Apparently, "Many biologists & other scientists feel...?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but scientists have agreed for a long time now that a lot of evolution (though not all) is random mutation that ends up being favored by natural selection and therefore persists through the generations.

Evolution is a combination of random and non-random processes.

The origin of DNA is still unknown so we really have no comment for that, but it's evolution is as I stated above. Once we know the recipe for how RNA becomes DNA we will likely have a better idea of its origin.

I, for one, haven't the slightest idea what any biologists or other scientists "feel." I am passingly familiar with what their research has demonstrated, however.

As far as I know, that research has never produced any result using the words "undirected" or "chance." These are creationist buzzwords. The origins of DNA (and its simpler cousin, RNA) have to do with the properties of their component molecules and the environment in which those molecules were present. Variations and modifications arise through errors in transcription (transposing, deleting, duplication, or point mutation) or retroviral insertions (and possibly other methods; I'm no geneticist).

I suppose that could look like "chance" if you're entirely ignorant of the science involved, but that wouldn't be the case for the biologists doing the research, so I doubt they're the ones having these "feelings."

Undirected - Absolutely. Some scientists are atheists and assume no intelligence directing evolution.

Random - No. Most, including myself, accept the theory of evolution and that survival of the fittest is the determining factor, which is not random. Of course I would not say survival of the fittest directs, as that implies a conscience effort.

Of course the actual mutations are probably random in nature. What nature selects to move on to the next generation is determined by the survival of the carrier of the mutation.

PhotonX,

While much of their content is incorrect, they are referring to the human DNA containing 3 billion DNA pairs. This is the equivalent of 1.3 billion letters in terms of information.

Of course this is under the assumption that all information contained in the DNA is useful, when there are indications that there is some DNA that is not useful.

Nope, never seen anyone say that. 'Guide' is an ambigious term anyway - abiogenesis (followed by evolution) is the natural explanation for DNA, but that doesn't matter if you, for instance, believe that nature itself is guided.

Scientists may 'feel' about certain things in a certain way, but they're not being scientists while they do that. I'm not sure what, if anything, you were trying to imply with your question though. We know for a fact, no feelings involved, that evolution happens for instance. We also know a great deal about the mechanisms involved (although that's still under active research, new things pop up every once in a while), and we have a quite good sketch of the history of speciation on earth (nowhere near complete though - it might never be, it's not like fossilization is an everyday occurrence).

I have two close friends who are physicists who believe in creation and number of aquaintances who are professional Biologists who do.

I ma not short of biology and other scientific qualifications and believe in creation.

The whole thing is whipped up by idioys.

The Bible and ALL science believe that everything. Time, space, matter etc. all came into being in one big bang. Both agree that Homo Sapiens began as a tiny, discreet group in North Africa, Both agree that there must have been a first man and woman. both agree that there is no known ancestor that man arose from. (great apes including Chimpanzees came from a common ancestor but we have never found that ancestor.) I believe that he created Cats, dogs, bears etc. but the different species of these families evolved. There are some species that have not changed over 500million years. Why did they not eveolve? Why have insects never eveolved to fill the worlds richest habitat, The Sea?

Strangley the most uncontacted peoples on Earth who live on two Islands off India believe in one creator god who made everything. They beieve that he made angels but not the Devil. thet believe in sin and devine punishment and thet mankind was extremely wicked so God called together a few good people and killed the rest by a huge flood.

That was before any known civilisation ever contacted them and is stuill the same.

'undirected' is the loaded word there, because it's antonym 'directed' implies to the lay person a directing intelligence.

In fact the evolution of DNA is directed by natural forces - and yes, pick up any biology primer since Watson and Crickt and you will find that view expressed.

In terms of Scholarly articles from credible scientists - I've just done a very quick and simple search of my VLE, and come up with hundreds of hits. Here is one example;

A Space-Time Process Model for the Evolution of DNA Sequences

Z. Yang

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom and College of Animal Science and Technology, Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China

Googling "undirected chance events dna" comes up with some JW hits, so it must be one of their bullet points, discussing "Where Did the Instructions Come From?" Really.

.

EDIT: Oh, man, I was just glancing through that link. They have some seriously screwed up stuff in there. The come up just short of claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica is encoded in our DNA, and then they try to legitimize it by throwing in some Richard Feynman quotes, despite the fact that he was an atheist. Magnificent delusions.

.

Yes, my biology professor often said that DNA is not only CODED by chance; it was CREATED by chance. RNA came about first, but it can't replicate itself. DNA CAN, but can make errors, which leads to evolution.

He was an old guy, and this was a long time ago, so I doubt he's on the web.

hhmm ridiculous? doubtful that rings true. logic and science seem to deny a predetermined dna and creation ( god s) however each has to make up own mind. many have no choice as indoctrinated at a young age and have no real capacity to sift through facts and reason form 'faith.'.

no doubt if you were to get some sort of vote from these folk instead of suggestions? rumours etc we may have a clearer idea of exactly what they think.

very unlikely you will ever get 'how many' both as hard to get a real answer one way or another ( even scientists have beliefs) more just a balanced view based on observation of reality.

this is of course why a god can never be proved or disproved.. hence 'faith'.

i haven't seen the action picture yet, yet I relatively have been doing an extremely in touch volume of examining approximately it. The worst effect of the action picture seems to be that medical discourse is now having to momentarily break free from important pursuances to refute the claims made via the action picture. it is extremely like a mosquito.