What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Walter Wayne]

...

Two guys of equal fitness are walking across the street. One gets hit by a car before having a chance to reproduce. The other reproduces. Once the random event occurs. The choice as to who can reproduce is no longer random. It is only random from the point of view before the accident...and only if you knew one was not going to be passing on their genes. Once the random event occurs, there is only one option left. The survivor is the only one with the chance to pass on genes--and as such, he is by definition the "fitter" because he's alive. Dead organisms, by definition, are the least fit. The outcome is deterministic once the random event has occurred. The same is true of evolution.

You are defining "fitter" in a circular method. The ones selected are fitter, the fitter ones are selected.

Get rid of identical people. Two individuals with identical "prey avoidance" abilities, one with better food gathering abilities. The predator could remove either from the gene pool. The one that is identical except for inferior food gathering abilities is not fitter, in any real (non-circular) sense of the word.

And arguing that a random event become determistic after it is completed is obfuscation of the terms random and determistic. That the past is set in stone is an issue of causality, not randomness.

And by the way, I wouldn't use deterministic to describe evolution either. I wouldn't use random unless I defined it beforehand. Random as it applies to mutation means that all possible mutations are equally likely to occur. This isn't exactly true, in that mutations are not completely random--but it's close enough that it doesn't confuse the concept.

Not only not exactly true, but completely untrue. The mechanisms of mutation or not as homogenous as that.

Walt

 

[Walter Wayne]

I don't think Dawkins' explanation sounds determinist at all. I think it's the best way to describe evolution. I doubt you or Mijo or Walter Wayne could convey an understanding of evolution very well to anyone who was shaky on the subject--and wondering how all the complexity we see could have come about by chance.

Any one who is told that evolution is not random will not understand evolution.

Anyone who thinks that random inputs into a determistic system results in an overall determistic process doesn't understand randomness.

It is essential to understand both the nature of the random inputs and the nature of the determistic system to figure that [ETA: if the overall system is random in a meaningful sense] out.

Walt

 

[Schneibster]

Re random: Many people insist that quantum mechanics, particularly when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is considered, is truly random. A particle physicist, however, will insist in turn that it is completely deterministic. It is not, however, in the physicist's view, important what happens in a single interaction; and each single interaction is, in fact, random, by just about any definition you care to name. The physicist insists that it is the probabilities that are determined; and they are very rigid. The mathematics are among the most rigorous and well-confirmed in all of science; the prediction made using Feynman's approach to quantum electrodynamics to calculate the probabilities of interactions between photons and electrons has been confirmed to seventeen significant figures (it's probably higher by now, too). This is far and away the most exact confirmation of the prediction of a theory in all of science.

Thermodynamics is ruled as we now know by the fluctuation theorem; but even before the FT was understood, thermodynamics was understood by philosophers to represent the ultimate deterministic outcome (2LOT: the law of entropy) of a random process (the collisions of molecules in a gas).

People who talk about entropy in information theory with respect to evolution claim that it means that order cannot arise from disorder; the exact opposite is the truth. Entropy is completely deterministic. Energy will always flow from a point of higher energy to one of lower until they are equal, if a path is open to it. If that path is convoluted, it is possible to make the energy do work while it is flowing. Order therefore arises directly from chaos in such simple machines as the steam engine. What the 2LOT says is NOT that order cannot arise from chaos; what it says is that the TOTAL order will decrease over time, no matter what else happens.

I have seen several instances of people confounding order with determinism, and chaos (randomness) with indeterminism, on this thread. It is time to clear the air. If you want to talk about genes, and living organisms interacting with their environments and each other, that is biology. But if you're going to talk about randomness, don't quote from non-authoritative sources; and understand clearly that chaos (randomness) is not the same as indeterminism. It is eminently possible for a completely deterministic system to be highly chaotic; and equally possible for a totally ordered system to have very high entropy. If you want to talk about information, and order, and chaos, and determinism, and systems theory, you best talk to a physicist; biologists are not trained in this area. That's not a knock on biologists; they know all kinds of things physicists don't. I'm just saying, when I see order vs. chaos confounded with determinism vs. indeterminism, it raises my hackles. And I see it all the time in conversations about evolution.

Physicists use "stochastic" to refer specifically to those chaotic systems that are completely deterministic. The word has spread out from there, clearly there are dictionaries that use the less precise definition of "random" for it, but let's try to keep the original meaning in mind when we use it.

It boils down to this canard which is kleinman's mantra: So, the question is... Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?

No problem, and this is why kleinman is so universally reviled; when faced with this example, he ignores it.

Chromosomes recombine at conception; two haploid gametes meet and form a diploid zygote. If a site on one chromosome of one gamete has mutated, is the chromosome of the zygote more or less complex? Clearly, if the mutation site is the locus of a protein template, then a novel protein will be expressed. Therefore, in these cases, mutation adds information, from a purely biochemical point of view.

Last but not least: I repeat that I think you have misjudged mijo. This individual knows enough physics to talk about entropy, information, order, chaos, randomness, and determinism. What he does not yet know but may understand after reading the above (and I would bet understood after my earlier treatment of much the same subject), is that these terms are highly deceptive in the mouths of biologists. I would like to see some understanding of the fact that someone exposed to an education in the physical sciences might easily make these kinds of mistakes in understanding, especially when dealing with a bunch of biologists who, quite frankly, don't appear to understand these terms any better than mijo does. Definition of randomness, indeed. Please make sure you understand what these terms mean, folks, before you misuse them some more.

Mijo, don't talk to biologists about physics; and don't try to understand biology by understanding physics, either. Both are mistakes. Biology deals with systems that show emergent behaviors that are novel from the point of view of physics. We've only gotten physicists to admit that there was anything interesting about chaos in the last thirty years; to expect them to understand what is going on in biology is a waste of time. Similarly, because of physicists' contempt for "soft sciences," engendered by precisely the kind of fuzzy terminology we've seen on this thread, there is little point in talking about physics with the biologists either; they don't want to hear physics terms like "stochastic," so what they hear instead is the "random" they think it means. Your initial mistake was confusing the two yourself; I hope I've given you some help with that.

 

[articulett]

Feynman, a physicist, had a way of communicating difficult concepts to the masses and he was well aware of "word games":

Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, ‘I think everything’s right because it’s all due to so and so, and such and such[,] do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works …’, then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences. …

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000702.html

and

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

Even astronomers understand and can define evolution as Sagan so beautifully did in his link--and as Neil Degrasse Tyson does. If conveying the concept is important (and it is presumably what this thread is about), then I think that there has been plenty of input as to the best way to describe evolution and which words should be avoided or at least defined. I don't think any single way is likely to change the mind of a creationist...but I know that Dawkins has made evolution comprehensible for many. I can't imagine any engineering explanation that manages to do the same.

Moreover, I don't think Mijo has ever been clear as to what definition of random he is using when he calls evolution random--so there can be no answer to the title of the question of his thread until that is pinned down.

And meadmaker, though a case could be made for calling sexual selection random, I don't think you are really a decent source for anyone trying to understand the specifics. From a biological perspective, Dawkins explanation is the clearest.

 

[Taffer]

It boils down to this canard which is kleinman's mantra: So, the question is... Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?

I hope it is well understood that "increasing information" is not a meaningful concept.

 

[articulett]

I hope it is well understood that "increasing information" is not a meaningful concept.

Of course not...the question itself contains ignorance--you would need to define what was meant by that term. Kleinman tries to define it from a "base pair" addition...But that is hardly the only way genomes change through time. The question is designed to provide an answer or lack of an answer that implies the scientists don't have an answer. My contention is that mijo is doing the same with his question on this thread and his other thread about discontinuous fossils.

I think that if the goal is to actually understand how evolution is not random (as the question of the OP indicates), then you ought to defer to people who are successful at explaining evolution to many. This is even more important when creationist obfuscations are involved as the original post also indicates. I'm not sure you can get a hard core creationist to understand natural selection, but younger people can grasp it pretty well. I prefer the simpler explanations-- "descent with modification", "mutation coupled with selection", "the changing frequency of alleles in populations over time"--"change through time"-- All of those are good bases from which you can clarify.

I prefer purposeless for describing evolution when that is what is meant by randomness. I think natural selection is by far the most important concept to grasp, and calling it random doesn't seem to help matters or clarify it for anyone sketchy on the subject as far as I can tell. Organisms are the vectors by which genes compete to see which ones are represented in the future. Genes don't "consciously" compete, of course...it's just that having survival or reproductive advantages or sorting with genes that have such--are how complexity arises in a given genome.

And Schneibster, neither you or anyone has given us a definition of random that involves "diminishing probabilities". It's not that biologists don't understand the word...or that some other science types are using it differently...it's that the word, itself, has too many connotations to be really useful in understanding how evolution works. Your definition involves a "sticking" factor--Mijo's does not. He asked about how evolution is non-random, and rejected all answers that showed him how evolution is not-random...because he wants to conclude it is random (or insert synonym)...but he's never provided his explanation of random. He's vague; he's saying nothing. He's not conveying anything which would supposedly address his question in regards to the creationist in the first post. Moreover, he has rejected every single explanation offered except the ones that allow him to conclude what he wanted to conclude in the first place. He does not understand selection. He avoids tough questions and by his definition, every process could be described as a random process, couldn't it? Hence it's just useless. You are filtering his explanations through your understanding and presuming that he gets it like you do.

From what I can see...he keeps boiling it down to, "science can't tell us why it's not random" or "I'm not convinced that evolution is non-random" or "we don't have enough information to decide if evolution is random or not"-- to me, everything he says is a fancier way of saying what the creationists he was trying to address are saying.

And I maintain that he did the same thing in the discontinuous fossil thread where he berated people similarly and seemed to come away with an identical conclusion of the hypothetical creationists in his opening posts.

 

[kjkent1]

Re random: Many people insist that quantum mechanics, particularly when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is considered, is truly random. A particle physicist, however, will insist in turn that it is completely deterministic. It is not, however, in the physicist's view, important what happens in a single interaction; and each single interaction is, in fact, random, by just about any definition you care to name. The physicist insists that it is the probabilities that are determined; and they are very rigid. The mathematics are among the most rigorous and well-confirmed in all of science; the prediction made using Feynman's approach to quantum electrodynamics to calculate the probabilities of interactions between photons and electrons has been confirmed to seventeen significant figures (it's probably higher by now, too). This is far and away the most exact confirmation of the prediction of a theory in all of science.

Are you suggesting that our universe's history is entirely determined in advance?

If so, then kill me now.

 

[Meadmaker]

I hope it is well understood that "increasing information" is not a meaningful concept.

Actually, according to Shannon, it is. It is, on the other hand, extraordinarily difficult to apply to problems other than sending bits across a wire.

 

[articulett]

Here is an important and beautiful thing about evolution that Mijo misses in his definition. All life forms alive right now come from a chain of successful reproducers... every single ancestor managed this feat all the way back in time for millions of years...and as we go back through time through our own ancestors, we meet up with the ancestors of all the other living things we know about along the way...

I just think it's so cool to understand this, and I can't imagine why anyone would get hung up on definitions rather than savor this fact... Darwin imagined this. We can see it--it's in the genomes.

I think that part of getting people to really understand evolution is getting them to understand how this is so. I can't imagine why anyone would get mired in definitions.

I just hope that the words that are used don't keep people from understanding the meaning of evolution--those facts...how we know them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And Schneibster, neither you or anyone has given us a definition of random that involves "diminishing probabilities". It's not that biologists don't understand the word...or that some other science types are using it differently...it's that the word, itself, has too many connotations to be really useful in understanding how evolution works. Your definition involves a "sticking" factor--Mijo's does not. He asked about how evolution is non-random, and rejected all answers that showed him how evolution is not-random...because he wants to conclude it is random (or insert synonym)...but he's never provided his explanation of random. He's vague; he's saying nothing. He's not conveying anything which would supposedly address his question in regards to the creationist in the first post. Moreover, he has rejected every single explanation offered except the ones that allow him to conclude what he wanted to conclude in the first place. He does not understand selection. He avoids tough questions and by his definition, every process could be described as a random process, couldn't it? Hence it's just useless. You are filtering his explanations through your understanding and presuming that he gets it like you do.

If you don't thing that I have provided a definition of "random", perhaps the you should check out the first two posts that I cited here (the definitions I am using are in bold red):

I specifically cited Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress because there are several posts that give dictionary definitions of "random" (#47, #49) and discuss why all but the mathematical and statistical definition do not describe evolution (#65, #69, #71, #73,
#75). I also made it quite clear that I favored "stochastic" or "probabilistic" over "random" because they have very specific definitions that avoid the common associations and therefore misinterpretations of "random" (#103, #189, #234, #252). Furthermore, I explained in great detail several times in this thread exactly why evolution is probabilistic or stochastic (#158, #230).

Yes, I see.

From the first bit of that link:
Any of these: http://www.answers.com/random&r=67

Apart from number 2 in the American heritage definitions and the wiki entry.
Yes, I see. From the first bit of that link:

ran·dom (răn'dəm) adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

Can we all agree now that evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word (i.e. 2 above), though not in the 'layman's sense' (i.e. the other definitions above)?

(emphasis in red and formatting mine)

Can we all agree now that evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word (i.e. 2 above), though not in the 'layman's sense' (i.e. the other definitions above)?

Not I.

ran·dom (răn'dəm) adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

What is the specific pattern of evolution? What is the purpose? The objective?

What is the governing design? Method? or Purpose?

Given definition 3 I would agree evolution isn't random, but then under that definition the sum of rolling two six-sided dice (2d6 in geek speak) isn't random either. (Aside, the example they give for definition 3 isn't an example of a situation "where all outcomes are equally likely either).

One might argue that the "governing method" of evolution is not replicating some genes in the next generation, but given the non-deterministic nature of that, it is still a weak argument to say evolution isn't random.

Walt

(emphasis in red and formatting mine)

The first two above provided a definition and specified which definition was preferable. They have been available since May 2nd (i.e., more than three weeks ago), were cited on the May 13th (i.e., two weeks ago) in this thread's OP as context for the discussion, and were cited twice again, once on the May 19th (i.e., about a week ago) and once today. To be fair, I was never explicit about the fact that I was using these definitions, but I thought that citing was clear enough. Nonetheless, I hope that this clears up what I mean by "random" and why (pace Schneibster) I consider "stochastic" an acceptable synonym at least in the limited context of both words' pertinence to probability.

 

[Walter Wayne]

I think that if the goal is to actually understand how evolution is not random (as the question of the OP indicates), then you ought to defer to people who are successful at explaining evolution to many. This is even more important when creationist obfuscations are involved as the original post also indicates. I'm not sure you can get a hard core creationist to understand natural selection, but younger people can grasp it pretty well. I prefer the simpler explanations-- "descent with modification", "mutation coupled with selection", "the changing frequency of alleles in populations over time"--"change through time"-- All of those are good bases from which you can clarify.

The opening post seeks to find evidence for evolution being non-random. None of which has been provided, except when it comes to the "uniform distribution" defintion. The simpler explainations you provided don't involve proclaiming evolution is non-random.

I prefer purposeless for describing evolution when that is what is meant by randomness.

What about the haphazard meaning of it. We invoke haphazard aspects of the design everytime creationists invoke the perfection of the eye or some other "miracle".

What about the unordered nature of it? Sure we do give some order to it ourselves with ideas like prey and predator, parasitic and symbiotic relationships but we always find creatures that strain our definitions. There is some order in nature, but much of it is chaotic (layman's sense).

What about how predictable it is? A million years ago could the emergence of a social, brainy upright creature have been forseen, a creature that would discuss these these concepts?

When I describe evolution as random I refer to these senses in addition to the technical one.

I think natural selection is by far the most important concept to grasp, and calling it random doesn't seem to help matters or clarify it for anyone sketchy on the subject as far as I can tell.

Natural selection is but one part of evolution. The "chain of successful reproducers" that you describe so eloquently later doesn't happen with out mutation.

Organisms are the vectors by which genes compete to see which ones are represented in the future. Genes don't "consciously" compete, of course...it's just that having survival or reproductive advantages or sorting with genes that have such--are how complexity arises in a given genome.

What arises without mutation? Genetic drift can only take you so far. Sure there is enough variation within the human genetic pool to have a lot of variation without mutation. But without the random variation no significant new lineage will arise. We'd still be bacteria without mutation.

And Schneibster, neither you or anyone has given us a definition of random that involves "diminishing probabilities". It's not that biologists don't understand the word...or that some other science types are using it differently...it's that the word, itself, has too many connotations to be really useful in understanding how evolution works.

I have been fairly specific on several definitions of random, including one which I don't think applies. People seem to understand these defintions. They talk of non-uniform probabilities being random (craps or any other casino game). They talk about disorder when they speak of a random arrangement of stones to create a wall, but they do not automatically think said wall is bound to collapse. People can handle such ideas.

Your definition involves a "sticking" factor--Mijo's does not. He asked about how evolution is non-random, and rejected all answers that showed him how evolution is not-random...because he wants to conclude it is random (or insert synonym)...but he's never provided his explanation of random. He's vague; he's saying nothing. He's not conveying anything which would supposedly address his question in regards to the creationist in the first post. Moreover, he has rejected every single explanation offered except the ones that allow him to conclude what he wanted to conclude in the first place. He does not understand selection. He avoids tough questions and by his definition, every process could be described as a random process, couldn't it? Hence it's just useless. You are filtering his explanations through your understanding and presuming that he gets it like you do.

Interesting, as it seems to me from your posts that you have resisted anything that would allow one to call evolution random. When defintions you used where countered, you didn't argue back, you just reiterated that it was non-random. You didn't directly address the points raised.

Your explainations evolution is non-random has been because "natural selection is non-random". The fact that natural selection being non-random is insufficient to make evolution non-random hasn't been addressed. And you certainly haven't established that natural selection is non-random, going so far as saying, "Once the random event occurs. The choice as to who can reproduce is no longer random." Would you accept someone saying a die-roll is non-random because once the result comes up it is the only possibility remaining?

As far as I can tell, your steadfastness in this is as much about worrying how the creationist element will react as it is to objections about the definitions of random. An element which will warp what you say no matter what words you choose.

Whatever creationists say, we owe it to students to be forthright when speaking about science and not couch the terminolgy for fear of a fringe group. People already have much of the ideas of randomness instilled in them. If we have to be specific and put more effort into teaching it, it is well worth it. To say evolution is non-random, especially in such unqualified terms as it is often done, is outright misleading. The student may end up believing they have a deeper understanding of evolution than they actually do.

Walt

 

[Schneibster]

Are you suggesting that our universe's history is entirely determined in advance?

If so, then kill me now.

You mean, of course, in terms of individual events again. And the answer is, of course not.

But in broad strokes, well, actually, it is. 13 billion years ago or so there was a big explosion, and the pieces are all flying out from it. After a trillion years or so, they'll all be too far away from each other to see each other. The End. You with me here?

 

[Taffer]

If, when you say "random" you mean "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution", then I agree that evolution is random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If, when you say "random" you mean "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution", then I agree that evolution is random.

That is exactly what I mean and only what I mean. However, I think that the definition applies equally to mutation and selection, because it has not been demonstrated that two equally fit individuals will always both survive when in direct competition for the same resources (barring other catastrophic events).

 

[Schneibster]

Whatever creationists say, we owe it to students to be forthright when speaking about science and not couch the terminolgy for fear of a fringe group. People already have much of the ideas of randomness instilled in them. If we have to be specific and put more effort into teaching it, it is well worth it. To say evolution is non-random, especially in such unqualified terms as it is often done, is outright misleading. The student may end up believing they have a deeper understanding of evolution than they actually do.

Walt

I agree, particularly when you consider the importance of the meaning of "random" (and I'd say that I left a certain group out- the mathematicians- and that their definition is the only operative one when we're talking specifically about science). The word "stochastic," and its associations with order arising out of chaos and emergence, particularly in light of the clearer understanding of what stochastic actually means given by the fluctuation theorem, needs to be used here, and creationists scoffed at when they try to use "random," and nailed to the wall when they try to use "stochastic" as if it meant "random" in the colloquial sense. Science is about terminology. The most important idea we can transmit to kids is that there are certain basic ideas that repeat themselves whenever we examine the world around us. And stochasm is one of those ideas.

Walt, I wish I'd said this. Nicely done.

 

[Taffer]

That is exactly what I mean and only what I mean. However, I think that the definition applies equally to mutation and selection, because it has not been demonstrated that two equally fit individuals will always both survive when in direct competition for the same resources (barring other catastrophic events).

Here is where I disagree, but only technically. Selection, by definition, is the opposite of random. Whether reality follows pure selection, however, is another matter...

 

[Schneibster]

That is exactly what I mean and only what I mean. However, I think that the definition applies equally to mutation and selection, because it has not been demonstrated that two equally fit individuals will always both survive when in direct competition for the same resources (barring other catastrophic events).

I don't quite see why that would have to be demonstrated. Spell it out for me, please.

 

[kjkent1]

You mean, of course, in terms of individual events again. And the answer is, of course not.

But in broad strokes, well, actually, it is. 13 billion years ago or so there was a big explosion, and the pieces are all flying out from it. After a trillion years or so, they'll all be too far away from each other to see each other. The End. You with me here?

Yes. Whew. That was close. I was afraid for a sec that had no choice in whether or not to type into this window on my laptop screen.

Night.

 

[Taffer]

Yes. Whew. That was close. I was afraid for a sec that had no choice in whether or not to type into this window on my laptop screen.

Night.

Y'know, I am not a believer in an underlying "free will" to the universe.

Colour me a determinist.

 

[articulett]

Oh my gosh--well good luck trying to get anyone to understand that definition.

Of or relating to a probability distribution means a particular probability distribution doesn't it? --that is that all outcomes are equally likely though uniformity is unlikely (which random number generators aim to do). And doesn't that definition refer to a single event or circumstance...just like a single flip of a coin in a series? The results become less and less random as possibilities are eliminated. Selection, like each subsequent coin toss, "de-randomizes" the outcome. A series of something...even random things...is not random in regard to being a series...the connection makes it non random.

And Walter, you pretty much said that mutation could not truly be described as random, didn't you? If mutations aren't truly random; then selection is even less so. I can't really even follow your point. I'm not sure what you are saying or trying to convey. I'm sorry. And I don't care so much about the words used as the notion conveyed. Use whatever words work to get someone to understand exactly what natural selection means.

Plus there is no definition of random involving diminishing probabilities. And it is not circular to define the "most fit" as the ones that survive to reproduce ...and the least fit the ones that don't. Otherwise, people anthropomorphise "fitness". This thread was about creationists supposedly looking at the complexity of this world and thinking, "I can't believe this all happened by chance". Multiple examples were given with creationists making this claim and similar claims. I maintain that saying, "well, actually it did all happen by chance" or anything like that is NOT informative. It doesn't help anyone trying to understand evolution. It is a very poor way of summing up natural selection. I don't care about what definitions or nuances you apply to it...it's just not useful for furthering understanding in any way.

Fortunately, those who think this is a great way to describe evolution or understand it, aren't in charge of teaching it...and those, such as Dawkins, who have a way with explaining difficult concepts are.

And, for the record, it doesn't sound to me like mijo understands natural selection at all--much less can he convey information about it. Was this thread supposed to be a semantic game as to how you can define things technically and still be more or less correct? Or was it about understanding evolution? I see that for mijo and others it seems to be the former, though it pretended to be the latter. I just can't imagine you "randomites" getting anyone to understand the beautiful simplicity of evolution with your semantic gymnastics. How did you come to understand evolution? You just seem so unaware of or nebulous when it comes to selection and how it builds complexity...

My vote goes to Dawkins for this one. Although order can come from chaos--life is a different type of order as Schneibster notes--it reproduces (with imperfect fidelity) and it dies--two key components of evolution. Natural selection drives the evolution of life--not "probability distributions".

Gas molecules do not reproduce and die. There is no competition or "arms race" to drive the movement of gases. So while "probability distributions" might help people understand how gases move, it is really lame for getting anyone to understand how life forms evolve.

BTW, I didn't advocate for calling evolution "non-random". I prefer "random (more or less) mutation coupled with natural selection (which is more or less non-random.) " Mijo's definition leaves out the distinction.