The top two definitions of random in my Science dictionary refer to it as not being connected to the past or future and/or having equal (not necessarily uniform) probability. When random events are added up to make patterns, that is a stochastic process. True randomness in the mathematical sense probably doesn't exist in the real world--but mutation and recombination is pretty close to random.
In standard theory, practically everything is random in the mathematical sense (Heisenberg, Shrodinger). But in many instances the variation is so small we don't refer to it as random.
Evolution is not random because it relies entirely on the past and is the stepping stone towards the future. Each "step" alters the probabilities in the next "step".
Mathematically, you are talking about independence vs. dependence, not random vs. not random. In lay terms, would you say a round of craps is not random, given that your odds if your first roll is a 6, are different than if your first roll were a 5? There are dependent processes which people refer to as random.
Moreover, selection is not equally likely for each life form--the ones that don't survive are the "least fit" by definition (what they would have been is irrelevant)--the "most fit" is the term we use to describe the one's that survive and pass on genes. That is the meaning of "most fit".
The classic random examples don't have equal probabilities for outcomes. In math, the Gaussian curve is often the first distribution learnt after the uniform distribution. In lay terms most people talk of the movement in monopoly being random, but that is the sum of two dice which leads to a 1 in 36 chance of getting 12, and a 1 in 6 chance of getting 7.
Sure, "more fit" genomes pay perish via accident, but they, by definition, are out of the running of the "most fit".
Out of the running by accident, and not based on their own fitness? That sounds random to me, in the laymen's sense.
And, even generally speaking, the genes that confer the most benefit have the most chance of existing in future vectors. Even if it's squashed by a meteor or random event the first few times it occurs, that doesn't mean it won't occur again and become part of the evolutionary process.
It doesn't mean it will occur again either.
If you think it's fine to describe evolution itself as random for whatever reasons--how do you address the guy's claim in the article above? How is his version of chance different than yours? That is what you want to emphasise when addressing creationist canards. That is what you want to tell kids so they have an instinctive understanding of evolution before they are brainwashed by guys like guy quoted.
In part I'd ask why he came to the conclusion that "nothing in the natural world has occurs by chance." I'd point out he hasn't addressed other areas of chance in nature (i.e. just about everything in quantum physics). It appears that instead of "chance is what we use in our ignorance to describe what happened," it appears that he has dismissed chance in order to place his own preconceived notions into "science". That is, he is dismissing chance because he feels the need for some reason or order in the universe.
How do you, as a proponent of non-random evolution, address the article? He is using non-randomness of nature to argue for a divine creator. Argue it is random and they will twist the argument one way (junkyard+whirlwind=747). Argue that it isn't and they twist it another (God is in the details).
This whole post was supposed to be about how evolution is non-random in order to address claims on par with the above quote. So, randomites--how would you address that man's claim and why wouldn't you want it taught to your child in school.
I am against calling something non-random because opponents would abuse the notion of randomness otherwise. Evolution is an extensive subject, and I would not try to say precisely how I would want it to be taught. But in general, I would like it to be taught as "blind" random mutations, being acting on by selection which isn't “blind”, which leads to the evolution of viable species. What viable species results cannot be guaranteed, but non-viable lines will not result. And if a species becomes non-viable in can die out if can not adapt quickly enough.
My answer is that it is not science. Science aims to clarify, not to obfuscate with allusions to the supernatural. There are no facts in support of an intelligent designer--and all the chance plays a role in evolution, natural selection is the key to understanding how complexity is built upon through time.
A good answer, but you succeeding without bringing up a non-random evolution. (Also Dressman was arguing for a non-random evolution.)
Evolution is "random" only in the lay person's sense of non-purposeful. But it is built upon that which came before. Would you call the internet "random". It wasn't preplanned, and it was built in bits and pieces by the participants--nobody knows where it's going...but we know it will evolve, but it won't be random. It might be chaotic. But chaos is different than randomness as illustrated in the fly article. There may be stochastic events (check out the "way back" archive), but it evolves pretty much by expanding upon that "which works" and weeding out that which doesn't. But who would say that the internet arose randomly. Who would say that artificial selection is random?
Sure it selects "which works". But there can be more than one solution "which works" and indeed which solutions work can depend on other working solutions that came before. There is no guarantee that all solutions that work will emerge to be acted upon by selection.
...
Sure you can say evolution is random, but why not say what you really mean--evolution is blind in regards to the future; there need be no purpose to get complexity...natural selection takes care of that by choosing the next generation from trillions of contenders. But remember, when you say evolution is random--they hear "scientists think we all got here by chance".
Because what I really mean is that evolution is blind in regards to the future. And I do think we got here by chance. I don't believe a social, brainy, upright ape was guaranteed as of the time of the rise of mammals, or even as recently as a million or half-a-million years ago. We originated about what, a quarter-of-a-million years ago? In Africa, from the ape super family, (which as I recall was already less successful than the monkey super family). How many ancestors did we have, each of which had they been less successful, or adapted in a different direction may have resulted in our never emerging. We
did get here by chance. Viewed in the short term, probably good odds that we would evolve; in the long term, probably very slim odds.
As a member of the scientific community, I find such a claim useless, misleading, and not representative of scientific understanding. There is a reason for our existence--but the reason was not preplanned, simply based on the events that came before. You exist because you are the person created when your dad's sperm fertilized your mom's egg... But you, yourself, aren't random--nor is the sex act "random". Nor is gestation. Having a random component does not a random process make. If you want people to understand any of the above it's the "non-random" aspects you need to learn to describe.
You are talking about an individuals (me, my mom, my dad). Evolution is a process in which we look at many generations. To me, your argument is misleading because it centres in on such a small scale to explain such a complex and process. Evolution came up on the scientific radar only because of the massive change in populations that appeared to occur through time. Much more than anything that could be imagined by considering one act of copulation by one person's parent 34 years ago (less if you are telling this to students).
Walt
