Mindstorm wrote:
Selection is not random, because it eliminates what is locally worse and leaves what is locally better. Mutations
without selection – that would be pure randomness. Good luck finding a
biologist that would believe in such ‘evolution’.
This is a point frequently made by the evolutionarily faithful. It is also completely and utterly wrong; one need only consult a dictionary to see that it is, without question, “random” in the primary sense of the word.
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern
2. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
Evolution by natural selection absolutely fits the first definition of random. I should be very amused to see anyone attempt to claim otherwise and cite the “definite aim, reason, or pattern” involved. As for the second definition, it falls to the evolutionist to demonstrate that the probabilities of being chosen are unequal without resorting to circular logic.
That being said, I think it is fair to state that logic indicates evolution by natural selection is not a statistically random process simply because it is not credible to insist that all mutations have an equal probability of being chosen. However, it’s not consistent to make such a probability-based argument while simultaneously rejecting a more calculable probability-based argument against the occurrence of the phenomenon.
In my opinion, the correct way to describe TENS in this regard is as a random, hypothetical process that is probably not statistically random. However, it should be noted that the selection process postulated is a logical construction, and a circular one at that, and has not been reliably observed or demonstrated.