Are you a biologist or have you studied any biology? So far, all you have done is claimed that the ToE is true but you won't use it to explain the simplest evolutionary experiments. If you want to understand evolutionary processes, you need to use the laws of physics and the correct mathematical principles will become apparent.
If you understand what Darwin was talking about, tell us what law of physics applies to competition and what law of physics applies to adaptation. Then use these laws to describe the Kishony Mega-Plate experiment and the Lenski long-term evolution experiment. If you can't do this yourself, point us to papers that show how to do this physics and math for these evolutionary experiments.
That's why mutations are random, you can't predict if they will occur on any particular replication, you can only measure the frequency at which they occur. And that frequency is a probability.
So you don't think that the Kishony Mega-Plate experiment and the Lenski long-term evolutionary experiments are examples of evolutionary processes? The selection pressure in the Kishony experiment is an antibiotic and the selection pressure in the Lenski experiment is starvation. Mutations are occurring in both experiments and you have variants adapting in each of these examples with improved fitness to these selection conditions. Have you ever studied either of these experiments?
What do mean by equally random? What I think is that different mutations can occur at different frequencies. For example, transversion mutations can occur at different frequencies as transition mutations. And when HIV replicates, its replicase system does not have error checking proteins so that replicator has a much higher mutation rate than a replicator that does have the error checking proteins. It is not difficult to take these factors into account if you understand the math and the physics of evolutionary adaptation. The mutation rate is a minor factor in evolutionary processes. It's the joint probability of beneficial mutations occurring which dominates evolutionary adaptation.
The reason why the ToE is wrong is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Then I stand by what I said earlier. The consensus view appears to be that mutations are random; there are some researchers who argue for non-random aspects in some instances.
It is already written, peer-reviewed, and published. Actually, Edward Tatum already explained it in his 1958 Nobel Laureate lecture. If you want to understand how to do the math, you can find it here:
Those researchers that argue that mutations are not random are going to have a difficult time explaining evolutionary experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments with their theories. These are real, measurable, and repeatable examples of evolutionary adaptation. I've used Scientific Method to verify my physical and mathematical models and not only do the results correlate with the empirical data, they predict the behavior of these evolutionary experiments.
Clearly, you haven't taken the time to read the links I've provided because if you had, you would understand how the multiplication rule of probabilities applies to biological evolution. If you got anything out of your course in introductory probability theory, the paper The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection is an example of an elementary probability problem. Perhaps you want to try to prove that math wrong. I did the math and published that paper before Kishony performed his experiment and that math predicted the behavior of his experiment before it was performed.
Clearly I have done, as I suggested I probably would, an incomeptent job of communicating on this topic. The researchers I referenced, and that you are presumably referring to here, did not argue that mutations are not random. They claimed that they identified non-random aspects of mutations in a specific organism. I apologise for inadvertenly trapping you into making an egregious equivocation.
An easy assertion to make. When will we have an opportunity of viewing these results?
