Yep, but remember its not as straightforward as that. Broadly speaking each mutation is self-checked, and if its no good its discarded. So you can see it that way as you wish, the self checking procedure can be seen as a 'higher power' if you want to break it down in that fashion in order to simplify it.
Yes, but this leaves one asking how the self-checking procedure was created in the first place, was such an efficient system also a result of a random mutation?
If you thow a coin a billion times, is it a coincidence that you will get approx 500,000 heads & 500,000 tails?
But throwing a coin in the air cannot create the complex organs and systems found in every living being on earth.
No, if it occurred in one population at one time, and then the same population was removed prior to the change and it did not repeat, with all else the same it shows there is no fixed phenomenon taking place. Although a random one makes sense.
Sure it may make sense based on our current scientific knowledge, but it doesn't disprove that the first mutation could have been a result of the influence of a higher power, and until that is disproved I will keep my mind open to the possibility.
In accordance with Nineberry's example, it required a non-directly beneficial mutation to take place before the nitrate digestion took place. (Similar to development of organs in humans) Thats why it did not occur again at the same time. If you think the organism 'knew' that the first step would lead to the beneficial next step, you need to explain a theory behind this intelligence/guiding hand in ecoli bacteria.
The organism didn't know that the non-directly beneficial mutation would lead to the development of nitrate digestion, but if there is a higher power influencing/guiding the evolution it would definitely know that.
It would also not be correct to speculate that the change which occurred around gen 20,000 was non-beneficial until they find out exactly what that change was. Right now its unknown what that change was I think.
When you are done explaining that, then also explain why so many non-beneficial mutations occur in humans. From siamese twins, weak hearts, downs syndrome etc etc, far more than any beneficial mutations. In fact I rarely see people with x ray vision, hearts that live onto 200 years age etc. Why not?
Its exactly what I would like to know, why do all mutations which occur in humans and animals are harmful or non-beneficial, why aren't there any mutations which are beneficial to humans? If they are indeed random with no guiding force behind them, I would think that there should've been at least a few mutations occurring in humans which can be thought of as beneficial.
According to your theory, would you expect mutations to take place in nature that are detrimental to the individual, but not towards the reproductive success. I cant think of an example at the moment, but something I would expect to occur according to evolutionary theory. If I can prove this to you, would this further the argument towards natural selection for you?
I don't really have a theory, all I have is a possibility which I'm not discarding. And it won't really further the argument towards natural selection because it still leaves a lot of things unexplained like how the complex life on earth could have been formed through chance alone?
I normally laugh at creationist arguments but the Being 747 argument rings true for me. If you put all the equipment needed to build a boeing 747 in a garage and for 13 billion years a storm blows through that garage, it still won't be able to assemble the boeing 747 by all the the equipment assembling into place by chance.
Topic: Some questions about evolution