"Alfred Einstead"  wrote in message
news:cbumkf$1qon$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Looking at a DNA database, I notice that the patterns of
> mutations, insertions and deletions are extremely non-random.
> For instance, almost no insertions are of one type (C, if I
> recall), whereas almost all deletions are of another type
> (A, I think), and almost none involve G.  By far, most of all
> changes are of one type (between C and T), and most of the
> remaining, by far, are of another type (between A and G).
>
> Is this accidental, or is it something that's generally true?

One of the patterns you noted (CT and AG common, other
substitutions rare) is quite well known.  Google for
 mutation transition transversion

Your other observations are news to me, but perhaps not news
to those who are concerned with such things.  Neo-Darwinism
does not assume that mutations are completely random, only
that they are random in their phenotypic effects.  So, your
observations do not, by themselves, challenge the orthodoxy.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/1/04 1:31:34 PM