What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Schneibster]

Can you explain how coin tosses and die rolls are acausal?

Whoopsie.

There are quantum events that are acausal. Given that, and given sensitive dependence upon initial conditions, it is certain that at least some outcomes of coin tosses and rolls of the dice are ultimately acausal.

Bad example. Carry on.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Whoopsie.

There are quantum events that are acausal. Given that, and given sensitive dependence upon initial conditions, it is certain that at least some outcomes of coin tosses and rolls of the dice are ultimately acausal.

Bad example. Carry on.

At what point does the mass action of very large ensembles of acausal quantum events result in the causality that we perceive in the universe at the macroscopic level?

 

[articulett]

At what point does the mass action of very large ensembles of acausal quantum events result in the causality that we perceive in the universe at the macroscopic level?

Never...because long as any part of the equation has any randomness, your definition allows you to call the entire process random...and thus acausal.

 

[Schneibster]

Good question; different thread.

 

[articulett]

Never...because as long as any part of the equation has any randomness, your definition allows you to call the entire process random...and thus acausal.

In fact, this is the very reason scientists do not call natural selection "random". Such irony.

Having random components does not make the entire process random(at least not to anyone trying to convey the facts of natural selection.). If it did, everything is random including you. You are made of atoms--at the quantum level electrons have random spin--therefore you are random per your own vague definition of random. Q.E.D.

You defined what, in essence, is wrong with your definition via your own question. And yet this won't penetrate the slightest, will it? You've made random such a useless term that almost everything can be said to be random.

The irony is thick, thick, thick. Nothing about evolution can be acausal
with your definition of random. You cannot convey how the order comes about with your useless definition of random. You can only say it happened "randomly". That's uninformative and ripe for misunderstandings.

 

[articulett]

In the post above, I meant to say noting about evolution can be causal (not-random) with your definition of random, because if a process contains any randomness...the process IS a "random process". Every thing involving matter involves some degree of randomness on the quantum level...just about anything can be related to a probability chart or something "random"--hence you've made the use of the term so "loosely" that it becomes meaningless. By focusing on the "randomness" you cannot convey the order brought about by natural selection. You can only say, "it happened randomly". Very vague.

 

[VonNeumann]

Isn't this back-and-forth about "randomness" futile? This term is not well defined for the purposes of discussing evolutionary theory.

Perhaps Gregory Chaitin's fresher view on randomness as "algorithmic complexity" might appeal to some as the beginnings of a good path to consider:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/iubs.pdf

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

Please explain how my definition is as vague as you seem to think it is without resorting to using another definition to confuse the issue and keeping in mind that my definition clearly demarcates what is and isn't "random" in a meaningful way which has been explained to you many times.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

Please explain how my definition is as vague as you seem to think it is without resorting to using another definition to confuse the issue and keeping in mind that my definition clearly demarcates what is and isn't "random" in a meaningful way which has been explained to you many times.

As Cyborg said, because it doesn't differentiate poker from roulette. It makes everything that contains matter random by virtue of having matter. Only formulas can be causal, because once you include real world phenomena in any process you can call it acausal or random because on a quantum level there is randomness.

Your definition has no way of explaining how order comes from randomness. Things tend towards disorder (entropy) but with an energy source (the sun) order can arise and order begets more order... if you build a good foundation you can build a tall building and keep on modifying it...but if you stop applying energy and maintaining it it will eventually fall apart. Order comes to matter via energy...and this order multiplies exponentially with life--because only the best replicators make more replicators. How many more ways does it need to be said. Dawkins said it. Ayala said it. The majority of people on this thread have said it. And your own sources have said it. Everyone has.

Maybe you just are not capable of understanding the non-random elements of natural selection or even why they are referred to as non-random. Heaven knows--there's pages of people trying. Maybe it's you.

Nobody of any credibility sums of natural selection as random. Nobody thinks random is a synonym for stochastic. Nobody uses random interchangeably with "related to probability". Nobody uses the term randomly as loosely as you when trying to convey how how the seeming design we observe evolves. Nobody finds that everything made of matter is acausal and thus random. Nobody things that having random components makes an entire process random. But all of these things are true for your definition of random! --because you are trying to make a case that it's informative or meaningful to describe evolution as random and/or claim that "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random". If your goal is to obfuscate, you are almost as good as Behe...if your goal is clarity...try Cyborg, Ayala, Dawkins, me, sphendisc, Ivor, and just about anybody else on this forum who work in the biological sciences.

It's just so lame--Semantic buffoonery designed to pretend you are being more explanatory then Dawkins et. al. without conveying anything of value on the topic.

And why does anyone bother explaining, it's not like any creationist has suddenly seen the light. I don't care if you think you are saying something...Behe sure thinks he is. I hear T'ai agrees. I bet Kleinman thinks he's saying something too. But if you ever actually want to know the answeres to your inane questions, you might try carefully reading those you disparage...instead of only perusing sources you think you can twist to conclude they are saying what you are saying.

Per your definition of random, the butterflies evolved randomly. How useful is that? And to whom?

 

[Wings]

Hey, I hope you guys don't mind a layman popping in for a bit, I've got a question.

I've always considered that if we had a perfect model to predict how evolution would occur on our planet, evolution would appear to be completely deterministic and there would be no randomness, but that since our predictive model is limited, evolution will have occurances such as random mutations that we can not completely accurately predict.

In that sense, my idea of random was that it was simply the changes that we don't have enough information to completely predict . Now, am I even remotely close on this? I don't have much of a flair for mathmathmatics so I'm not good at being very technical, I suppose this is about the best I can state it.

I know everyone's been debating this back and forth, so it's enough for me to just know whether I'm on the right track or not, if you don't want to restate what you've been stating for 44 pages.

 

[jimbob]

I think we are all agreed that mutiations are random, as radiation (for example) can cause them.


There is a definite bias to natural selection in favour of those that replicate the best.

I would argue that when talking to someone numerate, it is best to actually say that this bias is probabilistic, i.e. a mutation can confer a reproductive advantage of x%, so that it improves the chances of reproduction by x%. I argue that this is sufficient, with large enough populations having the mutation, and over enough generations in a stable environment to select for particular traits, and this treatment can tell you how confident you can be in describing a particular case of evolution as nonrandom.

Most of the discussion seems to me to be about the definition of "random" and possibly should move to a different thtread. I think that some of the discussion is when it is a reasonable simplification to describe natrual selection as nonrandom.

 

[articulett]

Hey, I hope you guys don't mind a layman popping in for a bit, I've got a question.

I've always considered that if we had a perfect model to predict how evolution would occur on our planet, evolution would appear to be completely deterministic and there would be no randomness, but that since our predictive model is limited, evolution will have occurances such as random mutations that we can not completely accurately predict.

In that sense, my idea of random was that it was simply the changes that we don't have enough information to completely predict . Now, am I even remotely close on this? I don't have much of a flair for mathmathmatics so I'm not good at being very technical, I suppose this is about the best I can state it.

I know everyone's been debating this back and forth, so it's enough for me to just know whether I'm on the right track or not, if you don't want to restate what you've been stating for 44 pages.

Well, many people feel there is no real true randomness...so yes...a lot of people feel that way... the physical laws can only be what they are. In general when people describe evolution they talk about the change on the genetic level which is relatively random (recombination, mutation, crossing over, insertions, nondisjunction, etc.) in that there are so many things involved and it's hard to predict what genetic will occur and what changes will give rise to what pheontypic changes if any.

The environment then selects for or against the life forms created. The best replicators in a given environment beget the next generation of replicators...in this way the "order" increases over time. If you are a finch near flowers, and your beak is extra long giving you a feeding advantage over competitors, you'll get the nourishment you need to spawn more such long beaked offspring that will spread your genes after you are gone. Your short beaked neighbors will have trouble feeding themselves and their sort beaked genes will not make thriving vectors in the nectar rich environment. However, short beaks are better in an insect eating environment...

In simplistic terms, we say evolution is "random mutation coupled with natural selection"--and selection is biased... that is, some things preferentially survive and out reproduce their peers. So some scientists will even say that natural selection is deterministic or "the opposite of random".

And while it's true that mutations aren't truly random...they are random enough to explain the principle. Unfortunately, creationists are forever claiming that scientists think the complexity arose through random chance. But, as you can see if you click the MSNBC butterfly link above, the order arises through a honing and copying of the most successful replicators--not chance--and not "randomly". Mijo can't seem to understand this and thinks it makes sense to call all of evolution random. He thinks that because there are relatively random things in the environment (asteroids, ebola) this makes natural selection random. But he's got it sort of backwards. Creatures evolve to fit the environment they are in--randomness and all--or they perish. Of course all creatures perish, but a select few will pass on the info. that created them before doing so. Anything in their genome that aided their ability to do successfully reproduce will be preferentially passed on as well.

I hope you click on the butterfly link...because it's pretty easy to see. From our perspective the mutation offering protection arose randomly--but it conferred such a benefit that it was selected in such a way that it rapidly spread through the butterfly world. It allowed butterflies to survive and reproduce when they would otherwise have perished as embryos and they passed this mutation on to their sons. Natural selection brings order to the randomness and gives the illusion of design. Mijo wanted to know what part of evolution is non-random...and the part that is the most non-random is natural selection. Creationists tend to obfuscate understanding of natural selection because to understand it is to suddenly "get" evolution. It doesn't seem like some impossible accident (the creationist strawman) but more of an obvious process. For some reason mijo keeps wanting to call natural selection random, but obviously that is vague and confusing and fails to explain how the order and illusion of design come about, but no one has been able to convey this to him.

Will you do me a favor and read the link I posted above and let me know if you think it makes sense to say that mutation is random (more or less) while selection is determined (or causal) (or non-random). Mijo wants to call both parts random although most people would find that a poor and misleading description. He thinks there is "no evidence" that any part of evolution is "non-random". I can't tell his claim from the creationist canard that "scientists think this all arose by random chance". It leaves out the best part and fails to convey how the order comes about.

 

[articulett]

I think we are all agreed that mutiations are random, as radiation (for example) can cause them.


There is a definite bias to natural selection in favour of those that replicate the best.

I would argue that when talking to someone numerate, it is best to actually say that this bias is probabilistic, i.e. a mutation can confer a reproductive advantage of x%, so that it improves the chances of reproduction by x%. I argue that this is sufficient, with large enough populations having the mutation, and over enough generations in a stable environment to select for particular traits, and this treatment can tell you how confident you can be in describing a particular case of evolution as nonrandom.

Most of the discussion seems to me to be about the definition of "random" and possibly should move to a different thtread. I think that some of the discussion is when it is a reasonable simplification to describe natrual selection as nonrandom.

Probably as often or more often than calling mutations random. We don't really agree that mutations ARE random. In the Ayala paper and others they make a point to say just that. Some places are mutation hot spots. And we know what sort of changes radiation is likely to cause.

So while it may be an oversimplification to call natural selection "non random"--at least as many credible people think it's more of an oversimplification to call mutations and other genomic alterations "random".

Random is really an ambiguous word. But if you want to understand just the basic principal of evolution--stick with Cyborg. Mutations are relatively random...Selection is determined by which mutations make the best replicators--hence it is causal--not random. That's the description that has worked for the most people and once you understand it, you are immune to creationist obfuscation. In fact, suddenly you see how vague and unclear they are being and how obvious "design" from the bottom up is.

The thread was about what the evidence was for evolution being non-random. But random is such an ambiguous word that unless you are sure your audience is on the same page as you regarding the definition, you are more likely to mislead them with that word (especially in reference to natural selection) than to inform them.

 

[Wings]

I read the link and it was quite interesting. The link and your post helped to shed some light on some questions I've had. And yes, I think it does make sense to say that mutations are random while selection is determined, at least from my limited understanding of the subject.

Mutations are relatively random...Selection is determined by which mutations make the best replicators--hence it is causal--not random. That's the description that has worked for the most people and once you understand it, you are immune to creationist obfuscation. In fact, suddenly you see how vague and unclear they are being and how obvious "design" from the bottom up is.

That single paragraph really does shed a lot of light on this to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hey, I hope you guys don't mind a layman popping in for a bit, I've got a question.

I've always considered that if we had a perfect model to predict how evolution would occur on our planet, evolution would appear to be completely deterministic and there would be no randomness, but that since our predictive model is limited, evolution will have occurances such as random mutations that we can not completely accurately predict.

In that sense, my idea of random was that it was simply the changes that we don't have enough information to completely predict . Now, am I even remotely close on this? I don't have much of a flair for mathmathmatics so I'm not good at being very technical, I suppose this is about the best I can state it.

I know everyone's been debating this back and forth, so it's enough for me to just know whether I'm on the right track or not, if you don't want to restate what you've been stating for 44 pages.

I would say you are remotely close on this, but I'll add my two cents.

First, there's the question about these "random" events. When you flip a coin, and it comes up tails, was that "truly random" or was it determined by spin rates, and muscle pressure, air resistance, and all of that stuff? In other words, if we could measure accurately, could we predict all those random events?

On a fundamental level, the answer is that we don't know for certain, and in fact we cannot know for certain. However, Ivor the Engineer posted a similar question about that not long ago and, in my response, I noted that most physicists believe that there are, in fact, truly random events, not determined by anything at all until they happen. Furthermore, these events are not just at the microscopic level, but in fact show up in real world consequences. Schneibster, in elaborating on my response, explained why the physicists believe that, even though they cannot know for certain, and they know they cannot know for certain.

So, on a fundamentel level, there are "truly random" events that influence the course of evolution. There are things that happened that no measurement, no matter how precise or complete you could measure, for every single particle in every single atom in the entire universe, could have predicted.

On the other hand, when a snake eats a bird's egg, but leaves another right next to it, we could argue whether that was a "truly random" event, caused only when quantum events happened to move the snake toward one egg and away from another, or a pseudorandom event, predetermined by the snake's brain, but just unpredictable for lack of measurement. We could argue about that, but it isn't all that interesting to me. Either way, one of the eggs was saved, and one of the eggs was damned*, and there's no way to predict which one it would be. We call it random regardless of whether or not "God plays with dice".**

However, that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about descriptions.

You noted that you "don't have much of a flair for mathematics". Knowing that, if I tried to discuss evolution with you I probably wouldn't bring up a lot of mathematical descriptions. You can describe most of evolution without ever worrying about randomness. On the other hand, some people, like mijo, do have a flair for mathematics, and are interested in it.

So once upon a time, I was writing about Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion", and noted that it was odd that Dawkins devoted considerable space to objections about evolution and randomness. He was quite adamant that we are not here "by chance", but that the evolutionary process that produced us was "the exact opposite of chance". I thought it was odd because I, too, have a flair for mathematics, and I have studied probability (and remember what I studied), and I noted that evolution was, in fact, a random process. Probability is a fairly advanced mathematical subject, and most people never study it except for maybe an example or two about dice, but for those of us who made mathematics a major portion of our life's study. we took probability and can recognize not just the average, layman's definition, but the precise technical definitions that you don't get to unless you are an upper classman studying mathematics, engineering, or a related field. Furthermore, if you wanted to model evolution, either in the mutation process or the selection process, if you didn't include randomness in your models, your models would be simply inaccurate, except at the grossest level of detail.

I speculated on why Dawkins might be so averse to using that description, when it was so clearly accurate. Some others picked up on it and split that thread. Mijo made a comment, rather inoccuous, really, and quite correct, to which some idiot replied "You don't understand science" This irked mijo and he started a thread specifically on the subject of whether or not evolution is random.

Among people who understand the term, there really is no question. Evolution is random. Mutation is random. Natural selection is random. You don't have to believe me, but if you don't, you're wrong. I'm ok with that.

So, why are we approaching 1800 posts in this thread, then, if the answer is so clear? There are a couple of ways of answering that question. First, evolution is a weird subject, because it's a scientific subject, but with religious implications. Some people want certain things to be true, even if they aren't true. Evolution is true, but fundamentalists who believe the Bible wish it were not.

On the other hand, evolution is rather difficult to demonstrate. If someone doesn't believe gravity, I can drop a rock on his head and the argument will be over. If they don't believe in evolution, I have to wait several generations until his genes finally disappear. This leaves a lot of room for argument, and in the course of those arguments, people make all sorts of distortions about the other people's arguments. Some of those arguments, and the distortions thereof, are about randomness, so a lot of incorrect things are written regarding randomness and evolution, and so people are concerned that an argument, even though correct, might be distorted.

More importantly, though, in my humble opionion, evolution is an important subject, misunderstood by all sorts of people on both sides of the discussion. People get rather emotional about it, and it becomes a real US vs. THEM argument. Somewhere along the line, people started identifying key words and phrases as common elements in the arguments for "the other team". "Evolution is random" got assigned to the other team. From Dawkins to articulett, there are a bunch of people who think that if you use those words, you're probably on their team.

It's balderdash, but that's what this thread is about.

______________________
* See "Waiting for Godot", a play strangely relevant to this thread.

**Einstein famously believed that there were no "truly random" events, and he (an atheist) summed up his opinion in his famous quote "God does not play with dice". Most scientists today believe that was one of Einstein's few errors.

 

[cyborg]

Yet again: is my computer random because of the existence of QM?

Do you think it would be helpful to say, "computing is random"? You know, basically saying that computing is the precise opposite of what it is.

Calling natural selection random because of the existence of unpredictable events is about as descriptive as calling my computer random and it misses the point significantly.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you don't you're wrong. I've been okay with that for several pages.

You don't know what randomness is. You don't know what labeling 'evolution is random' entails. I am as of yet the only person to even mention highly important concepts in randomness such as autocorrelation - everyone else has been talking about probabilities as if that defined what it means to be random adequately when it does not. Whether or not a generator is random is a not a case of whether or not one can produce a probability distribution for it but whether or not there is a finite mechanism which could be built that would then mirror the 'random' process so that it could be correctly predicted each and every time. That is the process could be described causally - A to B, B to C, C to D. It is no good calling a coin flip random if it could be correctly predicted by a machine T -> H, H -> T even though you could still label the probabilities of H and T as 50% each.

Does anyone else here even get that or am I wasting my time continually pointing this out?

It is quite simple really; if you are arguing that because two organisms with the same genome may only have one survive that the survival is random then you are saying that the genes are acausal with respect to survival. You are saying that the genetics of the organism are irrelevant to its survival - there is no causal chain between them. You are saying natural selection is not selecting based on genes but on the turn of a Roulette wheel. You are saying natural selection is not selective.

I guess that works if you think your computer is random. If you think that I will simply have to shake my head at that point because there is clearly no convincing some people of the folly of their choice of words.

 

[Schneibster]

Hey, I hope you guys don't mind a layman popping in for a bit, I've got a question.

I've always considered that if we had a perfect model to predict how evolution would occur on our planet, evolution would appear to be completely deterministic and there would be no randomness, but that since our predictive model is limited, evolution will have occurances such as random mutations that we can not completely accurately predict.

Well, first of all, physicists currently believe that many quantum events, such as the time of emission and direction of radiation, are random; so there'd be no way to predict mutations, except to predict a frequency for them.

Second, the exact details of a mutation that represents an evolutionary advantage, and is therefore selected, depend upon the exact details of the environment, since it is doing the selecting.

So I don't see a sense in which the evolution of species could be called "deterministic," since the exact mutations available are dependent upon random events, and the exact characteristics selected for are also dependent upon random events.

On the other hand, given a particular relatively stable environment, adaptations for details of that environment will accumulate among the species that live in it. So in that sense, evolution is deterministic. But it's not a sense, I think, in which most people would call evolution "deterministic." People have trouble understanding the sense in which physicists call random quantum interactions deterministic; I've participated in several conversations about it on this very forum. If they don't get that, I'm not sure how anyone expects them to get this one very limited sense in which evolution is deterministic.

In the sense you mean it, I don't think a "perfect model" is possible.

In that sense, my idea of random was that it was simply the changes that we don't have enough information to completely predict . Now, am I even remotely close on this? I don't have much of a flair for mathmathmatics so I'm not good at being very technical, I suppose this is about the best I can state it.

I know everyone's been debating this back and forth, so it's enough for me to just know whether I'm on the right track or not, if you don't want to restate what you've been stating for 44 pages.

I suspect I've answered your questions above, but if you don't think so, or have more, feel free.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yet again: is my computer random because of the existence of QM?

No.

Do you think it would be helpful to say, "computing is random"? You know, basically saying that computing is the precise opposite of what it is.

What are you computing? Are you using a genetic algorithm? If so, then it's random. At least, back when I was writing papers on the subject as a graduate student, that's what we called it.

Calling natural selection random because of the existence of unpredictable events is about as descriptive as calling my computer random and it misses the point significantly.

It depends on what point one is trying to make. The problem with the passionate non-randomites is that they, including you, figure that there is only one point worth making, and anyone making some other point must be missing yours.

Expand your mind.

You don't know what randomness is.

I beg to differ, but you may believe what you like.

You don't know what labeling 'evolution is random' entails.

Different things to different people, and it varies with context.

I am as of yet the only person to even mention highly important concepts in randomness such as autocorrelation

It's very relevant, in circumstances where it is defined.

- everyone else has been talking about probabilities as if that defined what it means to be random adequately when it does not.

That's it! I'm writing to the Universities of Illinois and Michigan and demanding my money back!

Does anyone else here even get that or am I wasting my time continually pointing this out?

I don't think you have adequately described the entire probability space for the events in question.

 

[Schneibster]

So, why are we approaching 1800 posts in this thread, then, if the answer is so clear? There are a couple of ways of answering that question. First, evolution is a weird subject, because it's a scientific subject, but with religious implications. Some people want certain things to be true, even if they aren't true. Evolution is true, but fundamentalists who believe the Bible wish it were not.

On the other hand, evolution is rather difficult to demonstrate. If someone doesn't believe gravity, I can drop a rock on his head and the argument will be over. If they don't believe in evolution, I have to wait several generations until his genes finally disappear. This leaves a lot of room for argument, and in the course of those arguments, people make all sorts of distortions about the other people's arguments. Some of those arguments, and the distortions thereof, are about randomness, so a lot of incorrect things are written regarding randomness and evolution, and so people are concerned that an argument, even though correct, might be distorted.

More importantly, though, in my humble opionion, evolution is an important subject, misunderstood by all sorts of people on both sides of the discussion. People get rather emotional about it, and it becomes a real US vs. THEM argument. Somewhere along the line, people started identifying key words and phrases as common elements in the arguments for "the other team". "Evolution is random" got assigned to the other team. From Dawkins to articulett, there are a bunch of people who think that if you use those words, you're probably on their team.

It's balderdash, but that's what this thread is about.

I could hardly agree more. As I stated earlier, it's not about science, it's about politics, or religion, or philosophy.

 

[cyborg]

No.

Then we agree that the mere pretence of randomness does not entail that it would be helpful to label some process as random.

What are you computing? Are you using a genetic algorithm? If so, then it's random. At least, back when I was writing papers on the subject as a graduate student, that's what we called it.

Right... but you do know that computers cannot be random right? Any input to your genetic algorithm would be pseudo-random.

Yet you told me that evolution couldn't work without randomness... well there's no randomness in what a computer does because everything is causal - deterministic.

Hmm... let's conject for a while shall we?

We need something to produce randomness. A random occurrence is without cause.

However we are stuck with being only able to build machines that cannot produce randomness! This is a bit of a problem but we are undeterred all the same so what are we going to do?

Well what we decide to do is to build a machine that appears random to some extent. We now have something entirely causal but is complex and unpredictable. We realise we have this when it is difficult for another machine to predict it - we decide we can measure this using file compressors because they effectively try to find a smaller description of the same thing.

So we can build things that are good enough to be fairly random but still not truly random. We reason then: what would we need to do?

Let's go back to our file compressors. We already figured that if it was hard to have a machine make a file smaller then that entailed it was hard to predict. If we don't compress a file at all then we reason that it was actually unpredictable - we couldn't predict the sequence other than by having the sequence itself.

Ah ha then! If we have an infinite sequence, we reason, then an unpredictable sequence would be one that needs the entire infinite sequence itself in order to describe it.

Now isn't being completely unpredictable being random?

So we need an infinite machine to predict a random event; but then the problem is that if we are trying to figure out whether or not something else is truly random, as in acausal, or just an infinite machine, as in causal, and we don't already know the internal mechanism then we can't ever decide whether or not there is a causal mechanism from examining the output of the box.

So basically, if you wanted to, you could argue that everything is totally and utterly determined if you were happy with the idea that it is possible to build infinite machines. But I'm not going to solve P vs NP here so that's just something you'll have to wonder about on your own.

As I said earlier - but no-one picked up on at all - something could be truly random or it could be simply unpredictable/hard to predict.

This is why I keep on pointing out probability distributions are not the be all and end all here.

It depends on what point one is trying to make. The problem with the passionate non-randomites is that they, including you, figure that there is only one point worth making, and anyone making some other point must be missing yours.

My point is the most important one here:

1) BOTH ways of describing something, acausal and causal CAN COMPLETELY DESCRIBE THE SAME THING. I cannot stress enough how important this concept should be for anyone here who can understand it.
2) You can therefore make a choice of which one to use when describing the mechanism of some process you are trying to figure out by experiment. (Uhh, which would be everything in this case: science is empirical remember?)
3) As such one should NOT be thinking random/non-random is the definition of the process but rather all processes are predictable/unpredictable with a spectrum inbetween and we simply decide to label things either random or non-random based on their relative predictabilities.

So is it really important that some process in evolution is truly random or does it only matter that it is unpredictable? (Please go back and see my Poker analogy again: it is the lack of knowledge that leads to a need for statistics to analyse the contents of someone else's cards - not the fact that the cards themselves are actually unpredictable because you could just flip them over and know for certain what they are and then statistical analysis would be irrelevant).

I beg to differ, but you may believe what you like.

See the above. Do you still think you know what randomness is? I would like to meet your metaphysical oracle if you do because that seems like a fundamentally unanswerable question as far as the formal description of the mathematics goes.

Like I said. P vs NP - not going to solve it for you.

Different things to different people, and it varies with context.

So in other words I am right but you aren't seeing it; it's a matter of choosing the best label. As such I refer to my earlier definition of evolution for a far more accurate and unambiguous answer to the question:

Mutations are non-deterministic with respect to the genotype.

Selection of genotype is deterministic with respect to the phenotype.

It's very relevant, in circumstances where it is defined.

So you are familiar with it right? It is important for the reason I outlined in my argument above.

That's it! I'm writing to the Universities of Illinois and Michigan and demanding my money back!

Fine institutions but I doubt they would have covered the metaphysical implications computational analysis has for mathematics as I outlined above in most mathematical courses that weren't directly to do with computing.

So again; they don't adequately define randomness. See my earlier randomness test - each sequence is probabilistically describable but each one of them could be completely and utterly determined.

I don't think you have adequately described the entire probability space for the events in question.

Ah. I see you wish to get lost examining the forest missing the fact I'm talking about the trees.