One of the most powerful arguments against universal common descent evolution is the randomness of mutations. The counter argument is that mutations are not truly random because in some cases natural selection keeps them from being truly random. However, this presupposes that Natural Selection is powerful enough to overcome the randomness of mutations. There is no question that there is a tendency for mutations to be random to some degree. The primary question before us is; are all mutations truly random?
Defining "Random": Statistical vs. Biological Meanings
Before diving into biology, it is crucial to establish what science means by "random." While mutations may be unpredictable regarding where and when they will occur and the exact nature of the mutation, they are not mathematically or physically uniform in distribution across the genome. There are factors that prevent them from being random in the sense of being evenly distributed, but they are still clearly random in how, where and when one will occur. They are just unevenly distributed throughout the genome.
Biochemical Hotspots: Why Some Bases Flunk Uniformity
At the molecular level, certain regions of DNA are far more fragile or prone to copying errors than others. Areas called CpG Islands have high rates of spontaneous deamination, this loss of an amino group will transform cytosine into thymine. With the repetitive DNA sequences, called microsatellites, where the replication machinery easily slips and stutters. This is the case because their sequences have non-coding purposes such as formatting, where the exact sequence is less important to the function therefore the only thing necessary to protect them is not expended.
Biased Gene Conversion
Not all mutations spread randomly or according to classic Mendelian ratios. Biased gene conversion is a non-adaptive repair mechanism that systematically favors certain base pairs, like Guanine-Cytosine over Adenine-Thymine, during recombination, this tends to protect them against being accidentally mutated.
Information Theory, Entropy, and the Law of Genetic Decay
A high-level analysis viewing mutation through the lens of physics and information theory. This thermodynamics and entropic decay influence genomic integrity, tackling the fundamental question of whether biochemical systems possess an inevitable "genetic load" that acts as a physical barrier to indefinite evolutionary adaptation. Also known as Genetic Entropy, this is the decay of a genome over time due to the accumulation of mutations. This is exactly the opposite of what is necessary for universal common descent evolution to be possible.
What is natural selection and what can it actually do?
Despite the blind faith that evolutionists have in the power of Natural Selection, it is in reality a very weak and limited process. They give the impression that Natural Selection has unlimited power including the magical ability to transform bacteria into biologists, given enough time. Contrary to the impression given by evolutionists, Natural Selection Is totally incapable of producing new complex specific information.
Not only can it only work with what is already present in the DNA, but it tends to filter out what is not best for that environment. Ultimately the best that Natural Selection is capable of is helping organisms to adapt to changes in their environment, while filtering out the most dangerous mutations. There is no way that it is powerful enough to make universal common descent evolution to be even remotely possible.
Continual environmental tracking.
Continual Environmental Tracking is an engineering-based framework designed to explain how organisms adapt and diversify. Developed primarily within creation science circles, most notably by Dr. Randy Guliuzza at the Institute for Creation Research, it completely flips the script on traditional evolutionary mechanisms. Instead of treating organisms as passive modeling clay shaped by external forces through natural selection, Continuous Environmental Tracking views them as active, highly engineered problem-solvers designed to continuously monitor their surroundings and adjust themselves in real time.
In 1988, biologist John Cairns published a paper called "The Origin of Mutants" in Nature. The paper suggests that bacteria could "choose" which mutations to produce to solve an environmental crisis. Demonstrating directed over adaptive mutation, in the process of adaptation and diversification. This supports the basic idea of Continuous Environmental Tracking,
Analysis of the randomness of mutations.
Analysis of mutations and how they show up in the genome do indicate that they are not completely random in the sense that some types of mutations and some locations are preferred over others. That is some parts of the genome are better protected by various repair mechanisms within the cell over others.
Most mutations are random in the sense that the nature and location of the mutation is not predictable or deliberately produced by the cell. Even though their distribution is not perfectly random, as in being evenly distributed, they can still occur in an uncontrolled manor, it is just that the location and some types are controlled by cellular repair mechanisms.
It also turns out that some mutations, if you can really call them mutations, are not random at all, but they are deliberately made by the organism itself to get passed on to its offspring for a specific adaptive change. This is no help to the idea of universal common descent, because the cells would have to be preprogramed to be able to do this. On a cellular level this is most likely accomplished through the cell’s DNA repair mechanism, while going completely against the idea of an undirected process.
Conclusion
The answer to the question Is that not all mutations are completely random. There are repair mechanisms within cells that prevent complete randomness, by limiting where they can occur and in some cases the type of mutation that occurs. These same repair mechanisms seem to also be capable of producing deliberate genetic change to solve specific problems. Now none of this is any help for the idea of universal common descent, because you could not evolve the mechanism without the mechanism. In fact, this is precisely why evolutionists are stuck with undirected mutations being passed through a vague filter, as any other possibility screams design.
