting words into "MY" mouth - insinuating racism. Don't like it? Stop playing the game you started.

Well, you are the one who used Africans and Asians in the same sentence as dogs. If that can't be construed as racism to an outside observer, how else is it supposed to be taken?

Well if those young Turks had not been practicing racism thinking they might be biologically superior to someone else in some way........ And that was my fault how? I'm not trying to bait you into admitting anything - but the truth. That any theory that teaches biological superiority down to the genetic level is more racist than mere ignorance due to skin color. I am not insisting you continue to believe in such unscientific or raciest theories. Simply admit to yourself that what they teach fosters the very racism that caused your father to have to flee his homeland. It is no different than a Christian thinking he is somehow superior to a non-Christian. Racism is racism - in all its varied forms.

Nitpick on this: it was great-grandfather, not father.
And no theory teaches biological superiority. Only a very, very, VERY bad reading of a biological theory would lead a person to claim that they are biologically superior to another. There is no theory that teaches such a thing, and if you think there is, I suggest you get your head examined.
Humans are animals that evolved to fit the biological niche that was available for us to evolve in. Dogs have evolved by human intervention to fir the biological niche that was available to them.
It's that simple.

(snipped further attempt to call humans 'breeds')

I've said it before and I'll say it again and will continue saying it until it sinks in: THE WORD BREED DOES NOT APPLY TO HUMANS. IT SOLELY APPLIES TO DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

Because if you really believe that animals are capable of evolving into sentient creatures - then how do you justify subjugating what may in the future become a sentient race, just like we did? On the grounds they are not human? Specieism instead of racism?

And this proves my point that you are an idiot. Specieism? Really? That's not even a real thing. You just made it up. Dogs will not evolve in to a sentient race similar to humans because there is no biological niche for them to evolve in to such a race. We have filled that niche.
It's not racism or 'speciesm'. It's a fact.

The questions go so far beyond what you have contemplated, that the surface is just now being scratched.

Blather blather blather.[/QUOTE]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is really difficult for me to keep my patience with you.
HOW. Am I the one who is teaching genetic racism? It was YOU who choose to label Africans and Asians as 'breeds' when they have already had a history being referred to as breeds by the colonial powers.

Wrong. Science calls them breeds - not me.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Breed
"1. A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."

I call them races. That you mistook those inherited distinguishing features applied to humans and animals as raciest - instead of the scientific designations they are.... That's another story altogether.

And the fact that you have also chosen to refer to evolution as 'evilution' shows me how infantile and pathetic you are. Evolution does not teach that one group of biological organism is superior. That's a pathetic and horribly transparent attempt by the idiotic to try and make evolution in to something evil, which it is not.

It doesn't are you sure? Then what makes one species more fit to survive than another if not that biological superiority brought about by evolution????

Don't try those avoidance tactics and trying to shift your inadequacies off to another. Don't even think you can even imply evolution does not teach the very thing you are practicing in your self-righteous indignation.

How pray tell is not a creature more biologically fit to survive not preaching that one infraspecific taxa within the species is not biologically superior to the other?? It's no wonder Caucasian people once thought it was ok to own slaves - being they believed they were biologically superior. Hogwash of course - but perfectly in line with the theory of evolution.

You can make all the excuses you need to help you sleep at night - but I sleep just fine without them. Because unlike evolution I do not teach one species or infraspecific taxa within the species may become superior to another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wrong. Science calls them breeds - not me.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Breed
"1. A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."

I call them races. That you mistook those inherited distinguishing features applied to humans and animals as raciest - instead of the scientific designations they are.... That's another story altogether.




It doesn't are you sure? Then what makes one species more fit to survive than another if not that biological superiority brought about by evolution????

Don't try those avoidance tactics and trying to shift your inadequacies off to another. Don't even think you can even imply evolution does not teach the very thing you are practicing in your self-righteous indignation.

How pray tell is not a creature more biologically fit to survive not preaching that one infraspecific taxa within the species is not biologically superior to the other?? It's no wonder Caucasian people once thought it was ok to own slaves - being they believed they were biologically superior. Hogwash of course - but perfectly in line with the theory of evolution.

You can make all the excuses you need to help you sleep at night - but I sleep just fine without them. Because unlike evolution I do not teach one species or infraspecific taxa within the species may become superior to another.

One species of animal has biological superiority over the other. That's what it means by survival of the fittest.
The cheetah evolved to be faster than the antelope so it could catch it.
The mouse evolved to breed faster and more numerously than the cat so it would survive in the world.
Humans evolved higher brain functions to survive in environments where our bodies and families were not fully protect from the environment in the world.

BUT you take this fact of life, then construe it to mean that it must be wrong to point that out, it shows you have a HORRIBLY loose grip on reality.

Taking slaves was not unique to people from Europe. The Egyptians took slaves, the Native Americans took slaves, Indians took slave, the Ottomans took slaves. Every single group in the history of the world has taken slaves, and this was all before the theory of evolution was created. And also, religion, specifically Christianity for the Europeans and Islam for the Ottomans, was used to justify them taking slaves.

You're just a scared, pathetic person who believes themselves to be an intellectual superior when all you have is a loose grip on reality and whatever topic you talk about. Par for the course on the internet, really.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

IWell, you are the one who used Africans and Asians in the same sentence as dogs. If that can't be construed as racism to an outside observer, how else is it supposed to be taken?

As the biological variety we observe within a species..... Since we were discussing biological diversity within species - evolution?

Again - I never once said one thing was superior to another - nor did I ever once equate dogs with man. Just that as deductive reasoning and empirical observations shows.......

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.

Nitpick on this: it was great-grandfather, not father.

Why should I? you're doing a fine job on your own. But excuse me "grand"-father.

[/quote]And no theory teaches biological superiority. Only a very, very, VERY bad reading of a biological theory would lead a person to claim that they are biologically superior to another. There is no theory that teaches such a thing, and if you think there is, I suggest you get your head examined.
Humans are animals that evolved to fit the biological niche that was available for us to evolve in. Dogs have evolved by human intervention to fir the biological niche that was available to them.
It's that simple.[/quote]

Excuses and more excuses to deny what the theory of evolution teaches while claiming to follow it. If that helps you sleep at night....

I've said it before and I'll say it again and will continue saying it until it sinks in: THE WORD BREED DOES NOT APPLY TO HUMANS. IT SOLELY APPLIES TO DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

I will go over it again. You are projecting your biological superiority beliefs onto me. Let's go back to what I said and show me where there is even a hint of racism???????

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.

And so you inserted Fairie Dust in an attempt to avoid the truth - that variation in the species is only observed when two separate infraspecific taxa in that species mate. Fairie Dust in your belief I am saying they are the same if you want - if that helps you ignore the science and the subject discussed: that variation in the species is only observed when two separate infraspecific taxa in that species mate.

And this proves my point that you are an idiot. Specieism? Really? That's not even a real thing. You just made it up. Dogs will not evolve in to a sentient race similar to humans because there is no biological niche for them to evolve in to such a race. We have filled that niche.
It's not racism or 'speciesm'. It's a fact.


Blather blather blather.

Sure I just made it up - as someone made up "racism" to describe races participating in thinking they were biologically superior to another race. You think that word just always existed? So what do you call one species thinking it is biologically superior to another species - since we can't apply "race" to those "breeds" of animals - but only to humans and vice versa according to you? What will you have me call it so we can be politically correct in a discussion about biology?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One species of animal has biological superiority over the other. That's what it means by survival of the fittest.

So you lied to me earlier?



"Evolution does not teach that one group of biological organism is superior."


Make up your mind - your statements are becoming self-contradictory when it comes to telling us what your theory really says. You have just been blinded by that Fairie Dust and believe that evolution actually is scientific - instead of the avoidance of science.

I'll say it again.

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure I just made it up - as someone made up "racism" to describe races participating in thinking they were biologically superior to another race. You think that word just always existed? So what do you call one species thinking it is biologically superior to another species - since we can't apply "race" to those "breeds" of animals - but only to humans and vice versa according to you? What will you have me call it so we can be politically correct in a discussion about biology?

This is the only thing I'm going to reply to since the rest of your comment is your standard pseudo-scientific nonsense.
A species that is biologically superior to another is called NATURE.
If all species of life on Earth were on the same biological level, then life would have gone extinct quickly. All plants would go extinct from being eaten by herbivores, all herbivores would be eaten by carnivores and, after several bouts of cannibalism, all carnivores would have gone extinct. There would be no selection pressure for life to evolve. Herbivores would not evolve methods to defend themselves from predators, plants would not evolve methods to prevent them from being eaten by herbivores and carnivores would not evolve methods to bypass the herbivores defenses.
One species must be superior to another for life to survive on Earth.
If you cannot get that through your thick skull, then it just shows that you REALLY do have a loose grip on reality.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you lied to me earlier?



"Evolution does not teach that one group of biological organism is superior."


Make up your mind - your statements are becoming self-contradictory when it comes to telling us what your theory really says. You have just been blinded by that Fairie Dust and believe that evolution actually is scientific - instead of the avoidance of science.

I'll say it again.

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.

YOU were the one who insinuated that the theory of evolution was used to promote racist beliefs. I am saying that is wrong.
But it just shows that you have literally ZERO reading comprehension.
I am now going to leave this conversation because I am feeling my blood pressure rise from arguing with you.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll say it again.

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two things create one new thing.

I know you've been told before but - 'Asians' are descendants of Africans, there's plenty of evidence, your argument is nonsense.

 

[ecco]

Anyways, Im not a determinist, im just enjoying the entertainment value that comes from attempting to represent it.

Attempting, but not succeeding very well. Even if you are just playing devil's advocate, you still should be able to address a basic question.


If determinism is reality, who or what does the determinizing?

 

[PsychoSarah]

All dogs belong to one species too. All cats. All bear. A dog still gives birth to a dog - yet you recognize the difference between Husky and Mastiff - just like anyone with reason would recognize the difference between Asian and African. Your claims fall short. Every creature on this planet gives birth within it's own species. White-tail deer give birth to White-tail deer when mated with White-tail deer.

Hereford cows give birth to Hereford cows when mated with Hereford cows. All of the natural world falsifies your claims. You have no data in which to defend your claims - all the data goes completely against what you now claim.

Actually, anyone younger than 5 will not notice racial differences unless taught to do so. Oh, our naturally racist brains, for shame, for around the age of five, even the most accepting of people will have brief flashes of rage and fear when seeing someone of a different race than their own.

However, just because we perceive significant difference doesn't mean it exists. If it did, prosopagnosia, like what I have, wouldn't be separate from agnosia.

 

[Loudmouth]

In cases in which we have insufficient evidence we shouldn't make either claim from a scientific view point that God exists or doesn't exist.

You will notice that I never said that God doesn't exist. I have consistently stated that there is no evidence, which is the atheist position. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not necessarily a belief that God does not exist.

You, on the other hand, you do say that God exists. You do not suspend judgement. You state that God exists without any evidence.

Apparently, you assume randomness is a real thing, just like the people who conducted the experiments in the article. Are you making the claim that there was no physical cause affecting the conditions of the experiments? If there are physical causes, then the results were not random.

I am saying that the physical causes are random with respect to fitness. The roll of the dice in the game of Craps has a cause, but the result of the roll is still random with respect to the money on the table. Having money on a hard 8 does not increase the chances that you will roll a hard 8, for example. The same for mutations. Needing a specific mutation does not increase the rate that the specific mutation occurs.

I don't need to say that evolution was guided. I can say that God created life with a purpose. I also see no reason to think that if evolution was guided we would expect 100% of the bacteria to get that mutation. You are inserting in your own beliefs about what some god would do or wouldn't do into the equation. Effectively, you want to make the claim since evolution shows us such phenomena, God doesn't exist.

Why would guided evolution be indistinguishable from random mutation and natural selection?

That's quite a leap, and it's unconvincing.

I see that you can't refute any of it.

I read the articles, neither demonstrate that randomness exists. They only assume that randomness exists.

False. They don't assume randomness. They predict ahead of time what results would be consistent with randomness. It's called a hypothesis.

Would have, or would be able? I am able to walk to the gas station, but you don't see me walking there, I drive there. So which is it? Obviously, an omnipotent creator would be able to do such. I also don't see your point, aren't fruit-flies and humans distantly related species? The article mentions how the Pax6 gene is shared among many species, distantly related.

The Pax6 gene does not have the same DNA sequence in both humans and fruit flies. That's the point I am making.

Added in edit:

Here is a charge showing the DNA similarities. As we should see with evolution, the DNA similarity decreases with evolutionary distance.

There is absolutely zero reason that a designer would be forced to make DNA distance mirror morphological distance. There is absolutely zero explanation for the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics in creationism, intelligent design, and theistic guidance.

I remain unconvinced. Your arguments are non sequiturs. They do not follow.

The nested hierarchy is one of the most basic and fundamental pieces of evidence for evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

I made the claim that experimenters presuppose randomness.

You never backed it up.

In no way is true randomness shown as the cause of mutation, nor is it the goal of the experiment to show that randomness exists. The experiment shows that organisms didn't merely adapt to survive as a response, rather there were already "pre-adaptive" qualities they had which allowed some of them to better grow.

That is false. The bacteria going into the experiment did not have the mutations needed for antibiotic or phage resistance. Those mutations occurred randomly with respect to fitness. They occurred irrespective of whether antibiotics or phage were present, and at the same rate. They are random with respect to fitness.

To say that mutations are random is to say that atoms behave randomly.

They do behave randomly. The decay of an unstable isotopes is one of the classic examples of a random process.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fine, let's use Hispanics and Caucasians then? Would that make you feel better? Or European and South American?

Asian and African are fine. African mated with African and produced Asians. That's what happened in the real world. When you are ready to face this fact, let us know.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it's the case that God has been revealed to people, there has been evidence.
Do you claim that God has never been revealed to people at any time in the past?

It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them. That's how these things work. If you can't present evidence that God has done anything, then there is no evidence for God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Physics and chemistry? Yes. The same rules apply completely at all times.

So do we have to prove abiogenesis before we can accept Atom Theory, that fire is caused by oxidation, or the Germ Theory of Disease? Why single out Evolution if it applies to all of them?

Are you getting religious now? Does your religion have it's own chemical rules?
Horse hockey.

I always find it entertaining when the theist tries to make science look like the theist's religion in order to disprove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

All dogs belong to one species too. All cats. All bear. A dog still gives birth to a dog - yet you recognize the difference between Husky and Mastiff - just like anyone with reason would recognize the difference between Asian and African. Your claims fall short. Every creature on this planet gives birth within it's own species. White-tail deer give birth to White-tail deer when mated with White-tail deer.

Hereford cows give birth to Hereford cows when mated with Hereford cows. All of the natural world falsifies your claims. You have no data in which to defend your claims - all the data goes completely against what you now claim.

Please demonstrate that all of the ancestors of dogs were the same species as the current population.

 

[Loudmouth]

It should be simple to create simple life forms.

Says the person who knows very little about biology, chemistry, and physics.

 

[: D]

African mated with African and produced Asians.

evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Recap: I object to the idea of mutations as causally random, I raise the point that scientifically speaking, randomness is not a cause of anything.

A loose fit between the matching nucleotide and the active site of DNA polymerase is a cause, and it produces mutations that a random with respect to fitness.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 1;102(44):15803-8. Epub 2005 Oct 25.

Probing the active site tightness of DNA polymerase in subangstrom increments.

Kim TW, Delaney JC, Essigmann JM, Kool ET.

We describe the use of a series of gradually expanded thymine nucleobase analogs in probing steric effects in DNA polymerase efficiency and fidelity. In these nonpolar compounds, the base size was increased incrementally over a 1.0-A range by use of variably sized atoms (H, F, Cl, Br, and I) to replace the oxygen molecules of thymine. Kinetics studies with DNA Pol I (Klenow fragment, exonuclease-deficient) in vitro showed that replication efficiency opposite adenine increased through the series, reaching a peak at the chlorinated compound. Efficiency then dropped markedly as a steric tightness limit was apparently reached. Importantly, fidelity also followed this trend, with the fidelity maximum at dichlorotoluene, the largest compound that fits without apparent repulsion. The fidelity at this point approached that of wild-type thymine. Surprisingly, the maximum fidelity and efficiency was found at a base pair size significantly larger than the natural size. Parallel bypass and mutagenesis experiments were then carried out in vivo with a bacterial assay for replication. The cellular results were virtually the same as those seen in solution. The results provide direct evidence for the importance of a tight steric fit on DNA replication fidelity. In addition, the results suggest that even high-fidelity replicative enzymes have more steric room than necessary, possibly to allow for an evolutionarily advantageous mutation rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249340
​

The one who says that randomness as a cause for something currently lacks sufficient evidence.
Therefore we at least should not support the claim that mutations are random.

Randomness is the result of causes. We can see what causes the ping pong balls to dance about when they do a lottery drawing. The results of that lottery are random.