Steve Shaw

"Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis."

Natural selection does no such thing. It works on expressed characteristics, on the phenotype in other words.

You are quite right, sloppy speaking on my part. Natural selection actually works on the consequences of the change in base sequence after it has been translated into RNA and then protein and then expressed as a change in the phenotype. It is even further removed from the mechanism of DNA replication than I said.

"Read your Darwin:" go back to the quoted post and check the context of that remark.

I did, in fact, quote and comment on the context where you, yet again, cited natural selection as evidence for the non-randomness of changes in the base sequence during copying. I have no problems with what you are saying about natural selection, it is just nothing to do with the copying or mis-copying of DNA.

Any particular altered sequence will have been altered by something. Bases don't just jump on and off DNA strands for the hell of it. Something makes them reorganise the way they do. We might not know exactly what every time but that is no reason to suppose that it happens without cause. I don't get why you don't get that.

There is a "mechanism" for tossing coins or throwing dice. There is nothing (or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction) that causes the coin to fall heads or the dice to fall six. The result is random.

I haven't made a claim.

Sorry, but it sounds to me as if you are claiming that mis-copying is a non-random process.

I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases,

Really? Please provide references and examples.

I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly.

Since, on the evidence so far, you are the only person who holds that position, that's not all that humble.