What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mijo, there are two ways of taking that post. Do you mean that it is impossible, even in theory, for us to predict the certainty of what will happen with mutation and selection if we had perfect knowledge because there is something non-deterministic about the process? Or do you mean that we just don't have the knowledge to be able to predict what will happen because we are limited beings with limited knowledge and so speak in terms of probabilities?

This is an important distinction.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sorry to come in very late. But I'm as confused as whiteyonthemoon above. What is the OP actually asking?

Mutation is random, yes. But natural selection is not.

Anyone care to clue a latecomer in on the deal? Appreciate it.

Hmm. Perhaps introducing a latecomer will provide opportunity for another chance to explain, and that will lead to enlightenment all around.

Or perhaps it will be another opportunity to beat a dead horse. Let's see.

Pick up a dictionary. Look up "random". There will be several entries. Some of them will describe natural selection. Others will not. (Note: The use of the phrase "natural selection" is deliberate. Not only can evolution be accurately described as random, but natural selection can also be described, accurately, as random.) So, it all depends on the sense of the word "random" that you are using. In objective terms, neither side of this debate is "right" or "wrong".

So, if neither side is truly "right" or "wrong" why are we 10 pages into this? On a related note, why did Dawkins spend several pages on the topic in "The God Delusion" and call it "the exact opposite of truth" in "The Blind Watchmaker"?

Some people have offered an opinion on the subject. The general impression I get from people who oppose the use of the term is that "random" is a technically accurate, but misleading, term. People might develop misunderstandings because of the use of the term. I don't think that's correct. For reasons of space, I won't go into a huge explanation of why I don't think it's correct. If someone finds that topic interesting, and wants to explore it, I suggest that they begin by posting or linking to a creationist argument that misuses the term and leads to a misunderstanding. So far, only one argument has been linked, and in that case, the author's error was not in believing evolution was random. Indeed, his key error was that if some fish changed into lizards, all fish ought to have changed into lizards. This was a case where understanding the random nature of evolution, including selection, would have helped his comprehension (assuming he had any interest in comprehending in the first place).

However, if that's not it, if it really isn't because of the misperceptions created by calling evolution and/or natural selection "random", what is it? Here, I am forced into the speculative realm, but I don't mind being there, so here goes.

I think there are two different, but overlapping, explanations. The first has to do with significance. Saying that we evolved "randomly" or "by chance" sounds as if there is nothing special about us. We exist, sure, but we might not have existed if things had been slightly different. That's a bitter pill to swallow for some people, and they don't like it. They prefer to say that we exist as a result of an example of the outcome of a wonderful force, one that brought all of life's amazing diversity into being, and made possible not only all of man's achievements, but all of nature's wonder as well. That sounds a lot better than "by chance". So, they reject those meanings of "random" that emphasize the insignificance of our existence.

A second reason is simpler. It's an US vs. THEM thing. Our team uses the word in a particular way, and used in that way, it doesn't describe evolution. If you use it any other way, or if you use it in any way and misapply it or reach an erroneous conclusion, you must be on their team. Over and over, people have said, "creationists use that word....". To me, that doesn't seem like a very good reason to avoid it, but for people, like Dawkins, who are very concerned about the existence and influence of THEM, it's a pretty big deal.

And the overlap? There really is a statistical correlation between people who say evolution is random and people who don't believe in evolution. It's really true that their team says "random" a lot more than our team. Why? Did "random" cause them to reach an erroneous conclusion? In some sense, I think so, but not in the usual way it is presented. I don't think it was because of a misperception about evolution.

I think saying that evolution is "by chance" is accurate (depending on the sense of phrase "by chance" that you mean) and it leads exactly to the conclusion of insignificance. A lot of people reject that insignificance, and if they have to reject the scientific data in order to reject it then, by God, (literally) that's what they do. They invent a God and reject evolution in order to give meaning to their lives, not because they misunderstood evolution, but precisely because they understood it, or at least the part that mattered to them. Scientists, who can't bring themselves to reject the data, instead reject the interpretation, waxing eloquently about the wonder of nature, and noting that anyone who takes the other tack is one of THEM.

 

[articulett]

You are extrapolating from my OP in Fossil and Evolution. There I did ask a question here I asked for people to provide evidence of the claim that evolution is non-random. These are two different things. I also prefaced that OP with an explanation of my desire to explain evolution to creationists. In this thread my aim was different. I wanted to question a commonly held view of people here that didn't seem to square with what I thought the words they were using meant.

Evolution is non-random the way a tennis tournament is not random. Random events can effect the outcome--who serves...who plays who in an elimination round, the sun in the eyes, etc.-- Randomness plays a role in who wins--but the winner isn't chosen at random.

You will not find peer reviewed literature saying evolution is or is not random because the statement doesn't make sense. It doesn't clarify the facts. In the same way you won't find any peer reviewed literature saying "evolution is selection" or "evolution is not selection"-- not because it isn't true--but because the claim is vague; incomplete--could be construed as true or false or meaningless via semantics. Evolution is a fact. To describe the process so that people understand the facts about it, you would tell a creationist that scientists do not think this all got here by chance. Although mutations are random (more or less), selection is not (more or less). The environment drives selection--Abundant food? Abundant predators? Meteor showers? Mating competition, extreme living conditions, etc.-- some seemingly random--others much less so...It's not random that cold environments encourage some mutations to flourish and others to die out.

You dismissed everyone for not answering your question. But your question was a sort of creationist trap. It truly is like asking, give me peer reviewed literature showing evolution IS random or evolution IS selection. It overly emphasizes a term that is readily abused by creationist and completely overlooks THE driving force behind the process. Our technology evolves, because we refine what works and get rid of what doesn't--sometimes we have artifacts of old technology like our poorly laid out keyboard. That is exactly how evolution works.

Why would you want to explain anything to a creationist when you are having such a hard time hearing people say exactly what I am saying above in a million differently nuanced ways. It's your question that is problematic...in the exact way as the examples above. There are no good answers that clarify anything. And frankly, I'm not sure any answer can satisfy a creationist. You may as well try to convince Ken Ham that his creationist museum is farcical nonsense not supported by scientific evidence.

 

[articulett]

So, articulett, your argument is "you're a creationist, because I don't agree with you"?

nope, you're a creationist because you pretend to want to understand facts (to supposedly explain them to creationists), but you really want to prove to yourself that scientists think "evolution is random" or that "the fossil record is discontinuous.

Oh, and because no answer is the right answer. Just like know example refuting irreducible complexity was the right answer for Behe and all of Paul A's mathematical gymnastics failed to move Kleinman an inch.

Schneibster disagrees with me. I know he's not a creationist. Ooopsy, your insincere question in this thread was proven to be as dishonest as your others.

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker, don't you think it's clearer to say evolution has random components--not that evolution IS random. I think Dawkins explanation is much clearer-- random mutation coupled with natural selection. It's not the random part people have trouble with--they hear that just fine...it's the part as to how complexity comes from randomness that they are sketchy on--that is selection. Selection should be the emphasized word if the goal is to further understanding of the process. What would you suggest saying as opposed to Dawkins description and to you think that would make it any clearer for the supposed creationists? Also, are you still advocating this notion that the word "random" isn't abused to extrapolate the 747 analogy and the like? Are you familiar with the main arguments of creationists? This one is the biggest. But evolution is easy to understand once you understand selection--once you understand how randomness looks purposeful (anyone who wins the lottery will convince themselves it was due to something they did--a prayer, lucky socks, etc.) even though the winner was chosen randomly...etc.

I think it's a very important component of critical thinking, and abuse of the readily abused word random by the faithful and ignorant is reason enough to say that saying "evolution IS random" is misleading.

Remember the supposed goal of this post was to be explaining how evolution is not random to supposed creationists. So how would you go about doing that? And is there any evidence this works better than other methods? Does anything work except cluing them in while they are still young?

 

[articulett]

BTW, you have been given these links before, mijo--

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

They answer both this question and the one before. Evolution is more about pruning--narrowing probabilities--

If this page doesn't answer your question then you are going to come up with some examples of what you were hoping for -- at least for the opposite claim "evolution is random". Clearly this shows that your question is a common creationist question--and it has the very best answers to creationist questions (which you are presumably trying to address.) You dismissed all of this and concluded, "evolution is random"-- maybe so... but no more so than "evolution is the opposite of random"-- it's semantic twisting at it's finest.

You avoid some pretty pointed questions. Non disjunction happens at random (more or less--such events increase as a mother ages...) but we don't ever see most examples of non-disjunction because the embryo doesn't grow or aborts. We see trisomy 21 a lot (down syndrome) not because it is the "fittest"--but because there are so few genes on chromosome 21 that it's not as lethal as having extra copies of other chromosomes. Does Down Syndrome happen by chance--yes. Is there a reason? Yes... "non-disjunction". Is any of that explanatory?

Evolution is not random in that each step "forward" is built on the step that came before. Evolution is a culling process.

Meadmaker, what do you think mijo is asking? And why wasn't your answers good enough for him? He said no one answered his question. Do you think his understanding of random is the same as yours? The same as Schneibsters?
Read the OP and decide whether you think he can address these creationists claims any better than before. And frankly, I'm not sure anything works to convince older creationists--younger ones can catch on easier...selection needs to be emphasized...often... "that trait exists because it gave ancestors a survival advantage"--

 

[mijopaalmc]

BTW, you have been given these links before, mijo--

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

They answer both this question and the one before. Evolution is more about pruning--narrowing probabilities--

If this page doesn't answer your question then you are going to come up with some examples of what you were hoping for -- at least for the opposite claim "evolution is random". Clearly this shows that your question is a common creationist question--and it has the very best answers to creationist questions (which you are presumably trying to address.) You dismissed all of this and concluded, "evolution is random"-- maybe so... but no more so than "evolution is the opposite of random"-- it's semantic twisting at it's finest.

You avoid some pretty pointed questions. Non disjunction happens at random (more or less--such events increase as a mother ages...) but we don't ever see most examples of non-disjunction because the embryo doesn't grow or aborts. We see trisomy 21 a lot (down syndrome) not because it is the "fittest"--but because there are so few genes on chromosome 21 that it's not as lethal as having extra copies of other chromosomes. Does Down Syndrome happen by chance--yes. Is there a reason? Yes... "non-disjunction". Is any of that explanatory?

Evolution is not random in that each step "forward" is built on the step that came before. Evolution is a culling process.

Meadmaker, what do you think mijo is asking? And why wasn't your answers good enough for him? He said no one answered his question. Do you think his understanding of random is the same as yours? The same as Schneibsters?
Read the OP and decide whether you think he can address these creationists claims any better than before. And frankly, I'm not sure anything works to convince older creationists--younger ones can catch on easier...selection needs to be emphasized...often... "that trait exists because it gave ancestors a survival advantage"--

And they are filled with straw men in the explanation of the creationist straw men. Just because creationists misuse random to imply that order cannot arise from disorder does not mean that evolution is not probabilistic or stochastic.

If natural selection is not how I described it, then tell me what is wrong with my description. Is natural selection about probabilities or certainties of survival derived from a subset of genes in the genome? Is it possible for one individual with a given subset of genes to survive while another individual with the same subset of genes perishes? And so on....

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh, I think you probably are too--.

."ananab" nalp tnemelpmi ,derevocsid neeb evah eW jiM

 

[articulett]

And they are filled with straw men in the explanation of the creationist straw men. Just because creationists misuse random to imply that order cannot arise from disorder does not mean that evolution is not probabilistic or stochastic.

If natural selection is not how I described it, then tell me what is wrong with my description. Is natural selection about probabilities or certainties of survival derived from a subset of genes in the genome? Is it possible for one individual with a given subset of genes to survive while another individual with the same subset of genes perishes? And so on....

Of course...which should be obvious...on an individual basis--the evolution is about an averaging out across many experiments. A totally fit specimen can perish in an accident before passing on the genome goodies into the next generation. And lesser fit organisms can survive, because they avoided such accidents, or had lesser fit traits riding next to genes for "greater fitness" traits. The sperm that made you is relatively random--but it also went through a selection process--the slowest sperm didn't make it...the ones with two tails and two heads didn't make...the ones that went up the wrong fallopian tube didn't make it...the ones that helped eat away the outer layer but didn't get in first didn't make it-- the one that made you did. It's random in the beginning--but time narrows the probable winners--and we never see the losers. By the time Mr. sperm fertilizes ms. egg, the randomness has been winnowed to the last few contenders from which a winner is "selected".

To describe the whole thing as random is just not helpful in actually understanding anything. If you don't understand how evolution is not random or how it doesn't really mean anything to say "evolution is random", then you do not understand evolution--no matter how much you pretend you do. You seem to think in black and white and ignore all the color--all the nuances in probability along the way. You overly focus on probability to avoid a comprehensive understanding of selection. Things don't fall randomly through a sieve. The bigger pieces are selected out. But the way you assert that evolution is random is like saying that the pieces that fall out are "random" because a few of the smaller pieces don't fall out because they are stuck on the big pieces. You obfuscate a simple explanation of evolution by claiming that because randomness plays a role, that evolution IS random. Evolution is NOT random--it is driven by the environment and all that has come before.

Evolution of life is not random in the same way that evolution of technology is not random. What works is selected out and honed--even though artifacts remain and sometimes the best doesn't get picked up because of "random" influences... PCs were cheaper than macs--not "more fit". Selection was due to affordability for the masses not best performance. Your complete dismissal of every explanation in this regard is just appalling to me. You are doing this so you can say, "well it seems "evolution is random" afterall..." just like "the fossil record is discontinuous afterall". What you are saying doesn't mean anything...it doesn't further understanding--not for you or the supposed creationists you are trying to teach that evolution is not "random chance".

 

[articulett]

."ananab" nalp tnemelpmi ,derevocsid neeb evah eW jiM

Hey, I don't know if you are really a creationist or not. Mostly I think not--it was your argument that creationists don't misuse the term random that made me think you were. You seem to understand evolution. So why do you think mijo has dismissed all answers as "charicatures and strawmen"? And in describing evolution to supposed creationists, don't you think it's more descriptive and correct to say that evolution is random mutation coupled with natural selection then to say "evolution is random"?

The randomness in selection is way far away in probability from the randomness of mutation... I teach this subject... trust me--the key is in getting them to understand selection. In regards to evolution it stands in contrast to the random aspect--it's the key to the ratcheting. It has a far greater predictive factor than mutation--which is how we do genetic counseling.

Hurricanes can be said to be random--but the closer they are, the more we can predict about where they are going and what kind of destruction they will cause. They aren't completely random...and the random part isn't as essential to understanding them as the stuff we use to predict the outcome.

So, answer mijo so he won't claim no one answered his question. How would you explain evolution so that people didn't extrapolate to the 747 analogy-- how and where would you emphasize the word randomness to avoid that extrapolation...oh, and make sure to include peer reviewed articles on how evolution is not-random...

All mijo hears from all these words is "evolution IS random". That's an obfuscating unclear meaningless ready-for-abuse phrase if I've ever heard one. It begs for the 747 analogy--so let's here your fabulous explanation for your non-creationist friend eager to convince the ignorant masses (supposedly). Do you think all the answers were "straw men" that didn't answer his question. Because he has said as much--did the same thing in the "discontinuous fossil" thread. I maintain there is NO answer that will satisfy him except his twisted version of "evolution is random"--

 

[Taffer]

Actually there is a lot of literature on nonrandom mutations.

Please provide citations of geneticists talking about mutation as non-random.

 

[articulett]

Yes--all of you claiming that "evolution is random"--as opposed to "mutations are random; selection is not"--please answer the OP. How do you explain evolution to creationist keeping in mind that when they hear "evolution is random" they default to the tornado/747 analogy--or the monkeys writing Shakespeare. I know it may be futile trying to explain anything to a creationist. But pretend they are young and not fully indoctrinated yet. Answer your friend, Mijo's query. Creationists are waiting with bated breath--

 

[articulett]

If people were chosen at random to run in a race, you wouldn't say the winner was random or that the race was random or that the contest was random--even though random factors may influence these things--you'd only say the contestants were chosen at random (even though your selection process wasn't completely random in the strictest sense of the word). But when mijo or creationist say evolution is random, it is the equivalent of saying the winner was chosen at random or the contest was random--it's just unclear, misleading, and uninformative. Saying "evolution is random" is as uninformative or more that saying evolution is non-random. Both are just vague statements.

And you never did clarify anything, mijo.

Besides, this is already completelly predictable--endless explanations, total dismissal, mijo claims that scientists agree that evolution really is "random"... there are no supposed creationists that need an explanation--there's just mijo and his ego-building desire to pretend that scientists not being able to "answer the question to his satisfaction" means that "evolution is random" (however he's interpreting that vague phrase.)

 

[Schneibster]

Well, for one, you aren't promising eternal glory in exchange for faith (and purposeful stupidity)--and for another, you aren't threatening eternal damnation for those who doubt your teachings.

Well, science does promise as much of the truth as you can handle.

Hmmm, does eternal wrongness count?

Does that simplify things? We teach them what a scientific theory is too. We can't promise the goodies that make things stick.

While I agree we can't promise an IQ over 100, I also think there is an abdication of the responsibility to teach people to think critically in public schools in the US. A great deal of this is caused by the continuing emphasis on balance without regard to provable truth.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Did you actually perform those PubMed searches I provided, articulett? (Because of the PubMed search protocol that deletes inactive searches that are more than 8 hours old, I didn't link directly to the search results, but cutting and pasting the Boolean string I provided into the search field yields the result I got)

Those results don't change significantly when you exclude "mutation", so most of the article do discuss the stochastic modeling of evolution.

As for my alleged "dismissals" of the "evidence" provided by the other posters, it has been explained exactly why it is a straw man, yet you dismiss those arguments. If you think that I have a fundamental lack of understanding of natural selection, please actually explain it. Quit attacking me.

 

[articulett]

Here is a less fit random mutation that is well known--most of the great apes must eat fruit to get vitamins c--most mammals make their own vitamin C--we have the vitamin c making gene, but it is mutated. Now, that might make us "less fit" if we didn't have fruit around...but it didn't seem to change the fitness in the organisms that had the mutation--or perhaps it sorted along side a mutation that conferred an advantage. Not everything "deleterious" gets selected out, and not everything good gets a chance to pass on--but when there are huge numbers of experiments (mitosis and meiosis) going on--a beneficial mutation only has to pass on one time to begin a foothold. One time..for each step--it might not be the best of all the mutations that were--luck might play a part--but it won't be the "least fit" that's for sure.

A gazelle doesn't need to be the fastest to survive--just faster than the slowest. Predator drives prey evolution--and vice versa--sexual selection drives evolution--environment drives evolution-- all of these narrow probabilities and "erase" randomness--

I don't see how these explanations can be dismissed as caricatures. I don't think mijos understanding of the phrase "evolution is random" is the same as schneibsters or even yours, meadmaker I think his understanding leads to the 747 analogy. If mijo isn't a creationist then why does answering his questions seem so much like talking to Kleinman or Behe's testimony? Why does it seem like no answer will be right? How do you keep "random" from becoming "half hazard" or at least make the jump to that conclusion less easy? Why does mijo seem to miss the big picture and focus on the small (e.g. how come some less fit mutations survive?) Wouldn't anyone who already understands evolution not know this...or at least understand it better after the explanation above?

Yes, I agree we are here by chance--but does that help anyone understand evolution? And how do you keep that assessment from becoming the 747 analogy? It misses the most important part of evolution--the whole climbing mount improbable thing--the ratcheting through time-- even the randomites can see that. We agree on what evolution is--but the question was about how about how evolution is not random (because random leads to false conclusions like the 747 analogy)...

And I suspect that there will be no answer that mijo won't dismiss while concluding "evolution IS random" (with his murky definition attached.)

 

[Schneibster]

Yeah, me too.

 

[articulett]

Did you actually perform those PubMed searches I provided, articulett? (Because of the PubMed search protocol that deletes inactive searches that are more than 8 hours old, I didn't link directly to the search results, but cutting and pasting the Boolean string I provided into the search field yields the result I got)

Those results don't change significantly when you exclude "mutation", so most of the article do discuss the stochastic modeling of evolution.

As for my alleged "dismissals" of the "evidence" provided by the other posters, it has been explained exactly why it is a straw man, yet you dismiss those arguments. If you think that I have a fundamental lack of understanding of natural selection, please actually explain it. Quit attacking me.

No, I didn't do the pub med search--it was irrelevant to the topic...only to your insistence that "evolution is random" on par with "the fossil record is discontinuous". Don't tell me to read your links when you don't read anyone elses. You haven't even got the problem right. The stochastic model of evolution or the stochastic aspects of evolution does not mean "evolution is random"-- Having random parts does not mean the whole is random. You don't even have a clue it seems as to how the randomness of mutation differs from the filter of selection in regards to probabilities. You still think it makes some sort of sense or says something or means something to say "evolution is random" when it really just implies that you are confused. Mutations are random...the environment that selects may have random aspects--but it is a filter--it is not random...it lessens the randomness--it selects from the pool of randomness. I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you that you aren't making any sense. You aren't getting good answers because you want the answer to be "evolution is random" (and then you define that in some weird way that is not on par with what scientists mean.) Your understanding doesn't differentiate between randomness and the 747 analogy conclusion, and you have made that clear. You don't even differentiate between individuals and large numbers and averages. You are so unclear on the basics that you used small random aspects to describe the whole. You used artifacts as though they applied to the process as a whole--repeatedly...

You don't even seem to understand why selection can be called the opposite of random. It filters out "randomness". You claim to want to explain something to creationists--but you don't understand it better than a creationists and the questions you ask and the answers you accept do not lead to further understanding for you or anyone else.

You WANT the answer to be "even scientists say evolution is random"...knowing full well that that leads to the 747 analogy which is a complete and utter misunderstanding of evolution and how randomness applies to it. It ignores the "sticking" factor. We only see the stuff that works. The stuff that works sticks around--we don't see the gazillion failures culled via the environment.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Of course...which should be obvious...on an individual basis--the evolution is about an averaging out across many experiments.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always get "many" experiments. As I've stated before, sometimes population are small. At these critical points in history we can't escape the long term affects of the outcomes of these random trials. It isn't like electromagnetism, where if the first ten photons I fire through a slit end up up clustered in one fairly unlikely spot I can still depend on seeing the typical difraction pattern after millions go through.

You talk about how evolution is not random "in that each step "forward" is built on the step that came before". That is precisely what makes it random, that sometimes it can't "forget" the history of a few trials.

What makes electromagnetics predictable on the large scale is the independence of photons from eachother. If the radiation pattern of an antenna was dependent on the first hundred photons radiated from it, we could not reliably build antennas.

To describe the whole thing as random is just not helpful in actually understanding anything.

To describe as not random is not helpful, or accurate.

If you don't understand how evolution is not random or how it doesn't really mean anything to say "evolution is random", then you do not understand evolution--no matter how much you pretend you do. You seem to think in black and white and ignore all the color--all the nuances in probability along the way.

The problem here isn't an understanding of evolution, but an understanding of complex systems and how they respond to variation. Some are very robust, stable. Some are unstable. Some, like evolution, have zones of stability and other zones of instability. In fact, the people I see who don't understand the nuances of evolution are calling it non-random. They focus only on those periods of equilibirum, but not the long term affects of those rare but still countless times of upheavel.

You overly focus on probability to avoid a comprehensive understanding of selection. Things don't fall randomly through a sieve. The bigger pieces are selected out. But the way you assert that evolution is random is like saying that the pieces that fall out are "random" because a few of the smaller pieces don't fall out because they are stuck on the big pieces.

Horrible analogy. Fairly trivial process, especially over the long term, no heredity, no changing selection criteria, single variable (size) ...

You obfuscate a simple explanation of evolution by claiming that because randomness plays a role, that evolution IS random. Evolution is NOT random--it is driven by the environment and all that has come before.

I have argued continually not that evolution is random because randomness plays a role, but because of the nature of the selection process and how it interacts with variation.

Evolution IS random. Those three words alone might not be much of a description on their own, but they are accurate. Unlike "Evolution is NOT random."

Your complete dismissal of every explanation in this regard is just appalling to me.

If you arguments actually addressed counterpoints in any way that would be understandable. As long as you state "evolution is about an averaging out across many experiments" I think you don't understand what qualities in a system are important to make "averaging out across many experiments" lead to a non-random result in layman's terms.

Walt

 

[articulett]

Yeah, me too.

Okay...maybe I'm wrong...so answer his question. Or if you are going to say evolution IS random--how do you delineate that randomness from the 747 randomness (which is more akin to a "god" in impossibility than evolution). How do you you teach the most important aspect of evolution--the ratcheting...the selection. I"m sure your non-creationist friend won't find your explanations "straw men" the way he dismissed everyone elses--and talk origins. I don't care how you describe evolution--I want to know how you think it can be described so random doesn't become "half-hazard". I think the best way to do it is to emphasize selection--the part which is the "least random" in the equation--the filter...

And other biolgists and those who teach this and want to inform creationists as mijo is trying to do agree-- so why is he insisting on concluding that every response is a strawman and "evolution IS random".

Look, I'm glad to be proven wrong. So if he's not a creationist, then surely his fellow randomites will give him a satisfactory answer, right? Those of us who actually teach the subject and debate creationists have failed miserably and been dismissed. Your turn.