A mutation ceases to provoke adaptation, to a particular selection pressure: design to the rescue?

[sesquiterpene]

What I mean to say is that peer-review papers based on the idea of randomness are rare compared to the number of advocates in chat forums.

That's a nice fantasy, but unfortunately the concept of randomness is quite ubiquitous in the scientific literature. A large percentage of us have had to deal with random noise in it's various manifestations in the lab.

Here's some results from Google Scholar:
Search term Hits
"random" About 5,690,000 results
"randomness" About 656,000 results
"truly random" About 59,900 results
"true randomness doesn't exist" 4 results

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a nice fantasy, but unfortunately the concept of randomness is quite ubiquitous in the scientific literature. A large percentage of us have had to deal with random noise in it's various manifestations in the lab.

It's not random. You just don't know the cause.
You might research that there is no source for randomness.
A random generator is only an approximation of randomness.
Or "Good enough for our purposes."

 

[Frank Robert]

What I mean to say is that peer-review papers based on the idea of randomness are rare compared to the number of advocates in chat forums.

There is no need for papers on randomness. Peer reviewed papers on mutations takes it as fact that they are random evolutionary forces whether beneficial, detrimental, neutral or hitchhikers.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no need for papers on randomness. Peer reviewed papers on mutations takes it as fact that they are random evolutionary forces whether beneficial, detrimental, neutral or hitchhikers.

Just an opinion. Randomness doesn't exist, only ignorance of the cause.
You can't reach randomness until time equals infinity.
But we do approximate randomness with generators that
have unknown input. Much as DNA changes and we don't know why it does.
so we call that "random". Random is simply a catchall phrase for ignorance.
We are ignorant of whether something is beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.
And we invent the definition for those terms as well. We make believe that
something is "beneficial" and invent the parameters for that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just an opinion. Randomness doesn't exist, only ignorance of the cause.
You can't reach randomness until time equals infinity.
But we do approximate randomness with generators that
have unknown input. Much as DNA changes and we don't know why it does.
so we call that "random". Random is simply a catchall phrase for ignorance.
We are ignorant of whether something is beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.
And we invent the definition for those terms as well. We make believe that
something is "beneficial" and invent the parameters for that.

So what's the cause?

 

[SkyWriting]

So what's the cause?

Exactly! What's the cause of what we think is random.
Cause >>> Effect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly! What's the cause of what we think is random.
Cause >>> Effect.

You claim that mutations aren't random, and that there is a cause that makes them not random.
What is this cause?

And do you also have any evidence of their being a designer in nature for nature?

 

[sesquiterpene]

It's not random. You just don't know the cause.

As I've already pointed out to you, some things like Brownian motion are random even though we know the cause. You'd prefer to think that your religious belief about randomness is an actual scientific principle. It isn't.

 

[Frank Robert]

Just an opinion. Randomness doesn't exist, only ignorance of the cause.
You can't reach randomness until time equals infinity.
But we do approximate randomness with generators that
have unknown input.

You might be correct for many types of random occurrences, but we do know the cause of mutations in the evolutionary processes are a simple process of a mistake made in a DNA sequence as it's being copied. Or as Francis S. Collins puts it, it's basically an induced misspelling of the DNA sequence. That's a mutation.