You are wrong AND you are a spelling nazi (not very popular on Free Republic)
You are attempting to argue based upon false definitions.
So the Dictionary and Thesaurus provide false definitions - what is the source of your supporting evidence - oh wait, you have not provided any evidence.
The pattern has been explained.
That is not true - you have not defined the pattern.
Your rebuttal that a pattern requires design or deliberate intent is false
I never used either of those words in this exchange - you are again making up "facts" as you go along. Deliberate was your word and nobody mention anything about design. You Darwinist Reactionaries are really funny - my position has nothing to do with design. My position is Natural Selection is random (try reading the thread next time) Your position is the dictionary and thesaurus is wrong and Natural Selection is not random (if it is not random than it has a aim, reason, or pattern - Natural Selection does not). Not one Darwinist is willing to try and define this "non-random" pattern. I have made no rebuttal because Darwinist can't answer the question. The best I have heard is a variation on "it just is" - that is not a pattern.
With Darwinism, all things spring forth from the random. I think you really don't understand the underlying philosophy of neo-Darwinism of which you are a defender.