Non-random mutations drive evolution

It's important to remember that I'm negating an assertion. I'm not saying “this is true.” I'm negating the idea that the other thing is true. And, in science, something is not true until it's been proven, and that has not been proven. I'll say it again, I can't look at the lack of proof and yell out “Look at the objectivity of this non-fact,” because there's no objectivity to be had. It's a lack of knowledge masquerading as knowledge, and the only way to argue a lack of knowledge is, as I am doing, to negate the assertion of a falsifiable “fact.” Remember, Janesix holds the assertion, not me. The claims made are, in fact, easily falsifiable with a more intricate understanding of them, and the intricacies show, with all but certainty, that evolutionary mutation, referring to mutations themselves, are, in fact, random.Genes are not an omnipotent force capable of anything and everything. Everything is limited to it's own capabilities, and genes, themselves, range in the amount of capabilities given. Plant and animal life are made up of vast numbers of genes, each with finite possibilities. Cichlid fish, palm trees, and finches all face diverse genetic mutations among their own genetic family despite living in the same place.[1] These mutations prosper in their environment and become an evolution of the plant as these new species multiply.Even multitudes of the bacteria faced differing mutations within the FleN gene, a gene only capable of causing mutations within the tails and movement behaviors of the bacteria.[2][3] In terms of human biology, the gene reviewed by Dr. Xavier only effects the bacteria's limbs, and the only limb the bacteria has is a tail. That is the limit of that gene. So, the only effects it can have is the length and number of limbs, and the way those limbs correspond with the bacteria's chemotactic motility – the way the bacteria interacts with it's food chain. So, looking at the possibilities in mutation: size and number of limbs, and it's reaction to chemicals – to see similar outcomes should be expected with such a limited number of them.[2] But that doesn't make them any less random.When the mutated bacteria – “hyperswarmers” – were moved into an environment better suited for ordinary bacteria, they “practically went extinct.”[2] This is mutation vs environment. The mutation creating the hyperswarmers made them move faster and hunt food more. In the orginal environment, filled with sugar and not having harmful substances, they thrived. The mutation was useful in their environment, but, when placed into an environment with harmful substances, the ordinary bacteria, having walls of protection, thrived where the unprotected, food dependent, mutated bacteria died out. These mutations were still present in both environments, the evolution came in at a later date as the less capable species of bacteria died out.All mutations were capable of happening in all environments, and they happened at random. The mutations that survived had survived because of the environment. If you put a species into the same environment over and over again, you're going to see similar traits of evolution across many genes, not just the FleN gene, but when you put them into an environment hostile to their genetic code, you'll see a different bacteria thrive, and you'll see similarities among their evolutionary patterns. This is because genes are only capable of so much, but no mutation is more likely to happen than another, one is just more likely to thrive. [1]http://www.nature.com... "Researchers have reported cases of cichlid fish, palm trees and finches adapting to different ecological niches and splitting into different species despite living in the same place" [2]http://www.nytimes.com... “In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same gene, called FleN.” “'In this case, it could be that there are only a few solutions in the evolutionary space,' Dr. Xavier said.” “In a video showing the 3-D structure of one of these biofilms, the ordinary bacteria win, and the hyperswarmers have practically gone extinct.” [3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... “ … indicating that this ORF was involved in regulating the number of flagella and chemotactic motility in P. aeruginosa.”