Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Since Mike gets concerned about his threads meandering off topic, I've created a new thread for the question above. The origin of the argument is here: viewtopic.php?t=45853&start=45#top
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 8:34 pm
The core mistake is that people sometimes confuse mutations (which are random) with natural selection (which is not random). Evolution is a process in which randomly mutated genes pass through the highly non-random sieve of natural selection.
Confusion about random/chance. Natural selection is STILL a process governed by chance. If individual A has a higher fitness than individual B it means only that A has a higher PROBABILITY of survival/reproduction than B. But if you are only talking about a single individual A vs a single individual B there is no certainty that A will survive and reproduce and B will not.
However, if we have a number of A's and a number of B's, it becomes likely that more A's will survive than B's survive. The larger that number, the more certain.
If I have four chestnut trees, A, B, C, and D and I believe there is a genetic difference in tolerance of the chestnut blight fungus I do not try to determine that by direct testing of those four trees. I have little assurance that the ones with the best genes (the fittest) will test as best. Too many other factors can make a difference when it is just an individual tree. . What I do is called a "progeny test". I cross A with B,C, and D, cross B with C and D, and cross C with D and plant a smallish population of the nuts of those six crosses (a "round robin" crossing). I then compare the results of testing those POPULATIONS. How many in each population show better blight tolerance than the average. Suppose the results were AxB, AxC, and AxD had 12/25 showing some blight tolerance but BxC, BxD, and Cxd only 7/25 showed that level of blight tolerance. From those results I would conclude that A had more of the genes for blight tolerance than B, C, and D. Suppose instead the results were AxB 14/25, AxC and AxD 8/25, BxC and BxD 8/25, CxD 6/25 I would conclude both A and B fit(ter) and C and D unfit. << and as noted elsewhere, I am involved with the effort to breed C. dentata with enough blight tolerance to again be a keystone species in the Eastern American forest >>
The two of you could argue this point forever, and there would be no factual evidence that could be provided to conclusively settle the argument for a skeptic, only interpretations, of which you might need to form a consensus definition in order to better communicate across individuals in a profession.
Would you say that on the micro-scale, evolution (the way of the universe) is entirely random, but on the macro level, it is not entirely random (or vice versa)? Is there an absolute answer to the issue? Is there a reason why you couldn't equally call evolution a "non-random" process as you could call it a "random" process? If some components of evolution are "random" and some are not, does that make evolution (as a whole) random or non-random?
The two of you could argue this point forever, and there would be no factual evidence that could be provided to conclusively settle the argument for a skeptic, only interpretations, of which you might need to form a consensus definition in order to better communicate across individuals in a profession.
You saw the sources of my post?
It's a straight scientific fact that natural selection is not random.
“Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. . . . Natural selection . . . is a non-random force, pushing towards improvement. . . . Every generation has its Darwinian failures but every individual is descended only from previous generations' successful minorities. . . . [T]here can be no going downhill - species can't get worse as a prelude to getting better. . . . There may be more than one peak.” - Richard Dawkins
... Richard Dawkins often states that Neo-Darwinism is non-random. Dawkins recently repeated this line in an interview on a Scandinavian talk show Skavlan when asked, "What is the most common misconception about Evolution?" His response was, "That it is a theory of random chance. It obviously can't be theory of random chance. If it was a theory of random chance it couldn't possibly explain why all animals and plants are so beautifully ... well designed." He goes on to say that, "[W]hat Darwin did was to discover the only known alternative to random chance which is natural selection". A few years ago he made similar comments on an Australian television show Q&A where he said, "There's random genetic variation and non-random survival and non-random reproduction". He goes on to say that, "that is quintessentially non-random".
Probably the most pervasive misunderstanding
about natural selection is that it is a chance
process.
In simplified form, evolution takes place in two
steps: mutation and natural selection (in reality,
the process is more complicated than this). In the
first step, random genetic mutations arise. These
mutations may turn out to be beneficial, detrimen-
tal, or neutral. This step is random, involves no
foresight, and does not take into account what the
organism “needs” or would benefit from. Indeed,
more mutations turn out to be detrimental than
beneficial. In the second step, mutations with
harmful effects on reproduction are filtered out by
natural selection, which acts like a sieve (Dawkins
1982). By contrast, those that have beneficial
effects on reproduction are more likely to be
passed on and increase in frequency over time.
This second step is quintessentially non-
random: some mutations make it past natural
selection’s filter precisely because they are bene-
ficial, and others fail to make it past the filter
precisely because they are harmful. This is the
opposite of randomness: it is an orderly and pre-
dictable process in which there is a logical con-
nection between the effect a mutation has and its
likelihood of making it past the filter of natural
selection. By contrast, a random process would be
unpredictable and would have no systematic con-
nection between the effects of a mutation and its
likelihood of making it into the next generation.
The problem seems to be that people some-
times confuse mutation (which is random) with
natural selection (which is not random). To make
matters worse, they may conflate one or both of
these processes with evolution, which is the out-
come of these processes (see Misunderstanding
#11 for more detail on the distinction between
evolution and natural selection).
To avoid these errors, it helps to remember that
natural selection is the nonrandom sorting of ran-
domly mutated genes. Finally, because natural
selection is not random, the process it drives –
evolution – is also not random.
The misunderstanding that natural selection is
a chance process is particularly pernicious
because of its downstream effects. It is nearly
impossible that a random, chance-driven process
could explain the complexity, utility, and apparent
purposiveness of the adaptations we see in the
biological world. As a result, falling into the erro-
neous belief that natural selection is a random
process might lead some people to reject evolu-
tion altogether on the basis of a conceptual
mistake.
His wording self-contradicts. He asks if evolution is "governed by chance."
If it's "governed," that means "directed by something". But if it's "by chance" that means "not governed by anything," or "random," or "chaotic," or "without direction," or "without regulation, restriction, intention, outcome-in-view...etc."
So which is he really asking? Is he asking if evolution is "governed," or is he asking us to suppose it happened merely "by chance"? For mere chance cannot govern. It cannot direct. To say it's "by chance" is to say that it could have been any number of other ways, and there was nothing governing the way it came to be; no intelligence, purpose or safeguards made it turn out as it did.
But if it was governed, then something or someone was regulating it, directing it, restricting it, aiming it...something like that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 8:40 pm
But if it was governed, then something or someone was regulating it, directing it, restricting it, aiming it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 8:40 pm
But if it was governed, then something or someone was regulating it, directing it, restricting it, aiming it.
Maybe.
I'm just pointing out the meaning of the words you chose to quote. To say that something is "governed" is necessarily to imply more than a "maybe" about that; you'd have to be saying it was a "yes." Otherwise, there's no possibility of evolution being "governed." You'd be of the Theistic Evolution camp, then.
So maybe you want to reword you question: "chance" cannot "govern." Whatever else it can do, it cannot do that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 8:40 pm
But if it was governed, then something or someone was regulating it, directing it, restricting it, aiming it.
Maybe.
I'm just pointing out the meaning of the words you chose to quote. To say that something is "governed" is necessarily to imply more than a "maybe" about that; you'd have to be saying it was a "yes." Otherwise, there's no possibility of evolution being "governed." You'd be of the Theistic Evolution camp, then.
So maybe you want to reword you question: "chance" cannot "govern." Whatever else it can do, it cannot do that.
I didn't use the term "govern". You and Mike did. You used the word "someone" (which I highlighted in red), to which I said "maybe."
I'm just pointing out the meaning of the words you chose to quote. To say that something is "governed" is necessarily to imply more than a "maybe" about that; you'd have to be saying it was a "yes." Otherwise, there's no possibility of evolution being "governed." You'd be of the Theistic Evolution camp, then.
So maybe you want to reword you question: "chance" cannot "govern." Whatever else it can do, it cannot do that.
I didn't use the term "govern". You and Mike did. You used the word "someone" (which I highlighted in red), to which I said "maybe."
No, it wasn't yours originally...you're right. As I said above, it was quoted by you, in the first post; and originally, it was Mike's. But the point is still important...the minute one says "govern" one is implying "not chance."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 11:25 pm
I'm just pointing out the meaning of the words you chose to quote. To say that something is "governed" is necessarily to imply more than a "maybe" about that; you'd have to be saying it was a "yes." Otherwise, there's no possibility of evolution being "governed." You'd be of the Theistic Evolution camp, then.
So maybe you want to reword you question: "chance" cannot "govern." Whatever else it can do, it cannot do that.
I didn't use the term "govern". You and Mike did. You used the word "someone" (which I highlighted in red), to which I said "maybe."
No, it wasn't yours originally...you're right. As I said above, it was quoted by you, in the first post; and originally, it was Mike's. But the point is still important...the minute one says "govern" one is implying "not chance."
I assume that what Mike means by the words "governed by chance." is to essentially say that evolution is not "governed" at all. You're correct, it's an oxymoron and ultimately not a logically consistent statement. It's like someone asking what kind of government do people have under "anarchy" and someone replying that when there is "anarchy," it is "governed" by "anarchy", meaning that it's not "governed" by a government but by whatever forces of nature that move people en masse when there is no government. I assume what Mike means to say is that he believes evolution is "governed" by whatever natural forces take hold and shape evolution's path or direction.
NOTE: I don't think evolution is completely random; however, there seems to be a random component in it, which is mutation. However, one might be able to say that mutation is ultimately "governed" by natural forces that cause something to mutate in a particular way, but something is not going to mutate into just anything and everything. It's going to mutate according to what the code of DNA produces when its sequence is altered in a specific way.
When most scientists today use the term "chance" in a broad sense, they generally mean that something may not be designed by a conscious being who directs the overall interactions of the world in a specific way. When Evolutionary Theists use the word "chance" they mean it's not governed at all by anything but purely random, uncalculable, or unforeseeable events, that only something conscious called God can cause things to mutate in specific calculable ways. But of course, the word "God" tends to imply various ideals of how people veiw "God". Most people seem to view God as a human being, with human emotions and concerns. So when an Evolutionary theist uses the word "God", they are using it in a way that is not necessarily neutral to human interpretation.
