Can mutation and selection increase information?

You can have a search that is goal directed but can be random, systematic, or guided.A friend of mine found a journal written by the notorious pirate, Short Jim Pewter. This recorded how SJP buried his treasure on a certain island, but unfortunately the last page with the map to the precise location was missing. Searching for this treasure is goal directed but it is also a blind search. It could be a random search or systematic but it would still be blind. When my friend started digging random holes looking for the treasure a very old parrot sitting in a tree started calling out "colder" or "warmer" with each hole. Relying on the parrot it now became a guided search and soon my friend found the treasure; 1000 jars of Vegemite. My friend took the parrot home and kept it in parrot luxury until it died.Now consider the bacteria responding to an environmental stress. It begins to hypermutate certain regions of the genome in order to adapt. The goal is to adapt to the stress; although I don't suggest the bacteria has a conscious intention to to do this. The search space is restricted to certain parts of the genome. Within this space we assume the search is blind and random.

Still nothing to do with the fact that the mutations are random with respect to fitness.You need evidence, not analogies.You admitted you have none.You have failed.When, you've dug yourself into a hole, what should you do?

No, you can't. Words mean things. In biology, a goal directed mutation is one that is non-random. It is a specific change to a specific base in a specific gene that results in a specific outcome. That is what "goal directed" means in biology. A random mutation is just the opposite. Those are random mutations, not goal directed mutations. Increasing the random mutation rate is an increase in random mutations. Those mutations will include beneficial, neutral, and deleterious mutations. Increasing the rate at which a random number generator operates does not turn it into a non-random number generator.

Perhaps it does but I couldn't find it in a glossary of biological terms.
Perhaps you could supply a link to a suitable definition.However I think you might be confusing "goal directed search" with a "guided search". In fact if the organism can go to a specific base in a specific gene to get a specific outcome it's not a search at all.I tried to show the differences in my story about Short Jim Pewter.Another example is the immune system. In response to an infection the immune system starts producing many variations looking for an antibody for the invader. This is goal directed but the immune system can't go directly to the specific mutation that will produce the antibody and it might have to use a blind search to find an antibody that works. (Not a perfect analogy since the immune system starts with a library of antibodies that have worked for past infections.)In a blind search humans will often use a systematic search instead of a purely random search but this is still different to a guided search in which information is supplied to enable the search target to be reached more efficiently. A blind search can still have a goal as in "A blind search (also called an uninformed search) is a search that has no information about its domain. The only thing that a blind search can do is distinguish a non-goal state from a goal state." ref.

The issue is with the word "directed".

quote:

---

1. guided, regulated, or managed:a carefully directed program.
2. subject to direction, guidance, regulation, etc.

---

All the evidence we have is there is nothing guiding, regulating, or managing the mutations we are discussing.Got any evidence for your position?

goal—directed: aimed toward a goal or toward completion of a task.As I have explained a search can have a goal while still being a blind search, as opposed to a guided search. And a blind search can be a random search.
(Maybe I should be writing "goal-directed" rather than "goal directed".)

The subject is not the universe of possible searches. The subject is a particular "search" (not everyone thinks it is a search).Mutation rate can increase under stress. Do you have any evidence those mutations are not random with respect to fitness?{Rhetorical question. You have admitted you don't. So all this current blathering is off topic and pointless.)

That's cool, but if you're talking about the Theory of Evolution, you should understand that when mutations are referred to as random, it means with respect to fitness.Going on about some other kind of randomness isn't talking about the Theory of Evolution.Like I said, it's cool, postulate all you want. Just don't act like your talking about what the theory says.

If you are using them to mean the very same thing, then just use the term "random mutations". If mutations are produced without any meaningful connection to what would help or hurt the organism, then it is random with respect to fitness. Those are random mutations. It is not goal directed mutagenesis.

There is already a term that describes this process. It is called random mutagenesis.All you are doing is redefining terms to make them sound more guided when they aren't.

Mutations occur randomly with respect to fitness. It's natural selection that's goal-directed with respect to fitness.--Percy

I have already made the distinction between a goal-directed search and a guided search. A search can be goal-directed and unguided, completely random, at the same time. The mistake you are making is to assume that a random search is necessarily not goal-directed. Rather than "redefining terms" I am using already established terms in their normal way.But the question is Can mutation and selection increase information?

It doesn't matter what any "random" search may or may not be. We are discussing one particular "search". You have admitted you have no evidence that particular "search" is related to a goal in any way.Blathering on about anything other than that particular "search" is pointless. Please address the subject.

Incorrect.This is relating to hypermutation of selected areas of the genome in response to an environmental stress trigger.
It appears this is a mechanism to adapt to the event and that makes it goal-directed; the goal being to adapt. I also pointed out that some parts of the genome are preferentially targeted for mutation rather than being random across the entire genome. It might be that the mutations within those target areas are random, but maybe not. At this stage I don't think there is specific evidence either way.

O rly? {Of course there is lots of evidence to reject it; ignoring it doesn't make that go away). For which there is absolutely no evidence. I already posted one paper demonstrating your hypothesis is false; how many more shall I post? Another admission of having no evidence for your claim.