Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

That's not how randomness is measured, as I explained. (I wish you would learn to read.)Here's one analysis that demonstrates a number of techniques used to assess the randomness of a few ball-based lotteries. Well, obviously. It's just another example of your general level of carelessness and cluelessness that pervades your posts. Ball-based lotteries do this too, as do the games in a Vegas casino. Careful construction of the games ensures a predictable distribution of wins and losses even though the discreet outcomes in any particular game are random (or, in the case of slot machines, pseudorandom.)

Quite so. Whereas you wrote: "If you ever heard people discussing the lottery in terms of its deterministic nature, I think you are dealing with unusual people or clairvoyants."So, is the journalist who wrote the article an "unusual person or clairvoyant", or does crashfrog's example prove that you were wrong? That was amusing.

Yes absolutely! Now you are catching on! If there was a system by which the lottery numbers were determined in advance, then it would not be random (maybe you could explain this to crashfrog-in simple words-so that he can understand it. Drawing colorful pictures might be helpful for him).There is an implied concept (called "as far as we know") that the lottery is random. They could be lying!

Which of my uses of the word "random" is confusing your bewildered little brain? Is English your first language? You just did, in the post to which I was replying. This seems more like free association than an attempt at rational thought.

Well, no. Probability equations have no term for time. If I use the lottery ball-blowers to generate next wednesday's Quick Pick drawing in advance - maybe I'm going on vacation or something - it's not any less random; I've just set up a situation where I have to be very careful about keeping that information secret to preserve the fairness of the lottery. Anybody who found out what I'd drawn in advance would have an unfair advantage over everyone else; but as long as nobody knew, the lottery wouldn't be any less random. No individual ticket would be any less likely to win than any other. There's no term for time in P(a).Contrarywise, if I weighted some of the numbered balls so that they were heavier (and thus less likely to pop up) than the others, the lottery numbers would still be random but the game would be a lot less fair.

This is indeed implied, and goes without saying. The burden of proof lies on the person who wishes to contradict everything we know.If, for example, you hypothesize that mutations are actually determined by the whims of invisible magic pixies, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

In advance of the numbers being selected you, not in advance of them being revealed, idiot! Determining them beforehand!Wow, you and Dr. A must have a great time partying together! Did you go back and re-read the silly little article you referenced to see how wrong you were? I can make you a pop-up book if you like, that the two of you can share.

So how did you determine that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness? Are you able to predict where each and every mutation will occur in every cell?

How would you do that except by blowing numbered balls, if we're talking about the numbered-ball lottery?It's frequently completely impossible to determine what you're on about, do you know that? I wish you'd make an effort to be calm, rational, and above all correct your incredible misunderstanding of almost every conceivable topic. Why do you allow yourself to be the person who knows the least about these subjects? Do you really think that's the most advantageous footing from which to argue your position?

We used to have an employee from Taiwan who was expert at getting his way by never appearing to understand anything anyone else was saying.--Percy

But it is indeed the most advantageous footing from which to argue his position. Knowledge is required to argue for the truth; but ignorance will best sustain falsehood.

Shapiro wrote; Here Dr. Shapiro seems to be in conflict with your quote below. He says what were referred to as "random accidents" are regulated biochemical systems that are a source of genetic variation . Implying the modernist theory relied on "random accidents. He also uses the term "heuristic guidance" may be operating in genome change. That indicates to me either a discovering or learning something, or proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by loosley defined rules.Dr Adequate wrote; How can random mutation be an obstacle, if it is necessary for a change in the gene or genome?
Without random mutation or as Dr. Shapiro states biochemical systems would we have evolution?

No. No no no no no.
The biochemical systems ARE THE SOURCE OF THE RANDOM MUTATIONS.
For the love of christ.

Percy writes; He then states that ..."non-random and STRICTLY deterministic are not synonymous." EMPHASIS MINE.
My interpretation is that Shapiro is saying Natural Genetic Engineering is not totally deterministic, but is determnistic to a degree. That the cells have sentience that allows some room for decisions.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

And that genetic variation is random with respect to fitness. That genetic variation includes neutral, beneficial, and detrimental mutations. Without random mutations we would lack biodiversity, that is for sure. If each species only had a set number of changes it could make through deterministic systems then there are only so many changes they can make. It would be like a phone that can only dial 5 preset phone numbers. Even worse, if those 5 preset phone numbers do not fix the situation the species finds itself in the species goes extinct.To get a better handle on what scientists mean by "random with respect to fitness" it might help to learn about the two experiments that set the foundation for this principle:1. Luria-Delbruck Fluctuation experiment2. Lederbergs' Plate Replica experimentIn both cases, beneficial mutations occurred PRIOR to the environmental challenge. IOW, the mutations conferring antibiotic or bacteriophage resistance were not informed by the presence of antibiotics or phage. Instead, these challenges selected for the pre-existing mutants.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.