Well I told you what I mean with "random mutation" what word should I use instead?
These sources describe with more detail the widelly accepted and widelly used concept of random mutations.
You depict randomness as a cause, which it is not. The observed variation in the outcome of cause and effect events is fractal based on chaos theory. The laws of nature are the cause. All randomness describes is the unpredictable occurrence of individual mutation events.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable
I have no idea on what you mean by "
it is not a scientific definition" but this term is widely used in books, text books and scientific articles, and they use the term in the same since that I am using it. + The fact that whether if the definition is scientific or not (whatever it means) you still know what I mean when I use the term. [/quote]
Read your reference more carefully. Your use and definition of random is a broad brush in layman's terms, and describe it as a problem for evolution to take place where virtually anything is possible in mutations, and probability determines that evolution cannot naturally take place to result in the observed complexity of life, as in the claim of Intelligent Design, and this is NOT the scientific use nor definition. The reference provides a better understanding of what may be called 'randomness.'
From your source.
"Are Mutations Random?
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge,
the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germ line. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.
However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution."
For example Richard Dawkins uses the term random mutation in the same since I am using the term.
No he does not.
Well Behe does provide examples of how could someone falsify his theory.
Quote from behe
If you what to claim that ID is unfalsifiable, you have to deal with Behes claim and explain why is he wrong, you can't simply assert that he is wrong, without any justification.
It is obligation for Behe to propose a falsifiable hypothesis to support his view. Scientific hypothesis cannot falsify the negative. Behe has never proposed a scientific hypothesis that will positively demonstrate his assertions concerning ID. If Behe proposes a hypothesis to support Intelligent Design it is his responsibility to present the falsifiable hypothesis, which is the case throughout science.
You claim that flagellums evolved by a process of random genetic change and natural selection right? ..... How can someone falsify your claim ?
No the flagellum did not evolve by a process of random genetic change, It evolved by natural selection based on laws of nature. I provided a detailed reference that supports the falsification of the flagellum. There are more peer reviewed research article that go into this in more detail, bit it appears you have not read nor understand the research article cited.
But I don't want to debate semantics, I told you what I mean by random mutation , so please tell me what term should I use?
What you provided was not a scientific view of randomness. The individual event may not be predicable, but the pattern, frequency, and consequences of mutations are not random as cited and
bold in YOUR source.
You should use random in the proper context and not a causal factor that influences the consequences genetic change over time, as in evolution.
