Evolution is random! Stop saying it isn't!

This is true as far as it goes. If we assume that a population of genetically identical individuals of equal fitness gives rise to a new generation who differ only due to random mutations then the distriution of fitness in the next generation will reflect the randomness of the causative mutations.The 'non-randomness' of natural selection is principally just some obvious observations on the repercussions of certain types of mutation. Mutations which prevent the embryo from developing will not be passed on to the next generation, mutations causing sterility will not be passed on to the next generation, mutations which lead to an individual having more offspring will tend to be over represented in the next generation, mutations which lead to an individual having less offspring will tend to be under represented in the next generation.So while the initial distribution and effect of the mutations is random the set of mutations passed on to the subsequent generation and their frequency is dependent on the interaction of each particular mutation with its environment. Assuming no further mutations occur in the next generation the frequencies of mutations in the subsequent generation will not reflect the random distribution of the mutations in the previous generation.The whole system is only random to the extent that it has some random element in it.TTFN,WK

What about them? They are the ones which lead to an individual having more offspring and which will tend to be over represented in the next generation.If you accept 'random' mutation then unless you consider it impossible that DNA can change in any way which leads to an organism having increased reproductive success you must also accept that some proportion of random mutations will be beneficial.TTFN,WK

This makes no sense.Could you take a bit more time to explain your position. At the moment you are just giving glib one sentence responses to a whole lot of lengthier rebuttals, and none of your answers seem to have any actual substance or sometimes even coherence.This latest post is a good example and is similar to your response to me Which was asking about something I had already covered in my postNow you respond to Goddy with a post which doesn't address his point and doesn't even make grammatical, let alone scientific, sense.What is it about the 'instructions of DNA' that is very predictable?TTFN,WK

Thats what I assumed he meant, but that covers only the barest fraction of what DNA actually does, and it seems to have no relevance at all to randomness.TTFN,WK

I'm not sure what the benefit of repeatedly using a clearly inapplicable definition is, shouldn't there be a difference between playing Devil's advocate and playing dumb?The relevant definition is clearly along the lines of ... There is a perfectly good term for when all probabilities are equal and it is equiprobable. If I wanted to say that the distribution and effect of mutations were equiprobable then that is what I would have said, and had I said that I would clearly be lying or delusional since the most basic familiarity with molecular genetics would give the lie to both parts of the statement.TTFN,WK