The point is that there are two possibilities for an individual of a specific phenotype with respect to the perpetuation of the phenotype. The individual can either succeed in passing its genes on to the next generation are thereby succeed in perpetuating its phenotype (or possibility of its phenotype being reformed through recombination) or it can fail to pass on its genes to the next generation and thereby fail to perpetuate its phenotype. If, on the one hand, all individuals of a given phenotype fail to pass on (or succeed in passing on) their genes to the next generation, then natural selection is a deterministic process because there are identical results (i.e., either all failures or all successes) for identical inputs (i.e., the given phenotype). If, on the other hand, some individuals of a given phenotype fail where other succeed, the natural selection is a stochastic process because there are differnt results (i.e., both failures and successes) for identical inputs (i.e., the given phenotype).
If you don't understand what I am saying, could you please point out where you stop understanding instead of calling what I am saying "gobbledy gook"?
I just think it's a very unclear way to describe natural selection. And why don't you define random and/or stochastic as others have asked.
In my hand right now is a QPB Scientific Encyclopedia. It has no listing for random by itself--although it has a listing for random event described thusly:
"
in statistics, an event that is not affected by either previous or future events. For example, if a new book is opened at random, all page numbers are equally likely". I think that is a pretty good definition from a biological stand point. It has no listing for "stochastic", and I have not seen that term in biology--though I gave an online definition of the term. You have provided no definitions of any of the terms you use and they seem to have different meanings accordingly. In actuality, book opening is not random due to the way books are built and the way people interpret "open a page at random"--I suspect you are much more likely to get a page in the middle...and one that has been opened frequently before. But that is irrelevant...as are your examples of fit things dying or lesser fit things living. Mutations are random in a similar way. Recombination is more stochastic because genes sort together along chromosomes--a fixed entity.
Science does know enough to know enough to say evolution is not "random" unless, by random, you mean purposeless-- unplanned. Dawkins' gives a much clearer explanation and your explanation sounds as convoluted as the question asked of Dawkins. It doesn't clarify anything. You pretend it's a more precise definition, but it isn't. Especially since you've never really defined the words you use. Yes there are differing probabilities as to what will survive. But just as it would be misleading to call culling of any sort a "random process", so too would it be misleading to call evolution "random" or to emphasize the word "random" (or stochastic or probabalistic) in describing it. It doesn't clarify anything. Random is the easy part. Selection through time is where creationists get stuck. Your explanation does nothing but encourage the wallowing in the mire. I maintain that no answer will work for you, because you have a need to see evolution as "random" (whatever definition you give it.) I think that you also have a need to see the fossil record as "discontinuous". I think you are playing word games to hear what you want just like all "intelligent design proponents" quoted here. You are unable to convey "natural selection" and how it builds complexity. You have a desire to conclude that science thinks that "chance alone" produced the complexity around us. That is simply a gross oversimplification of the facts.
However, if someone here thinks you've described anything particularly well or in a useful way, then I'm sure they'll speak out. Perhaps it is only I who see your words as pedantic gobbledy gook...useless...uninformative...more confusing than the question it was supposed to address.
And, as far as I'm concerned, Dawkins' explanation is much, much clearer, and addresses your supposed question much better than you have...or anyone here has. It's important to understand the general concept before getting into word games, specifics, probabilities, etc. Scientific explanation can usually be boiled down pretty simply--
I don't think there is a biologists in the world that misunderstands Dawkins' explanation, and I think his explanation explains evolution a lot better than you do. I can't tell if you understand "natural selection" or not. You seem so fixated on the probabilistic semantics that the overall idea seems to elude you. In fact, to me, you seem to be having an entirely different conversation than people with a scientific background...just like Kleinman. You hear what you want to hear and ignore anything that allows you to understand how natural selection is not random...unless you are playing fast and loose with your terms.
