[Last Visible Dog]

Natural Selection has no specific pattern, purpose, or objective - that is the definition of random. If Natural Selection is not random - it is ordered and that requires something or someone to order it. Observed patterns in randomness do not necessitate a preexisting pattern.

[null and void]

Awwwwwwww, you two are so gosh darned cute when you fight...

[Alter Kaker]

Natural Selection has no specific pattern, purpose, or objective - that is the definition of random.

You've copied and pasted the exact same language three times, and three times I've explained to you that natural selection does have specific patterns and therefore isn't random. This is now your fourth explanation.

If Natural Selection is not random - it is ordered and that requires something or someone to order it.

Wrong. That's a logical fallacy. Crystals are self-ordering, yet nobody "orders" them. Snow flakes aren't ordered either. A bird that eats less-cryptic bugs more often than it eats more-cryptic bugs is selecting without imposing a conscious order.

Observed patterns in randomness do not necessitate a preexisting pattern.

Your own definition of randomness says that you can't observe patterns in randomness, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Are you suggesting that differential survival in animals of different fitness is random?