(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.
I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.
That's part of the answer. This article says it better than I can:
Why Evolution Isn't Chance