Fact: Mutational mechanisms are observed.
Fact: Said mechanisms occur regardless of need.*
Fact: Resulting mutations are random wrt fitness.
Fact: there is no defined or proposed probability distribution that has been proposed for 'random mutations'.
Fact: the claim that mutations are random does not meet scientific standards as a testable theory
Fact: the claim that mutations are random is intentional scientific fraud.
Fact: the DarwinDogmatists making this claim are engaged in intentional scientific fraud.
One will notice a couple of things (and these are even clearer if you read the thread linked to):
1. Bergerson disregards the "wrt" (with regard to fitness) in his "rebuttal." This is because Bergerson insists that 'random mutations' means that they will be randomly distributed throughout the genome.
This is demonstrable NOT that there is fraud being committed by evolutionists that say otherwise, rather, it shows that Warren Bergerson is either monumentally ignorant of the things he discusses or is being purposefully dishonest. Or perhaps a little from each column.
The "wrt" is an important modifier, one that Bergerson fails to acknowledge or understand, and hence it makes his response look even more ridiculous.
2. The accusation of fraud. Standard bergerson.
3. Of course - NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for anything he claims.