[gondramB]

>>Nor has anyone responded to the fact that evolution is an example of learning, and is neither random nor, in the strictest sense, unintelligent.<<

In physics we run into people all the time who don’t understand the difference between chaotic versus macroscopically random.

One of the best analogies was by a professor at Georgia Tech they call “The evangelist of Chaos” who wrote an early paper “How Random is a Coin Flip.” People who don’t understand it any other way can often get that a coin flip is random in a way the number of heads in a billion flips is not.

[bvw]

What did YOU understand that Georgia Tech Professor to mean by the word "random"? And what is the definition of "chaotic randomness"? And just to be certain -- when you say "macroscopic randomness" I understand you to mean that there is a set of individual events which is very large and we observe and derive some single summarizing measure of randomness. Of course, then we'd need to know what YOU mean by randomness.

BTW, js has made a claim that is foolish, and not deserving of a response. It is NOT a fact that evolution is an example of learning. It may be a posited for the sake of discussion that there are some aspects of learning that are evolutionary, but it is unhelpful to make such a nonsense assertion that "as a fact evolution is an example of learning". I mean, what the heck does that statement mean?

And the coda to js's statement "is neither random nor, in the strictest sense, unintelligent.": how is that even parsed, much less understandable?

Of course it does explain why it draws responses with further gibberish.