Evolution is not "a random event." Billions and trillions of events occur over millions of years. Difficult to predict due to the complexity of the system,
Trillions and billions of events...exactly...essentially you cannot say for sure...so we must assume infinite like the stars in the sky. I think infinite has more in common with random than you care to accept.
--- Back on topic ---
Evolution is partially influenced by the chaos theory or the butterfly effect or whatever...completely random choices we make influence our very own evolution. Had I not taken that right step in my high school hallway and ended up in the bathroom, I may have been shot and my existance would have ended - no more evolution on a very small scale.
It's clear to me we simply see different sides of the coin. Natural selection, is what I think you keep refering to, as it is the non-random, deliberate result of generations of evolutionary progress. Only the strong survive.
What I believe, is that (unless you believe in a higher power or divinity) the only way for change to occur in simple life forms is for something to randomly change - what triggers that event is a infinite number of variables (weather, food sources, prey, etc).
Both the requirements of randomness for adaptation to occur and the literally billions of variables which factor into the equation, IMHO make evolution a very random event.
When a species is confronted with adversity, it it given two choices: Adapt or Die. Thousands or maybe millions of species have gone extinct since the start of time. If evolution was so predictable, why didn't dinosaurs figure out how to adapt? The next step should be obvious - but because evolution is random and those adaptive changes didn't occur quick enough they died!
Evolution, I choose to believe, is a series of random changes, just like how I explain in my first post. A little genetic tweak when two different members of that species procreate and bam...you have a derivative of the parents. If those changes weren't random...why would we have mutations which cause diseases, like cancer? If it's so predictable, why would life choose bad genes?
For that reason and others, I believe that those tweaks in genes are random, at least under the context of which genes are inherited from mother and father and what positive or negative mutations occur during development in the womb. It's to my understanding, that your genes can actually mutate or adapt during your lifetime, which might be influenced by environment and other factors...in these instances...adaptation is perhaps a deliberate act.
However in saying that, I don't believe the intelligence exists at the celluar level...at least to the point required to make smart decisions on how to mutate. When an organism which is water born is suddently faced with shortage of water, the cells do not intelligently decide to change gene "A" because they know that is the gene responsible for them being water bound. Rather, the next generation will receive some form of celluar memory from it's ancestors which indicate that a change is in order. The cell mutates and begins the stage towards sure death or adaptation. Perhaps the order in which genes are changed is known (first try turning on gene A, then gene B, C, etc) but the results are clearly unknown. The idea is over hundreds of generations, the cells change random genes with each iteration. Those changes will dictate whether their kind continue or seize to exist. Again, I feel it is this random-ness which is responsible for mutations which cause disease, like cancer. It is because the cells have no way in knowing the direct results of genetic mutations which occur over the generations that result in failure or success.
I personally feel evolution is better described as a "trial and error" process...rather than "predetermine and execute" the latter of which should result in perfection...otherwise...it's trial and error. If you cannot nail an answer all the time, like you can in mathematics, is it because at least one variable is not understood...so you are going into the unknown...and I am willing to bet most would agree that the unknown is more analogous to random, than it is to ascertainable.
p.s-If it's one thing I appreciate about your replies...it is your Devils Advocate perspective. I may not always agree with you...of course that doesn't mean I think your wrong either...but being challenged to see things from another angle is always interesting and sometimes enlightening.
Cheers
