What's your framework sxb?
I don't have a theory for life. Such a framework needs something too sophisticated.
This is Berkeley's definition of a key feature within the conventional evolutional perspective:
Through parameterized means, the bellow linked study reveals how mutation rates and types were non-random from an external pressure fixed for biological need basis.
An international, peer-reviewed genome sciences journal featuring outstanding original research that offers novel insights into the biology of all organisms
genome.cshlp.org
Even arguing from another perspective on the wholistic ground, there is no such thing as randomness, but the mere ignorance of phenomenological stochasticity -another completely non-random phenomenon explained as random.
There are differences of opinion within the evolutionary field. Putting the involved philosophical picture of states to the side, pay attention to how the interpretation varies drastically from the deterministic fixed narrative:
So, what does this mean? A resurgence of a Lamarckian-like theory within the secular-based discourse?
Various respected scientists formed a website promoting a forum for theoretical and functional alternatives expressed in the complexity ignored by the current narrow selection:
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
The current framing to me is a simple-minded forced dogmatism trying to obscure a fantastic world willed into by the Creator. They are trying to select error->error->error in a multi-relational complex manifold, and they are in over their heads.
Like the OP, who is ignorant about genetics, doesn't understand you can have a functional pragmatic application of practice without it having any overarching theoretical integration. The field of physics has many functionally "independent" formulations that cannot become conveniently interwoven into a theoretical understanding. Similarly, because I take a genetic test tomorrow, and the functions are understood minimally well (since we don't fully grasp the complex molecular processes of our bodies), doesn't mean humans are in the primate family. That's the pinnacle of ignorance. No one with a truly educated mind would claim such argumentation.
A good example was the atomic bomb. The scientists who produced the forceful, destructive item did it through principles that did not coincide with the theoretical framework of those times. Similarly, the notion that because of genome-wide analysis coverage -- thus this line of evolution -- is utter charlatan nonsense. You can grasp limited principled tendencies, not necessarily direct even, and still have a predictive practical orientation. So anyone who comes with this stupidity, trying to hold a false dilemma as a hostage tool, exposes their desperate ways of conforming by regurgitating a mess, thinking that makes them elevated. It's silly.