Evolution is random! Stop saying it isn't!

This it the first paragraph of the body of my essay on Evolution and Randomness (still under construction, so constructive criticism is desired).

quote:

---

The word ”random’ can mean many things. The most common definitions, according to Wiktionary, are:

1. All outcomes being equally probable.
2. Unpredictable.
3. Lacking stastical correlation.
4. Having an apparent lack of plan, cause or reason.

In order to discern which definition is appropriate, it may be wise to look at the important feature of randomness in the case of evolution. When discussing this, evolution is often likened to Fred Hoyle’s analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747, with randomness being the reason for why this is (almost) impossible. Why is this? Let us look at the above definitions to work out why randomness is an obstacle. We are not dealing with statistics here, only one event, so the third definition isn’t applicable. As for the second definition, the tornadoes lack of “airplane-creating power” is not because it is unpredictable, as a predictable tornado wouldn’t necessarily create an aircraft - it could predictably just make a big mess. Likewise, even if the tornado had a plan or cause, a jet may not result, as the plan might be to make a something else, like a car, or the tornado could be so incompetent that even if it wanted to make a plane, it couldn’t. Thus, the reason why a flyable aircraft is so unlikely to be created from a junkyard twister is because there are so many possible outcomes, of which a functional airplane is only a small fraction. It is because there is no bias towards one arrangement of junk to another - all outcomes being equally probable - that we won’t expect to see any particular arrangement appear, when there are billions and billions of other equally likely outcomes that look nothing like a 747. Therefore, it is under this definition of randomness that evolution should be analysed.

---

I thought it was relevant to the current vein of thought.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This is apparent bias is reconcilable with the definition of random being equiprobable. After all, all combinations of the two dice are equally likely, just because of the markings we have on them, they are more likely to add to 7 than 12. The dice aren't loaded to come up as 7, there is no bias there. Just more ways to make 7 than 12.Likewise, the question I posed earlier about why mutation seems to be biased towards death and destruction rather than benefits. It is not that mutations are biased towards degradation, just that there are more ways to change an already functional protein to make it worse than there are to make it better.This can also be seen in my above essay excerpt (perhaps I should add it?). It is not that tornadoes are biased against making aircraft, just that there are many more ways for the junk to be arranged that aren't a functional aircraft.Edited by Doddy, : clarify final point.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

Yes, I will certainly mention this equivocation. Yes, I feel that myself. I felt that I needed to be able to knock out the other three definitions, but if you feel that hinders the explanation, I could just jump right to the point (maybe put the others in a footnote or something). Don't worry. We're all busy (perhaps I should be busier than I am now...). Just because I have 842 contributions since I joined in Feb this year, and am now one of the three users granted admin rights, doesn't mean that everyone has to contribute this much. Hey, you could even just write a short article, essay or just a response to a creationist claim.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

Sounds good.If you want, seeing as you appear to not have much time to post, perhaps you could set up your thread as a Great Debate? It's a better format for defending your position when you can't post often, as in a normal thread you will get swamped with posts and won't be able to respond to them all.Would you be interested in that?

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

The two relevant definitions of randomness given above (sourced from wiktionary) are:

quote:

---

1. All outcomes being equally probable.
and
4. Having an apparent lack of plan, cause or reason.

---

Dictionary.com gives the following

quote:

---

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

---

Note the different order of the definitions. American Heritage Dictionary gives:

quote:

---

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

---

So, I ask again one of the key questions of this thread. When creations express doubt that 'all this could arise by random process' or 'just assembled by chance', are they (as most evolutionists would read it) saying that the probability of this occurring is too low, or are they just retelling Paley's watchmaker argument (life can't originate without an aim or reason).And, how do you distinguish between the two?

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!