Genetic Mutations: Guided by the Previous Functions of the Protein.

[JohnSSM]

After making another post about evolution and genes, where it was moved to speculations, probably because of a lack of citations and proof,  I am going against something a moderator told me. 

I throw myself at the mercy of their final judgements, in light of references which verify my opinion that all genetic mutations that drive adaptation and evolution are not always random.  I described the process as "inspiration".  I didnt know any of the following info before I posted that thread.  I had built up beliefs over 25 years of study, that all mutations were not random.  Of course, these beliefs don't really conflict with Darwin, yet, only amend the ways in which genes COULD mutate.  I offer the following citations that all genetic mutations are not random, this has been proven in experiments, with the results released in summer of 2020.

"This suggests that evolution does not proceed by simple random processes, but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA."  Full article below.
(PDF) Evolution: Are the Monkeys’ Typewriters Rigged? (researchgate.net)

"Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests. These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said."  Full article below.  

Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) | Live Science

Once again, I know the moderator told me emphatically, not to bring this up, but the last thread truly got off topic and devolved quickly.  I feel it is important to spread word of these new confirmations about the nature of all mutations, and evolution itself.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

I am going against something a moderator told me. <...>  I know the moderator told me emphatically, not to bring this up

Lol

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

I had built up beliefs over 25 years of study, that all mutations were not random.

It depends a bit on how one defines "random." Genes copy themselves and do wo within certain guardrails and process prerequisites, yes, but during this process there are also random mutations. Some get selected for, some get selected against, some have no measurable effect on outcomes. 

If it's not random, then really the only other explanation is it's directed... which as you were already told in that other thread which got closed... a status this new thread will soon have as well... that smacks of creationism and results in absurd "it's turtles all the way down" conversations when you start exploring who created the creator... and who created that ad infinitum. 

Even if you're not thinking of creator, you'd need to explore all free radical interactions and gamma rays coming in to break apart structures and that all follows variabel probabilities and randomness.

But since you were told not to bring this up, yet did anyway... the next step for this thread will be anything but random. 

[JohnSSM]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Lol

It depends a bit on how one defines "random." Genes copy themselves and do wo within certain guardrails and process prerequisites, yes, but during this process there are also random mutations. Some get selected for, some get selected against, some have no measurable effect on outcomes. 

If it's not random, then really the only other explanation is it's directed... which as you were already told in that other thread which got closed... a status this new thread will soon have as well... that smacks of creationism and results in absurd "it's turtles all the way down" conversations when you start exploring who created the creator... and who created that ad infinitum. 

Even if you're not thinking of creator, you'd need to explore all free radical interactions and gamma rays coming in to break apart structures and that all follows variabel probabilities and randomness.

But since you were told not to bring this up, yet did anyway... the next step for this thread will be anything but random. 

I didnt have any proof to provide besides my own inferred observations.  I have now posted what I needed to prove my inferred observations.