What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

They call mutation random, even though the outcomes of that is limited by the previous material.

Woah, woah, woah now - that's not how it works.

You seem to be confusing a random genome with a random change in a genome.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But most of them understand that a die rolled on a flat hard surface doesn't come up as a edge, or a corner. And they still call that random. They call mutation random, even though the outcomes of that is limited by the previous material. If you look through random processes, even those that laymen call random, the vast majority of them do have limited outcome. The problem may partly be misunderstanding the term, but a large part of it seems to be a block when it comes to this particular process.

Walt

I don't know anyone who doesn't call mutation random. Mutation is limited by the native material just as die rolls are limited by the actual number possibilities. We call it random when we cannot tell, within those limitations, what answer will arise. It is with the further limitation on possibilities (selection) that we do not use the word random. Just as we do not call it random when a loaded die comes up six when the other possibilities are selected out by some other process.

Again, I don't think anyone has a problem with our limited knowledge and calling mutation random. Is there someone in this thread who does not call mutation a random process? If so, is this because of different views on what we call random? If not, what is the point?

 

[Dumbledore]

As Paul said, yes, we can know something about what will drop out. If you mean that we cannot know all the details of the organisms that will drop out, no one argues that (at least no one that I know). The argument is really over the process being seen as completely chaotic since that is the straw man protrayal of the anti-evolution crowd. Since selection limits the possible outcomes (some of the random mutations do not survive), the process is not completely chaotic -- there is some order imposed upon it. If you use the technical definition of random, then the process is random because it has random elements. The important point for discussing this with creationists, however, is the element that imposes some sense of order to limit the outcomes so that total chaos does not reign. Keep in mind that their characterization of the process is "total chaos, so order is not possible". It is unfortunate, I think, that we find it difficult to speak in precise terms and use the technical definition for random in this sort of discussion because one group tends to take advantage of the language being used. I'm fully with you guys who want to teach them how to use such language properly, but I'm still not holding out much hope.

I do still think that it is important to insist on the proper use and defination of words though, even if they are misused, being one of the misusers. Without accurate usage and definitions of words we might as well be discussing in gibberish!!!

 

[Dumbledore]

But most of them understand that a die rolled on a flat hard surface doesn't come up as a edge, or a corner. And they still call that random. They call mutation random, even though the outcomes of that is limited by the previous material. If you look through random processes, even those that laymen call random, the vast majority of them do have limited outcome. The problem may partly be misunderstanding the term, but a large part of it seems to be a block when it comes to this particular process.

Walt

Then how do you refer to a die roll or a mutation if not as random. All I have been aware of apparently is the layman defination of random. How do you define these outcomes that are limited such as mutation and a die roll if not as random?

 

[articulett]

I don't know anyone who doesn't call mutation random. Mutation is limited by the native material just as die rolls are limited by the actual number possibilities. We call it random when we cannot tell, within those limitations, what answer will arise. It is with the further limitation on possibilities (selection) that we do not use the word random. Just as we do not call it random when a loaded die comes up six when the other possibilities are selected out by some other process.

Again, I don't think anyone has a problem with our limited knowledge and calling mutation random. Is there someone in this thread who does not call mutation a random process? If so, is this because of different views on what we call random? If not, what is the point?

I think the majority has weighted in and pretty much said what you have said--as has Dawkins and other peer reviewed experts. Generally speaking, mutations are considered relatively random (they happen without regard as to whether they are beneficial or not)-- while selection does the de-randomizing...(it multiplies the best replicators exponentially).

Mijo's OP seems to be asking about the latter, and many have explained--but, like Behe, he insists on summing up evolution as "random"-- by doing some semantic dancing and loose defining as you can see. So, per his definition, it IS random... but so is Poker... it's just as random as roulette... and evolution is as random as a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747. He refuses any definition that will allow an explanation of natural selection as other than random. (He'll use stochastic but, to him, stochastic is a synonym for random.... because stochastic processes are sometimes called random processes...though, the process itself is not random). I think Walter agrees but half the time he says no part of evolution is truly random (which is true per the strictest definition of the word-- that is, every mutation has a "cause") and the rest of the time he seems to think it's fine to sum up evolution as random like Mijo and Meadmaker...


It's just pages of these semantics with Mijo insisting that there is "no evidence for evolution being non-random" per his OP question-- which is true because he's defining random as "anything related to probability"--but of course, he doesn't see what a useless and vague definition that is and he says Dawkins and peer-reviewed scientists are wrong to call natural selection "non-random" or "the opposite of random"-- though of course, no peer reviewed scientist is saying that evolution or natural selection IS random--because "having random components does not make an entire process random" unless your aim is to confuse. The random part of evolution is easy to understand, but the creationists have a hard time conveying natural selection-- how the appearance of design comes from the randomness.

In fact, the main focus of the wedge strategy is to mischaracterize the scientific view as "scientists think all this complexity arose randomly". Although Mijo and Behe might agree that scientists are saying that--the scientists themselves go out of their way to show how natural selection is not random-- they also go out of their way to define the term random... and no peer reviewed paper seems to be using it as loosely as Mijo.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You know, the problem, as articulett continually demonstrates whenever she posts, is that no-one has ever been able to explain how it is logically consistent to say that evolution is non-random and that adaptations increase the probability of an individual's survival and reproductions when the only fully descriptive definition of "random" is "[o]f or relating to a situation or event that can be described by a probability distribution or random variables".

In other words, I accept the fact that many prominent scientists say that evolution by natural selection is non-random, but I think that they are contradicting themselves when they go on to say that adaptation increases an individual's probability of survival and reproduction.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, the problem, as articulett continually demonstrates whenever she posts, is that no-one has ever been able to explain how it is logically consistent to say that evolution is non-random and that adaptations increase the probability of an individual's survival and reproductions when the only fully descriptive definition of "random" is "[o]f or relating to a situation or event that can be described by a probability distribution or random variables".

In other words, I accept the fact that many prominent scientists say that evolution by natural selection is non-random, but I think that they are contradicting themselves when they go on to say that adaptation increases an individual's probability of survival and reproduction.

Mijo, that is what adaptation means. When we speak of an adaptation increasing survival probability the word adaptation does not refer directly to random mutation but to a mutation that is selected. The selection process, once again, limits the possibilities so we do not speak of it as random. Adaptation cannot mean anything else but a selected trait. So, to say that adaptations increase survival probabilities is simply to follow the definitions of the words. Of course adaptations increase survival probabilities. We don't call them adaptations unless they do.

I do not understand your objection at all.

 

[articulett]

Mijo, that is what adaptation means. When we speak of an adaptation increasing survival probability the word adaptation does not refer directly to random mutation but to a mutation that is selected. The selection process, once again, limits the possibilities so we do not speak of it as random. Adaptation cannot mean anything else but a selected trait. So, to say that adaptations increase survival probabilities is simply to follow the definitions of the words. Of course adaptations increase survival probabilities. We don't call them adaptations unless they do.

I do not understand your objection at all.

I have him on ignore... but (just so you know) to him random is "anything to do with probabilities"-- if it has anything to do with probabilities or any part of it has anything to do with probabilities--then Mijo feels justified in calling it "random"-- no matter how confusing or misleading or crazy or vague that may be to the rest of the world. He has a need to answer his OP question as "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random"-- that is the only answer he will accept to his weird question.

That I is why I have pegged him as a creationist... that's very similar to what Behe does. Really... he uses words the same weenie way to say nothing... all the while insisting (like Behe) that he's being academically rigorous in summing up evolution as a "random process". You are very clear--but many have been-- but nothing you can say will convince mijo that he's using the word random in such a vague way as to render it meaningless nor will understand or convey how natural selection is not-random and/or how the appearance of design occurs through the exponential survival of the best replicators.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, that is what adaptation means. When we speak of an adaptation increasing survival probability the word adaptation does not refer directly to random mutation but to a mutation that is selected. The selection process, once again, limits the possibilities so we do not speak of it as random. Adaptation cannot mean anything else but a selected trait. So, to say that adaptations increase survival probabilities is simply to follow the definitions of the words. Of course adaptations increase survival probabilities. We don't call them adaptations unless they do.

I do not understand your objection at all.

It's because randomness is defined by probability and calling something "non-random" that you then go onto describe by probabilities (whether increased or decreased) is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, your and articulett's insistence that something where the outcomes are are limited non-random is completely absurd because it eliminates some very common and important probability distributions both discrete with infinite support (e.g., the Boltzmann and the Poisson) continuous with support on a bounded interval and (e.g., the normal and the Student's t).

 

[Dumbledore]

I think the majority has weighted in and pretty much said what you have said--as has Dawkins and other peer reviewed experts. Generally speaking, mutations are considered relatively random (they happen without regard as to whether they are beneficial or not)-- while selection does the de-randomizing...(it multiplies the best replicators exponentially).

Mijo's OP seems to be asking about the latter, and many have explained--but, like Behe, he insists on summing up evolution as "random"-- by doing some semantic dancing and loose defining as you can see. So, per his definition, it IS random... but so is Poker... it's just as random as roulette... and evolution is as random as a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747. He refuses any definition that will allow an explanation of natural selection as other than random. (He'll use stochastic but, to him, stochastic is a synonym for random.... because stochastic processes are sometimes called random processes...though, the process itself is not random). I think Walter agrees but half the time he says no part of evolution is truly random (which is true per the strictest definition of the word-- that is, every mutation has a "cause") and the rest of the time he seems to think it's fine to sum up evolution as random like Mijo and Meadmaker...


It's just pages of these semantics with Mijo insisting that there is "no evidence for evolution being non-random" per his OP question-- which is true because he's defining random as "anything related to probability"--but of course, he doesn't see what a useless and vague definition that is and he says Dawkins and peer-reviewed scientists are wrong to call natural selection "non-random" or "the opposite of random"-- though of course, no peer reviewed scientist is saying that evolution or natural selection IS random--because "having random components does not make an entire process random" unless your aim is to confuse. The random part of evolution is easy to understand, but the creationists have a hard time conveying natural selection-- how the appearance of design comes from the randomness.

In fact, the main focus of the wedge strategy is to mischaracterize the scientific view as "scientists think all this complexity arose randomly". Although Mijo and Behe might agree that scientists are saying that--the scientists themselves go out of their way to show how natural selection is not random-- they also go out of their way to define the term random... and no peer reviewed paper seems to be using it as loosely as Mijo.

And I think you have hit the nail on the head. Cheers!!

 

[Dumbledore]

It's because randomness is defined by probability and calling something "non-random" that you then go onto describe by probabilities (whether increased or decreased) is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, your and articulett's insistence that something where the outcomes are are limited non-random is completely absurd because it eliminates some very common and important probability distributions both discrete with infinite support (e.g., the Boltzmann and the Poisson) continuous with support on a bounded interval and (e.g., the normal and the Student's t).

So there is a reason that this thread is sooooo long!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's because randomness is defined by probability and calling something "non-random" that you then go onto describe by probabilities (whether increased or decreased) is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, your and articulett's insistence that something where the outcomes are are limited non-random is completely absurd because it eliminates some very common and important probability distributions both discrete with infinite support (e.g., the Boltzmann and the Poisson) continuous with support on a bounded interval and (e.g., the normal and the Student's t).

I'm afraid that you're missing the point. We have the technical definition of random. I don't think anyone has a problem with folks using that technical definition. When you use it, however, you need to be clear what you are doing.

We have mutation. Mutation clearly fits the technical definition of random (and what this really means is that we have limited knowledge of the inputs, so it isn't some grandiose ontological category; it isn't a "fundamental" concept).

Then we have selection. Selection can be just as random in its inputs as it wants to be, but what selection is in its function is a limit to the probabilities out there. In the die analogy it is akin to loading the die to make a six come up every time (within reason, as there are always other possibilities given extreme circumstances). In nature, creatures who are adapted to their environment tend to survive and reproduce -- that is what adaptation means. Selection loads the die. It limits the possibilities (the probabilities). It doesn't matter that the process is potentially random. Of course it can be random. It can be determined. What difference does it make? As mentioned above, a comet hitting the earth is viewed as random. But we do not speak of the function (limiting the possibilities) as random whether or not what actually serves as the selecting force is random or not. That is simply the way we use language.

That is the whole point of this argument. You seem to look only at the cause for a selecting force, see randomness in it (in its cause or occurrence) and call the whole thing random (completely neglecting its function). But it doesn't matter a whit if that force is random, designed, or the whim of Zeus. Selection is a shaping force because it limits the probabilities.

If you want to go around saying the whole process is random, knock yourself out. But that gives the wrong impression. It tells only part of the story because words do not serve merely technical functions. They carry with them connotations working within the larger language game.

If calling evolution random is your thing, then go to it, I don't really care. If you haven't noticed I'm all for Wayne educating the world about the technical definition of "random".

If you actually care about the ideas, though, you should be willing to see this and to communicate the nuances. Calling the process "random" unqualified, if that is what you are arguing, is a misrepresentation because we do not call things that limit probabilities random processes, even if they are instituted by random means.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's because randomness is defined by probability and calling something "non-random" that you then go onto describe by probabilities (whether increased or decreased) is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, your and articulett's insistence that something where the outcomes are are limited non-random is completely absurd because it eliminates some very common and important probability distributions both discrete with infinite support (e.g., the Boltzmann and the Poisson) continuous with support on a bounded interval and (e.g., the normal and the Student's t).

Or let's try this one more time with an example.

We can describe virtually everything with a probability distribution. That just shows our lack of foreknowledge. So, for instance, let's pretend that I am Roger Clemens. I throw a ball toward home plate intending to hit the outside corner low. The only way to describe what is going to happen is with a probability distribution. The ball may hit the exact mark I wanted. It may be a millimeter to the left or right. It might hit the batter in the ear. But it will not hit the moon and is very unlikely to hit the opposing team's dugout or any other number of probabilities. Why? Because Roger Clemens is good, and he limits the probabilities to a very few. That is why when we speak of Roger Clemens pitching we do not use words like "random". When probabilities are limited by a process then we speak of it as non-random. That does not mean determined. Non-random means that the probabilities have been limited. Just like loading a die. Just like natural selection.

By the way, if you're going to counter with "this example demonstrates intentionality" please replace Roger Clemens with a pitching machine. Same result (within reason, of course).

If you wish to call all things described with a probability distribution "random", then be my guest. That means virtually everything is random (since we can never know all contingencies in our very real limitations). That is not how others use the word, so it loses all meaning for any real conversation. Since others do not use that word in that way, if you decide to use it so it is incumbent on you to describe in excruciating detail every time you use that word what you are doing with it. Otherwise, the only thing you have done is throw up a road block to communication. This is the same thing that Wayne argued before and if you wish to educate people on the techincal definition of "random", then go to it. Personally, I don't see the point behind it. Why don't you just say, "We don't know how to predict things very well" and be done with it? Because that's all the word means, as you are using it.

 

[Dumbledore]

Or let's try this one more time with an example.

We can describe virtually everything with a probability distribution. That just shows our lack of foreknowledge. So, for instance, let's pretend that I am Roger Clemens. I throw a ball toward home plate intending to hit the outside corner low. The only way to describe what is going to happen is with a probability distribution. The ball may hit the exact mark I wanted. It may be a millimeter to the left or right. It might hit the batter in the ear. But it will not hit the moon and is very unlikely to hit the opposing team's dugout or any other number of probabilities. Why? Because Roger Clemens is good, and he limits the probabilities to a very few. That is why when we speak of Roger Clemens pitching we do not use words like "random". When probabilities are limited by a process then we speak of it as non-random. That does not mean determined. Non-random means that the probabilities have been limited. Just like loading a die. Just like natural selection.

By the way, if you're going to counter with "this example demonstrates intentionality" please replace Roger Clemens with a pitching machine. Same result (within reason, of course).

If you wish to call all things described with a probability distribution "random", then be my guest. That means virtually everything is random (since we can never know all contingencies in our very real limitations). That is not how others use the word, so it loses all meaning for any real conversation. Since others do not use that word in that way, if you decide to use it so it is incumbent on you to describe in excruciating detail every time you use that word what you are doing with it. Otherwise, the only thing you have done is throw up a road block to communication. This is the same thing that Wayne argued before and if you wish to educate people on the techincal definition of "random", then go to it. Personally, I don't see the point behind it. Why don't you just say, "We don't know how to predict things very well" and be done with it? Because that's all the word means, as you are using it.

Thank you for your last two posts, they are very clear and to the point, I learned a lot from them and they clarified some of my misconceptions. Thanks again. Cheers!

 

[articulett]

Thank you for your last two posts, they are very clear and to the point, I learned a lot from them and they clarified some of my misconceptions. Thanks again. Cheers!

I agree. There are some great posters here who clarify...

The creationists (who will usually deny being creationists mind you) will use lots of words but never say anything... and ask bizarre questions that imply a point of view but don't say anything.

The OP question was weird. It really is like asking "what is the evidence of poker being non-random"? He asked for peer reviewed paper, and I provided one that both defined random and called natural selection "non-random"-- presumably this was what he was asking for. If you someone was really curious about why Dawkins et. al. were calling natural selection non-random, then their were some great answers.

I think the article I posted http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/ was very clear as to what was random (the mutation--they happen whether they are are beneficial to an organism or not... because copying isn't perfect.) And what wasn't-- the result. The male butterflies have made a comeback... they all carry the mutation... not due to "random chance"-- but because those who didn't have it, didn't survive to be born and spawn more males with the mutation.

The question then becomes, why would someone want to sum that up as random?... or even stochastic?... or in any way that isn't as clear as the article itself or the many people who posted here? Why wasn't the fact that selection is "determined" by the best replicators be the answer? What was the intent of the weird question in the OP except to affirm to Mijo that scientists are just saying evolution IS random.

Organisms evolve to adapt to whatever seeming randomness (hurricanes, thorns, predators, meteors) their environment inflicts upon them-- or they die out. The environment is the elimination rounds--the sieve--the "process"-- the game. The information (DNA) must build replicators that copy them (perfectly or not) to stay in the game. Changes in the information might be random... BUT nwhat survives to make more copies of that information is NOT. I think this is really important and valuable information that anyone who want to convey any understanding about evolution must be able to communicate. I think this information is the key to the "aha" of understanding how seeming design and complexity comes about without a designer.

That's why I think mijo is a creationist... he asks the same loaded questions or talks the same tangential way and shows no curiosity to having his questions answered or understanding new developments. He insults those who go out of their way to clarify the information for him. And he just cannot or will not convey evolution that illustrates the seeming design of what we see. It looks like the butterflies must have known to mutate to protect themselves from the parasite. But that is not what happened. One of them got a beneficial mutation... and we don't know how many such mutations there are or if some would have been better... but the mutation allowed it to fend of a parasite... and that mutation allowed the descendants of the first mutant to produce progeny that are responsible for the butterfly comeback.

Mijo's threads tend to be a rehash of creationist arguments http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html or tangential posts to vilify those who dare to criticize religion (while claiming he is not a creationist or a religionist lest someone question his motives and blustery nothingness.) You get to know them after a while. They sound sort of like they are saying something, but you leave feeling like you know less than before. Unlike Ichneumonwasp. My favorite posters are not only clear-- they are inspirational... I wish I could communicate as well as them, and by reading them, I understand more and get better at conveying that understanding as well.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Or let's try this one more time with an example.

We can describe virtually everything with a probability distribution. That just shows our lack of foreknowledge. So, for instance, let's pretend that I am Roger Clemens. I throw a ball toward home plate intending to hit the outside corner low. The only way to describe what is going to happen is with a probability distribution. The ball may hit the exact mark I wanted. It may be a millimeter to the left or right. It might hit the batter in the ear. But it will not hit the moon and is very unlikely to hit the opposing team's dugout or any other number of probabilities. Why? Because Roger Clemens is good, and he limits the probabilities to a very few. That is why when we speak of Roger Clemens pitching we do not use words like "random". When probabilities are limited by a process then we speak of it as non-random. That does not mean determined. Non-random means that the probabilities have been limited. Just like loading a die. Just like natural selection.

By the way, if you're going to counter with "this example demonstrates intentionality" please replace Roger Clemens with a pitching machine. Same result (within reason, of course).

If you wish to call all things described with a probability distribution "random", then be my guest. That means virtually everything is random (since we can never know all contingencies in our very real limitations). That is not how others use the word, so it loses all meaning for any real conversation. Since others do not use that word in that way, if you decide to use it so it is incumbent on you to describe in excruciating detail every time you use that word what you are doing with it. Otherwise, the only thing you have done is throw up a road block to communication. This is the same thing that Wayne argued before and if you wish to educate people on the techincal definition of "random", then go to it. Personally, I don't see the point behind it. Why don't you just say, "We don't know how to predict things very well" and be done with it? Because that's all the word means, as you are using it.

This is exactly your problem, you seem to think that limiting one's possibilities make something non-random. By that definition, die rolling, coin tossing, card picking, and ball picking from an urn, which are all classic examples used to demonstrate probability to 12-18 year olds, are all non-random. For instance, rolling a standard six-sided die is non-random because you can't get anything smaller than 1 or larger than 6 and you can't get anything other than an integer. With respect respect to probability, it is not the limitless and/or unbiased possibilities that make a system random it is the fact that there is more that one possibility for the outcome. Now, I understand that this makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it broadens to number physical systems that could be called random but there are rules for when it necessary to use the random system and when a deterministic approximation is appropriate. For instance, if you are trying to hit a large target with a small projectile at close range (e.g., a castle wall with a boulder at 500 yards) it is perfectly acceptable to use the deterministic equations for projectile motion to calculate armature length.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is exactly your problem, you seem to think that limiting one's possibilities make something non-random. By that definition, die rolling, coin tossing, card picking, and ball picking from an urn, which are all classic examples used to demonstrate probability to 12-18 year olds, are all non-random. For instance, rolling a standard six-sided die is non-random because you can't get anything smaller than 1 or larger than 6 and you can't get anything other than an integer. With respect respect to probability, it is not the limitless and/or unbiased possibilities that make a system random it is the fact that there is more that one possibility for the outcome. Now, I understand that this makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it broadens to number physical systems that could be called random but there are rules for when it necessary to use the random system and when a deterministic approximation is appropriate. For instance, if you are trying to hit a large target with a small projectile at close range (e.g., a castle wall with a boulder at 500 yards) it is perfectly acceptable to use the deterministic equations for projectile motion to calculate armature length.

No, no, no. We aren't speaking of having limited possibilities to begin with but of limiting possibilities further. Everything occurs on some substrate, so everything has some limitations. A die roll has six possibilities. That is one of its constraints. A genome has four base pairs to work with, that is one of its contraints. Selection has nothing whatever to do with the original constraints of the system. Selection further limits the possibilities within the already existing constraints.

So, a die roll has six possibilities. A loaded die has one or two possibilities. We call the die roll result random. We call the loaded die result non-random (because of the decreased number of possibilities from its native state of six). A pitcher throws a ball. We call the throw random if it can go off in any direction possible (there are always constraints), but we call it non-random if he is good and throws it over the plate most of the time. Mutations are random, occurring within a particular substrate. But they are limited in expression over time by natural selection (only some survive). So we call that process non-random.

If there is more than one possible outcome, then everything is random from a given perspective.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No, no, no. We aren't speaking of having limited possibilities to begin with but of limiting possibilities further. Everything occurs on some substrate, so everything has some limitations. A die roll has six possibilities. That is one of its constraints. A genome has four base pairs to work with, that is one of its contraints. Selection has nothing whatever to do with the original constraints of the system. Selection further limits the possibilities within the already existing constraints.

So, a die roll has six possibilities. A loaded die has one or two possibilities. We call the die roll result random. We call the loaded die result non-random (because of the decreased number of possibilities from its native state of six). A pitcher throws a ball. We call the throw random if it can go off in any direction possible (there are always constraints), but we call it non-random if he is good and throws it over the plate most of the time. Mutations are random, occurring within a particular substrate. But they are limited in expression over time by natural selection (only some survive). So we call that process non-random.

If there is more than one possible outcome, then everything is random from a given perspective.

Perhaps you would like to explain how an unloaded die is random if "random" means, as you insist, "limitless possibilities".

Perhaps you would like to explain how the vast majority random variables are random and non-uniformly distributed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Perhaps you would like to explain how an unloaded die is random if "random" means, as you insist, "limitless possibilities".

Perhaps you would like to explain how the vast majority random variables are random and non-uniformly distributed.

I don't insist that random means "limitless possibilities". Did I say that somewhere? In fact, I said quite the opposite up above. A random die roll obviously does not have limitless possibilities. Nor does a random mutation.

We were discussing the term "non-random" which is not commonly used as a synonym for "absolutely determined". Do you wish to change the terms of the debate? I don't understand.


ETA

Thank you for your last two posts, they are very clear and to the point, I learned a lot from them and they clarified some of my misconceptions.

And I thank you and Articulett for the kind words.

 

[articulett]

Ichneumonwasp...
and I like your screename-- Darwinian cool.

See, as long as there are probabilities involved in some way-- no matter how biased or determined or oriented or directed or limited those possibilities are, Mijo is going to call it "random" because he has a need to conclude that evolution IS random though most would say that such a phrase was non-descriptive at best...and misleading at worst because it leads to the tornado in a junkyard analogy and glosses over natural selection-- the very way in which seeming design is created through time via the best replicators in the pool of entities built according to DNA (which replicates, recombines, mutates etc. regardless of whether it benefits future vectors or not.)

Behe seems incapable of describing natural selection as well and does that overly broad application of "randomness" in order to mischaracterize evolution so that it sounds implausible (unless a designer steps in, of course). Talk Origins notes that anyone who sums up evolution as "random" doesn't understand natural selection-- and I concur. To the majority of people biased and "loaded" are the opposite of random... where all probabilities are considered equally likely... but the way he defines it, every process is random and anything that contains any randomness including all matter (random electron spin) is, itself, random. Really. That's what he's saying with all his words. He's just trying to convince himself that scientists are saying that evolution is as random as the creationists imply and that it makes sense to sum up evolution as random because seemingly random things happen in the environment which affect the selection process. Like Behe, he goes out of his way to confuse a fairly simple concept.