Replies

Woh, woh you took my jelly bean analogy WAY beyond its intended bounds. The only thing I was using it for was to illustrate a non-random selection scheme ("DRAW FIVE") from a random source ("throw any number of reds in greens in a bucket"), giving a random result--my analogy goes no further and is not intended to. Don't read in anything more than that. Of course reds and greens would change if it were an evolutionary analogy--but it's not. It's not a generational analogy of any kind. It's only an analogy to non-random selection from a random source.

The overall RESULTS of evolution are random. That is the only thing I've been trying to say in this discussion. Natural selection is NON-random--we agree. The most reproductively able will dominate the evolutionary path. So what. The selection process is non-random but the initial traits from which we choose ARE random. Therefore the overall evolutionary process is random.

Do you believe if life were removed from the earth and the evolutionary process began again from the simplest organism that evolution would proceed in such a manner as to produce the identical organisms that populate the earth now? Non-random evolution forces that conclusion.

"It's only an analogy to non-random selection from a random source."

But it wasn't a nonrandom selection, it was entirely random. You took every jellybean you picked up, regardless of whether it was red or green. The colors made absolutely no difference as to which ones were selected.

"The overall RESULTS of evolution are random."

Not of natural selection. Natural selection makes sure that not just any organism survives to reproduce. It's not to say there aren't random elements involved; a freak accident can kill the fittest individual. What's important is that every individual is unique; the probability of that one individual survives to reproduce is not the same as any other's. Those that survive to reproduce do not do so at random; far from it.

"The most reproductively able will dominate the evolutionary path. So what."

It matters to who lives and who dies.

"The selection process is non-random but the initial traits from which we choose ARE random. Therefore the overall evolutionary process is random."

There is an element of randomness, but that is not the most important element.

"Do you believe if life were removed from the earth and the evolutionary process began again from the simplest organism that evolution would proceed in such a manner as to produce the identical organisms that populate the earth now?"

No, but that doesn't mean that the evolutionary process is random. It means it's contingent on what happened before it; it means the end is not predictable. That is not the same as being random. In fact, if it were random, it would be more predictable.

The selection process is non-random but the initial traits from which we choose ARE random. Therefore the overall evolutionary process is random.

This is nonsense at face value. There are many kinds of processes with random inputs and non-random outcomes. A casino can operate just fine with a completely random source for its various games. The more perfectly random, the more predictable the outcome.

In evolution it is selection that shapes outcomes, not the source of variation.