Micaiah said:Some further things to ponder.
1. Suppose in the example above of the tossing of two coins I write down the outcomes of each on a piece of paper. I number each outcome as follows:
1. HH
2. HT
3. TH
4. TT
If I then put each piece of paper into a bag, shake up the bag and remove one piece, the chance of me getting any one of the four events is equal. However, the chance of getting a head and tail is different to getting a tail and tail, or head and head. By my definition, the first event specified is random, the second is not.
By your definition, rolling a pair of dice is random, but the sum is not. Are you sure that's a good definition of random? A sum of a pair of dice is non-random, even though each individual roll is? By the same analogy, evolution is non-random since some areas of DNA are highly conserved and are less likely to mutate than other areas. If this is the case, why don't you drop the random evolution argument.
Upvote
0