And, articulett, you decide that what I am saying is deliberately confusing and that I am advocating intelligent design, because what I say challenges the preconception that evolution is non-random. The fact is that I have provided the same definition of "random" repeatedly and you have not explained why evolution does not fit that definition. Instead, you have said that evolution is not random due to aspects of the process that are irrelevant to definition I provided.
I agree that "random" is a poor choice of words when trying to describe evolution because of the connotations that it has, but it does not mean that process of evolution is not inherently probabilistic.
As I have said before, natural selection only favors the reproduction of favorable alleles (or collections thereof); it does not guarantee that every instance of an allele (or a collection thereof) will be reproduced. This, as I understand it, is the standard formulation of natural selection; if you think that I don't understand please explain it to me instead of just telling me that I don't understand.
I don't think you should worry about what I think. And yes, I do think you are purposely promoting confusion. Your opening post suggests that you are interested in why someone would call selection non-random or even the opposite of random, and multiple descriptors were given--all of which you reject. You have no curiosity about the ways in which mutations are not truly random but an ever ready antennae for a way to link selection to randomness so that you can conclude "evolution is random"...via a long about route of probabilities and not every allele surviving. Your tortured description of evolution as random does not differentiate between the far more randomness of mutation and selection which may be influenced by random events. The problem with this way of explaining things is that it says nothing...it renders every single process random if any of it's components are random. By your definition, I cannot think of a single process that couldn't be called random. And that makes the definition useless. Moreover, it is misleading as multiple people have noted...because a process like selection or evolution are based on a series of events; whereas "random" events are associated with one time events--not connected with the past or future. You can not get the "climbing mount improbable" analogy without understanding that connectedness. You are so hung up on how random events might affect selection that you seem completely blind to the incremental effects selection has over time. You are lost in a technicality and piss the entire meaning.
You have no interest or seeming understanding of why biologists call selection "non-random" or the de-randomizer. You don't hear anyone when they tell you that random (and all your synonyms--probabilistic, stochastic, etc.) are very poor ways to convey the ratcheting of genomes through time. You admitted on the last thread that you had no idea about the changes of fossils through time, and on this one you pretty much show that you have no real idea about genomes changing through time. What you are saying isn't really wrong--just uninformative. Unclear. Obfuscating. It allows people including yourself to hear what they want to hear. And that is what makes you sound like a creationist to me. In reality, you asked a question that you didn't want the answer to--or that can't be answered simply--that shows a kind of ignorance... that is what creationists do. And then you reject all the answers and say inane things like "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random" and "we don't have enough information to determine whether evolution is random or not". This might sound like it means something. But it doesn't.
The Berkeley website, Talk Origins, and Richard Dawkins seem to have enough information to say that describing evolution as random is misleading if not wrong. The same goes for probabilistic and stochastic... it just doesn't convey any information that helps anyone understand the topic. Even the other randomites are referring to a different type of random--more akin to "without a purpose" then "diminishing probabilities". And when pressed, they reveal a much more detailed and less murky understanding of selection then anything that you post.
If you goal is to get a precise definition or understanding of evolution or to understand how selection is non-random-- you have admittedly, failed.
If your goal was to come to the conclusion that yes, evolution is random (whatever the hell that means), then you've succeeded. Just like Kleinman. And Behe. When someone suggested Meadmaker might have motives for fixating on describing evolution as random, he was adamant that wasn't the case, and went on to differentiate the details on this thread and others as to what selection was and how it builds complexity. So did Schneibster, your other advocate. When someone suggested that arguing against evolution being random was like the creationist argument, I pointed out that, it was very different. I
understand design from the bottom up. Creationists claim design from on high. Understanding evolution really truly requires an understanding of bottom up design. Even those on this thread who are calling evolution random show a strong understanding of bottom up design--the ratcheting--the pruning through time. You do not. Your "precise" definition negates it. You spend your energy trying to prove evolution random or worrying about whether I or someone else thinks you are a creationist. Why aren't you just interested in having your question answered? Or understanding evolution? Or finding a definition that others find useful and accurate and descriptive. Why are you concerned with random events like meteors and their affect on selection when you haven't got a basic understanding of selection or the time scale or why living to reproduce is the measurement for "the fittest"? You are fixated on the exceptions to the rule, when you haven't even got the rule. And you repeatedly dismiss both talk origins and the Berkeley site except when they seem to say what you want to hear. The same goes for everyone posting on this thread.
To me, it seems just like your other thread. You ask a stupid question that really can't be answered well--then insult the people who try to answer or show you why it's a bad question...and then conclude your own answer to the question--basically that "science can't answer my question". And then you insult those who question your motives.
That's exactly what a creationist does. What's the difference? If you don't want to be confused with one--try a different approach. I'm not to blame for your misleading insincere questions. You are. Otherwise, why would it possibly matter that someone out in cyberland has pegged you as a creationist? If you actually want to understand something, you might show a little more curiosity and a little less dismissiveness of all answers, the other thread, supposed "straw men", talk origins, known creationist "wedges", etc. I mean, if your goal is to truly understand evolution--you have a fantastic source here. When you insult these sources and the effort they've taken on your behalf to stick up for you, clarify your understanding, lead you to links, etc., what else is one to think?
