What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

Wah, wah, wah.

I can also post all the times you ignored pointed question in this thread and others, Chill out, answer questions, flow with the river.

If you ride the rapids you will get wet.

Meanwhile you are totaly looking silly with this hurt pride routine. Seriusly, get over it. I have been torn into on this board and I am plain in my statement, you have ignored much of what was addressed to you in your OP and later posts.

This wounded pride thing is most unbecoming.

I knew for some people this was going to reflect badly on my character, but I also surmised that it was going to be those who already disagreed with me, because it would give them yet another reason to attack my character rather than address my arguments. I did, however, provide the links to the previous threads in which articulett and I had interacted because it gave context to the things about which she and I were bickering. I also think that it displays a pattern of behavior in which this board's residents self-identified skeptics often engage. Someone will comes onto the board, make a statement that contradicts what they believe, offers good evidence to support their arguments, and, when it becomes clear that this person is going to demand the same standard of evidence from them as refutation of the original statement, they attack the person and their ideas as being (a) woo, rather than consider that they might be wrong. It is not so much that my "pride" is wounded; it is that it is very frustrating trying that have an argument where insult seems to be an acceptable mode of debate, whether in place of or in addition to evidence.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Where are you going here Mijo, many have asked you to explain yourself, myself included and again you seem to be opaque on your motives in the discussion.

You do realize that this is just an ad hominem?

You are attacking the person instead of their arguments. Whether my motives are exulted or base has no bearing on the validity or truth of my arguments.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You are attacking the person instead of their arguments. Whether my motives are exulted or base has no bearing on the validity or truth of my arguments.

If it was an ad hom, it was a pretty minor one. There are multiple people here asking you and Meadmaker where this is going. Why is it so important to you that people describe evolution as random, in spite of the confusion that may cause? I think we're hard-pressed to conclude that it's simply because you want everyone to be technically accurate in their statements.

Someone will comes onto the board, make a statement that contradicts what they believe, offers good evidence to support their arguments, and, when it becomes clear that this person is going to demand the same standard of evidence from them as refutation of the original statement, they attack the person and their ideas as being (a) woo, rather than consider that they might be wrong.

Oh, please. No one has said you are wrong. We are only saying that your simplistic description of evolution is misleading.

How about if you just tell us if there is a next step in this conversation? If not, we can all go somewhere else.

~~ Paul

 

[Taffer]

You do realize that this is just an ad hominem?

You are attacking the person instead of their arguments. Whether my motives are exulted or base has no bearing on the validity or truth of my arguments.

That is not an ad hominem argument. He did not equate a personal trait with a reason to dismiss your argument. At most, it is simply an insult.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That is not an ad hominem argument. He did not equate a personal trait with a reason to dismiss your argument. At most, it is simply an insult.

When someone questions your motivations as a means of invalidating your argument, that is an ad hominem because something about your person does not ever invalidate your argument.

 

[Dancing David]

You do realize that this is just an ad hominem?

You are attacking the person instead of their arguments. Whether my motives are exulted or base has no bearing on the validity or truth of my arguments.

I and other have asked you what you meant? That is not ad hominem, I am saying that you appeatr opaque in your participation.

How many posts has this thread? How many have you chosen to respond to, There have been at least 5 themes in the subplots of the the thread, and how many and which ones have you answered or participated in.

I am asking you to join the conversation.

Will you?

Here are the many questions addressed to you in specific, I explained the thoughts behind my question as did most of the psoters.

I am saying how your behaviors appears to me, you could participate instead of this injured and wounded pride thing you are engaging in. Look dude we all disagree with each other most of the time. Get over it. If Articulett says that your lack of argumentation is weak, then join the fray and show us what you are made of. And expecialy what your thoughts and arguments are made of.

Meanwhile go through the first four pages of the thread and see if you could answer these questions.

various quotes:

Also, since the measure of fitness is how well they survive to reproduce, how do you know these other individuals are equally as fit?

First, define exactly what you mean when using the term random.

But it always happens in a fixed ecosystem, doesn't it? If it was random, would you not expect it to sometimes not happen?

What would it take, then?

And yet again, what do you mean, "random?" It looks pretty random to me.


Yes, this is a difference between a card game and evolution.But I don't see how it is meant to be a point towards whatever it is that you're defending.Which is what?

Please explain what you mean.

So perhaps the question should be phrased differently, what is it that you are asking?

Join the discussion, answer the question, that will show you and your thoughts which are much more imp-ortant than the motives. The motives are what I am reffering to are this:

1. What are you really asking?
2. Where do you want your conversation to head?
3. What are the issues you want to discuss?
4. What are your thoughts on the five subplots in the thread?

 

[Meadmaker]

Here’s an excerpt from the argument linked by Paul. Let’s see whatthe author has to say.

indirectly from something called evolutionisimpossible.com
Then there is the question of how the species evolved – was it random? Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod said “Chance alone is at the source…of all creation in the biosphere.” If there is no order then what caused different species to evolve? Why did the fish become a lizard since fish, evidently, survive just fine in the water? If evolution is random then why are fish not turning into lizards or lizards turning to birds – why have they stopped evolving? If evolution is for survival, then would not fish want to continue to evolve into lizards and lizards into birds? (Monod, Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology[4], 1974)

Richard Dawkins disagrees with Monod and says “This belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth.” If evolution is not random, it must be calculated or ordered somehow. What or who is in charge of the evolutionary process? The bigger question is: what caused the evolutionary process to stop in birds and lizards? Apparently all the fish got The Memo that the evolutionary process has been completed and evolution is no longer necessary. (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker[5], 1996)

If we could just clear up this guy’s misunderstanding of randomness and its place in evolution, could we fix his problem? Could we counter his argument by explaining that evolution is or is not random? He’s quoting Dawkins to say that it isn’t random, so just countering the charge of randomness doesn’t seem to be a very effective counter argument.

This guy’s problem is that he thinks evolution implies that fish turn into lizards. He’s even worse than that. He thinks that if evolution is true, then all the fish would turn into lizards. Therefore, evolution is not true. QED.

Meanwhile, we here are arguing over whether fish “randomly” turn into lizards, or whether they turn into lizards “through selection”.

 

[Vintij]

Here’s an excerpt from the argument linked by Paul. Let’s see whatthe author has to say.




If we could just clear up this guy’s misunderstanding of randomness and its place in evolution, could we fix his problem? Could we counter his argument by explaining that evolution is or is not random? He’s quoting Dawkins to say that it isn’t random, so just countering the charge of randomness doesn’t seem to be a very effective counter argument.

This guy’s problem is that he thinks evolution implies that fish turn into lizards. He’s even worse than that. He thinks that if evolution is true, then all the fish would turn into lizards. Therefore, evolution is not true. QED.

Meanwhile, we here are arguing over whether fish “randomly” turn into lizards, or whether they turn into lizards “through selection”.

Natural selection is not the reason for mutation. It has been tested in different environments, but all studys conclude that once the environment is stabalized, then all mutations reverse. Meaning, natural selection may or may not be the main mechanism of evolution, simply because our studys have shown no permanent meaningful change of any species when encounterd with different environmental habitats.

The "randomness" you are refering to, would be genetic drift. This guy who says that evolution does not exist, is also trying to tell you that selection is the ONLY mechanism of evolution, therefore mutation can not permanently occur, and then he goes on to say evolution does not exist. This statment is false, it might have been accepted in the neo-darwin era, but with the discovery of genetic drift and phenotypes, we have been able to prove that Evolution in general is alot more complex than we once thought. Not only that, but it can include aspects of selection and aspects of random genetic drift. Evolution is not completely random.

I suggest you tell that guy to read up on genetic drift and modern synthesis.

 

[Meadmaker]

If it was an ad hom, it was a pretty minor one. There are multiple people here asking you and Meadmaker where this is going.

It's going around in circles, but I don't think that's my fault.

I'll say it again. My interest started when Dawkins made a big deal in The God Delusion about "chance" and evolution. Apparently that's been a big theme of his for a while. Why?

The usual explanation is that the term has been misused in creationist arguments. Has it? Let's examine some of those arguments and see if clearing up the "chance" or "random" parts would settle the arguments. I don't think it would, but perhaps someone can correct me.

As with so many of my arguments related to evolution vs. ID and/or creationism, I'm interested in why evolution doesn't win more often. The usual explanation is that people are either too stupid or are in the grip of religious extremism and can't think straight. There's a degree of truth in that, but I don't think it's a full explanation, or even a very good one. I think the arguments, as presented, frequently suck.

Dawkins' "evolution is not by chance" argument is an example of an argument that sucks. There's an awful lot wrong with his argument, starting with the fact that it's incorrect, but it goes deeper than that. It misses the point by a long, long, way.

So, my interest in the topic starts with observing a lousy argument, and wondering why it is advanced with such passion. Perhaps more later.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If we could just clear up this guy’s misunderstanding of randomness and its place in evolution, could we fix his problem? Could we counter his argument by explaining that evolution is or is not random? He’s quoting Dawkins to say that it isn’t random, so just countering the charge of randomness doesn’t seem to be a very effective counter argument.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that people's misunderstanding of evolution was only due to a misunderstanding of randomness. Nor did I mean to imply that the misunderstanding was necessarily not willful.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As with so many of my arguments related to evolution vs. ID and/or creationism, I'm interested in why evolution doesn't win more often. The usual explanation is that people are either too stupid or are in the grip of religious extremism and can't think straight. There's a degree of truth in that, but I don't think it's a full explanation, or even a very good one. I think the arguments, as presented, frequently suck.

I disagree. I don't think that the people saying "god did it" are going to change their minds if you give them a careful explanation of evolution. Well, certainly there are some fence-sitters who might be convinced. Many people are simply happier with "god did it" than they are with "evolved from monkeys." It gives them the warm and fuzzies.

This guy’s problem is that he thinks evolution implies that fish turn into lizards. He’s even worse than that. He thinks that if evolution is true, then all the fish would turn into lizards. Therefore, evolution is not true. QED.

If you can find someone who reached this conclusion, and you can disabuse them of the notion with a careful explanation of evolution, then I hereby promise to eat my shorts.

~~ Paul

 

[Vintij]

Dawkins "evolution is not by chance" argument is not really a bad argument.

It was Darwin who gave us something to latch onto when he said something similar to this statement. And yet he opened doors to the subject of evolution in general, doors that were closed by the catholic church. Ofcourse darwin did not have the technology we have today to study genes and phenotypes.

In my opinion, there has to be a chance factor in evolution....it can not be strictly selection, because natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, can not be proven today.

Evolution, in my opinion, is a combination of modern synthesis and natural selection. Two equal and seperate mechanisms of one evolutionary process.

But dont bother educating a religious person, who hold the majority in this world by far. Even today, they are not up to date with new ideas about evolution, they still say the same thing "I didnt come from no monkey". If you really tried to explain evolution to these people in a very very simple way. Chances are they still wont get it, and will continue to say, "just cuz monkeys have thumbs, dont mean Im a monkey".

Its really up to the high schools and jr highs to teach children while they are young, to pay attention to evolution and other important subjects that will keep them away from any extreme religious behavior.

 

[articulett]

Articulett,
I think there's a much simpler explanation for mijo's behavior. He's telling the truth.

I've been where mijo's at. Back in some other place, he made some fairly sensible statements, but other posters jumped on them because those posters thought his statements contained some sort of creationist code words. Instead of reading what he wrote, they read the secret code encrypted inside his statements.

The word "random" has some linguistic ambiguity, but mijo has said what he meant by it. Given what he meant, he's correct, and he's trying to get other people to see that he's correct. Well, he is correct, and if you read what he wrote, instead of looking for the code, it isn't difficult to see it.

Well, then we all agree pretty much. The word "random" is problematic, because it doesn't clarify meaning unless you are aware of the scientific meaning of random. Moreover, random is "more random" in regards to mutation and "less random" in regards to environment. There can't be any true evidence that evolution is "not random" because of the ambiguity of the word and the way it sort of muddies the concept of selection through time.

I, like Dawkins, feel that it's an obfuscating way of describing evolution--evolution of any kind--whether it's evolution of the internet or the evolution of the landscape or the evolution of life. The term "random" makes it hard to explain evolution (and I teach this subject)--because humans can't fathom the number of experiments (see kleinman who thinks he can)--from which only a very few are selected (via the environment). Moreover they have a poor grasp of time (living such relatively short lives) and most can't even understand "theory" in the scientific sense. It's the ratcheting that is the important concept--the selection--the assembly through time. That is the problem creationists are the murkiest on. The word random is exploited to mean "meaningless"--or "miraculous by chance alone"--etc.

We all seem to agree on what on what evolution is--we just disagree on whether the word random is useful in clarifying the concept. I think it's confusing. Biologists don't usually use it because it implies there is no "direction"...but we know that there is direction guided by environmental selection which has a "random" component.

Once you've started on a path, the next step isn't "random". The step before dictates the choices involved in the next step. It might be random in that most people step forward--but they could step sideways or backwards or stay in place or go diagonally or take a giant leap or a tiny step--but they MUST start from wherever they are on the path. They don't randomly choose the starting point. They don't randomly end up somewhere. They may randomly start in a direction, but where they go is selected for by where they've come from.

It's random to the degree that the outcome can't be predicted--but each step narrows the probability of outcomes. Randomness decreases as selective pressures drive evolution. You can argue that it's technically correct or "not wrong" to say that evolution is random. I think everyone will agree. But I think most of us are saying that it confuses understanding in a profound way, and so few biologists would describe it that way. It's too easy to misinterpret--it makes it harder to grasp how complexity can evolve through time. The internet evolves very much the way life evolves. Some randomness in the beginning--increasing complexity and order through time--although there is still much randomness--people stumble onto forums that become part of their lives and help the complexity of that aspect of "internet" grow. All of us here can think of many "but for..." arguments that had they not occurred, we would not be typing on this forum today. There are zillions of them. We can never know them all. We can only be aware of some of the small events that made us type these words on this day.

Evolution is very important concept to unraveling mysteries and furthering understanding--not just in regards to life--but in regards to all kinds of complexity. It's important to me that people really grasp the concept. I don't think the word "random" is helpful at all in that regard. I think that is exactly why you are unlikely to find peer reviewed articles that say evolution is random. It's not a useful way of explaining things except for those well schooled in the nuances. And even then--why? Why would you argue for using that specific unclear word to describe evolution? I think it's the part of the equation that creationists love to exploit--hence Kleinman--the goldilocks universe idea--"irreducible complexity"-- I would much prefer to hear people say random mutation coupled with natural selection because it's more descriptive and furthers understanding of an important concept.

Heck, even artificial selection has random components. But we don't call dog breeding random. Why is using that particular word to describe evolution in it's totality important to people when it is a word that is associated with misunderstanding and ambiguity and exploitation by ID claimants? I avoid the word "theory' when talking about evolution just as one doesn't use germ "theory" or the "theory" of gravity when teaching scientific concepts. I avoid the word "theory" in regards to evolution for the same reasons I wouldn't use random to describe evolution. Perhaps it's just my bugaboo. Perhaps I am overly sensitive. But many biologists feel this way. Words should be used to clarify in science--not obfuscate.

 

[articulett]

Enough monkeys and enough typewriters, eh?

One monkey ancestor, hundreds of millions of years of evolution...one typewriter.

Voila.

Shakespeare.

Evolution works "miracles".

 

[articulett]

I knew for some people this was going to reflect badly on my character, but I also surmised that it was going to be those who already disagreed with me, because it would give them yet another reason to attack my character rather than address my arguments. I did, however, provide the links to the previous threads in which articulett and I had interacted because it gave context to the things about which she and I were bickering. I also think that it displays a pattern of behavior in which this board's residents self-identified skeptics often engage. Someone will comes onto the board, make a statement that contradicts what they believe, offers good evidence to support their arguments, and, when it becomes clear that this person is going to demand the same standard of evidence from them as refutation of the original statement, they attack the person and their ideas as being (a) woo, rather than consider that they might be wrong. It is not so much that my "pride" is wounded; it is that it is very frustrating trying that have an argument where insult seems to be an acceptable mode of debate, whether in place of or in addition to evidence.

We also have a pattern on this board where creationists will come and start threads with rather asinine questions and not listen to the answers while insulting the intelligent and good natured people trying to clarify why the question is weird and help that person find the answer he seems to be after. Oh, and these people usually say they are not creationists or avoid the question. And they usually don't associated believing in "intelligent design" as being creationist, either. They claim to be open minded and interested in a debate, but the questions they ask are weird.

Scientists won't claim that evolution is not random anymore than they'll write peer reviewed papers that say evolution is not blue.

The word random may be helpful in understanding the mutation part of evolution--it just confuses the issue when it comes to selection which, in many ways, is the opposite of the common understanding of random (haph-hazard...willy-nilly). So what is it you are hoping to debate? Are you not clear as to why you won't find "peer reviewed" articles on evolution not being random and why that is completely irrelevant in regards to understanding evolution? Do you understand why the internet is actually a good example of complexity growing from simplicity without a design?

What exactly are you hoping to debate and why are you so easily offended while being blind to the ways you offend others? You are the one who started a post insulting a number of forum members and seem to imply a "skeptic conspiracy". You are the one behaving like many a creationist who has come before--and if you are not one, it's easy enough to fix the problem.

What is it that you have said that you think contradicts what I believe?
What is your argument and what is the good evidence for it? What is it that I'm wrong about? You being a supporter of "intelligent design"? I'm open to all evidence to the contrary. What kind is this "same standard of evidence" you are demanding?-- a peer reviewed article that says evolution is not random? Sure evolution is random if you plug in the right semantics-- evolution is also a 4 syllable word, but I don't think there are any scientifically peer reviewed papers on the topic.

I am well aware I might be wrong about you. I want to be. So of course you'll be clarifying rather than taking offense and ignoring the detailed posts of others or calling them straw men when they are not or ad homs when they are not. (Ad homs denigrate the person rather that the argument and pretend that refutes the argument, btw.) I don't know what your claim is, so my calling you a creationist has nothing to do with refuting your claim. I am even agreeing with your claim that evolution could be called random and that there probably aren't peer-reviewed articles saying that it is not. But I think that you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from that. I don't think that what you are saying means anything--it doesn't clarify anything--it doesn't clarify what you want to debate or what you were supposedly hoping to find in your original OP where you asked a question and insulted people on another thread.

I don't feel like I'm bickering. I feel like I'm letting my friends on the forum know that you might not be as honest in your supposed reasons for "debating" as they may be. You say a lot of things that are just..."meaningless" and then seem to think you've made a point or said something important. So what are these important points and arguments you are making while the "skeptic conspiracy" denigrates your character rather than admit they might be wrong.

And for the record, I don't think Meadmaker is an ID supporter--and I do think you are. I'm glad to be wrong. That's why I like evidence. My ego is not tied up in rather I am wrong or right about peoples' beliefs. As a skeptic I prefer to not know something rather that believe something that is untrue. So far, the evidence that I've come across has me thinking you are a dishonest ID supporter; You find evidence of a "skeptic conspiracy". You think you've presented evidence of that, but that is a claim made by many a woo.

I don't think Meadmaker is a creationist--I think he just doesn't understand why the word "random" isn't used by biologists in describing evolution--why it's a loaded word. I think you do understand--and and that you are using that word in your supposed debate to obfuscate rather than clarify and to make some sort of point that only you seem to understand.

You seem to dish out insults (started this post with one in fact), and like many a woo take offense when much milder aspersions are cast in your direction. I guess it's the log-in-your-own-eye statements you make that give me the nauseating feeling that you are a proponent of ID.

But many a person I respect has stated they don't think you are of that ilk. So I may change my mind. I just wish some of the evidence would come from you. Perhaps clarification will do the trick. Oh, and is everyone that doesn't agree with you part of the "skeptic conspiracy"?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

When individuals give up intellectual honesty to help spread ideological conformity, yeah, it starts to become a conspiracy.

Articulett, you called me a "Garden Variety Woo" after my second post on JREF. There are many people who believe in naturalistic explanations who don't instantly go for the simplest naturalistic explanation. You seriously need to recalibrate your woo-dar.

 

[articulett]

When individuals give up intellectual honesty to help spread ideological conformity, yeah, it starts to become a conspiracy.

Articulett, you called me a "Garden Variety Woo" after my second post on JREF. There are many people who believe in naturalistic explanations who don't instantly go for the simplest naturalistic explanation. You seriously need to recalibrate your woo-dar.

Hmmm....maybe I do need to recalibrate my woo-dar. Can you help me? I see you as one of those people who complain about how scientists are explaining things wrong and how evolution is "flawed" or not quite right--but you never offer anything better or any clarification to the subject. In fact, I believe you said you thought evolution would be replaced. Our understanding of evolution will evolve...as an explanation as to how you get complexity from simplicity and non-purposeful selection. My problem is people who seem to have a problem with "evolution", but they can not identify the problem with any clarity--the problems they claim don't seem like real problems--more like semantic games.

So why don't you clarify. What is your problem with evolution? And what sort of answers are you looking for. If you were criticizing our understanding of gravity, you would supply a better explanation or at least a comprehensive claim about where it fails or needs to be tightened. Those who "have problems" with evolution--never seem clear on the problems or their any alternating explanation which would be as useful. Never. Science is about understanding the facts as well as we can...not obfuscating.

If you argue like a creationist, then I think I'm not jumping to any huge conclusion by presuming you are one.

If others are familiar with such tactics is it really a conspiracy when we see the old red flags?

 

[articulett]

When individuals give up intellectual honesty to help spread ideological conformity, yeah, it starts to become a conspiracy.

Articulett, you called me a "Garden Variety Woo" after my second post on JREF. There are many people who believe in naturalistic explanations who don't instantly go for the simplest naturalistic explanation. You seriously need to recalibrate your woo-dar.

And, I agree with your first paragraph--it defines the wedge strategy quite well.

Are all those who accept our current knowledge on gravity spreading ideological conformity? Are all those who teach others about germs without using the word theory giving up their intellectual honesty? Because your argument seems to amount to that from my perspective.

The second paragraph about naturalistic explanations doesn't mean anything.
We are filling in the details as we go, but evolution is as established a fact as atomic theory--and it has a whole lot more supporting evidence. The explanation is simple--but the details are not. Who is going for the "simplest naturalistic explanation"? and what is the less simplist naturalistic explanation you go for. That just sounds like woo to me, but I've been told I need to recalibrate my woo-dar.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

In the other thread where we talked about evolution my point was not so different from the one being made here. I don't think that there is any trait that guarantees reproductive success and traits that seem to be liabilities can suddenly become great advantages in the right circumstances. It's a game of chance, randomness plays a part. I'm unwilling to pretend that I think it does not play a part in order to sell the theory to someone who doesn't believe in it. I will not let someone who disagrees with me claim the word "random" or "chance" for their camp. I will not suddenly assign guilt by association to someone who uses a buzzword from a position that I don't agree with. In fact, I don’t do guilt by association at all. When evaluating arguments I use a merit based system.

My first paragraph does describe the wedge strategy. My problem with the people behind the wedge strategy is not their belief, but their methods. I won't use those same methods.

I don't have any problem with evolution where there are clear cases. An example would be convergent evolution, structures that really do work best a certain way and are evolved multiple times independently. I do have a problem with what DNA chauvinism, which ignores epigenetic mechanisms. Understanding epigenetic mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding the diversity of life that could be a quantum iteration beyond evolution as it is currently understood. I don't have this theory in hand, but science hasn't ended yet. Un-critical pedagogy won't help us advance our understanding at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think Meadmaker is a creationist--I think he just doesn't understand why the word "random" isn't used by biologists in describing evolution--why it's a loaded word. I think you do understand--and and that you are using that word in your supposed debate to obfuscate rather than clarify and to make some sort of point that only you seem to understand.

Let's not forget how this whole thing got started. In my review of The God Delusion I took Dawkins to task for going on and on about how evolution was not "chance". In "The Blind Watchmaker" he actually said that calling evolution chance was "the exact opposite of truth".

In other words, he isn't saying that it is easily misunderstood, or that it's loaded, or that it was technically correct by misleading. He said it was "the exact opposite of truth". He seemed pretty darned adamant about it, and I found that odd.

Someone else found it also interesting, enough to start its own thread. (Split from: I'm reading The God Delusion) He had apparently noticed the same phenomenon, that people who were very concerned about the rise of ID and creationism simply could not stand it when someone called evolution "random". For reasons unknown, it just raised their hackles something fierce. In that thread, mijo and others insisted (correctly I might add) that random was accurate, and the response was, frankly, quite heated. There were accusations that "you don't understand science" and such. Mijo, rather miffed, dug in his heels and eventually started this thread. Having been accused rather unfortunately of some miscellaneous variations on ignorance of science for his use of the word "random", he demanded evidence!

So, it wasn't mijo, or I, or the other "randomites" who first made a big deal out of "randomness". It was, actually, Richard Dawkins who started it all, and I still find that rather interesting. It isn't "the word's ok, just misleading." For Dawkins it's "the exact opposite of the truth". For me, I'm not adamant that the word be used to describe evolution. I understand why, in some circumstances, it could mislead. On the other hand, I'm fairly adamant that the word can be used when it's appropriate. In some circumstances, it can enlighten. Above all, I'm quite certain the word doesn't imply hidden agendas or ignorance of science. I think it was those sorts of comments that caused the strong reactions that then appeared on this thread.