Replies

I've already mentioned that the mutation is random, and since that's what drives the actor on whom selection is taking place, then that opens up selection to be seen as random.

Also, and not to get into the theology of it, but that which survives and that which dies sometimes has nothing to do with anything other than pure chance.

Living in New Orleans this past year was counter-productive, for example. Being in Sumatra during a tsunami had nothing to do with height or left-handedness, either.

"I've already mentioned that the mutation is random, and since that's what drives the actor on whom selection is taking place, then that opens up selection to be seen as random."

And we told you that you were wrong. Selection CANNOT be random.

"Also, and not to get into the theology of it, but that which survives and that which dies sometimes has nothing to do with anything other than pure chance."

Natural selection is not *pure chance*.

"Living in New Orleans this past year was counter-productive, for example. Being in Sumatra during a tsunami had nothing to do with height or left-handedness, either."

Fitness is not a deterministic thing; it's a stochastic attribute. Natural selection is not random, but it is a stochastic process.

that opens up selection to be seen as random.

Selection is the opposite of random.

that which survives and that which dies sometimes has nothing to do with anything other than pure chance.

Sometimes. But sometimes not.

We're going through evolutionary pressures right now because of (sun caused) global warming. I live on the edge of a tree micro climate, and that edge is creeping to a point where I expect this house will be in a field in 50 years.

Granted, this property will likely be populated with existing species. But the *individual* plants will die out, and be replaced by others because of natural selection by climate.

If we had only a field grass, but no trees, there would be a condition that favored the evolution of trees, and no doubt it would happen in a few million years. This is how selection aids evolution.

Climate is only one method of selection. It can be sexual selection, cultural, predation, many things. Those are the details of evolution still being worked out.

I've already mentioned that the mutation is random, and since that's what drives the actor on whom selection is taking place, then that opens up selection to be seen as random.

Also, and not to get into the theology of it, but that which survives and that which dies sometimes has nothing to do with anything other than pure chance.

Living in New Orleans this past year was counter-productive, for example. Being in Sumatra during a tsunami had nothing to do with height or left-handedness, either.

If you had a machine that spit out spit out blocks of randomly varied shapes, and they fell into a sorter that only let square shapes through, would you really believe that the exclusive collection of squares that emerged happened randomly?

And you might be interested to learn that natural selection works on populations, not individuals. That isn't to say that a newly emerging beneficial mutation couldn't be wiped out by chance before it was able to propagate, but in the long run that won't always be the case. Also, the larger the population that shares the mutation, the less likely it is that an outside chance event will skew the selection and that simply further supports the idea that a mutation that encourages its successful spread through the population is favored. Of course, if the event is one that profoundly affects a major part of that population over time, then it may actually become the filter of natural selection itself.