Replies

"The experiments you cite don't seem to include the consideration of randomness."

There are two parts to the Theory of Evolution; the origin of new species, referred to properly as "speciation," and the engine of evolutionary change, which most, but not all, hold to be "natural selection." "Randomness" is only an issue if you discuss natural selection, it is not necessary to proving the origin of new species through evolutionary change. Contrary to what many who contest the Theory of Evolution argue, attacking the random character of mutations only undermines natural selection, it does not weaken the Theory of Evolution as explaining the origin of new species.

That having been stated, both articles can only be said to not include what you describe as the "consideration of randomness" if you insist that the controlled nature of the experiments eliminates randomness. There are two problems with this. One; there is no splicing of mutated genes to create new species done in the various experiments which means that the mutations were induced by controlled external conditions not by direct genetic manipulation. The bacterial splicing in the first article was done to test the ancestral strain's survivability in an environment free of antibiotics but containing the new resistant genes, not to create or test the evolved strains. Two; there can be no such thing as a scientific experiment without controlled conditions because scientific method requires controls to eliminate error. Since you asked for a "collection of experiments" that means you have requested scientific testing under controlled conditions. If you now argue that the controls on these experiments eliminates the consideration of randomness, which they do not since speciation was not the result of gene splicing, then you have asked for that which, by your definition, cannot be provided. But by the rules of scientific method it can and has been given.