Of course there is little evidence that they were non-random, but even if they were not, why should this
be a problem?
Nertvan: An uncontested example of a mutation leading to macro evolution has not even been observed.
And the relevance of this is ?
Bertvan : They probably took place over long time periods, and to insist they must
have been random can only be an expression of faith.
If you have evidence to the contrary then please provide us with them. You might be right but unless
you can provide us with a mechanism and supporting data, the assumption of randomness is defensible.
Bertvan: I have no opposition
to any faith, christian or atheist. I would object to either of them trying
to impose their "faith" upon society. At this point in history, Christians
seem pretty tolerant of differing views. However I resent science trying to
impose randomness as some "official" scientific truth.
Some Christians are tolerant others are not. But that's irrelevant. Science is not trying to impose randomness as an official truth.
Perhaps if you were to stick to reality rather than attacking these 'windmills'?