So why do people keep discussing it as though it were? Evolution is a
deterministic process taking place in a deterministic world. The only
"randomness" about it is in our own minds due to our inability to
completely understand, track and predict what is going on. This
randomness is epistemological and relative, and is not a real feature of
nature.

Why do I say this? The only truly random processes in nature are
quantum processes and, as far I know, this quantum randomness plays no
role in genetic mutations. Mutations are chemical and thermodynamic
phenomena taking place in the macroscopic classical world above the
quantum realm.

So evolution plays out as part of the Newtonian clockwork universe and
statements like these: "If evolution was rerun a trillion times we would
get a trillion different results" and similar ideas from Stephen Gould
are utter bullshit.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:23:39 -0400 (EDT), dkomo comcast.net>
wrote:

dkomo,

I'm afraid that I disagree with many of your assertions in this post and, of
course, your conclusions. If the foundation of thermodynamics is credible,
and I think it is, then the arrow of time is not...

In article darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo comcast.net> wrote:

Which of two simultaneous sperm cells to reach an ovum will fertilize
it, is certainly an event on a small enough scale so that quantum
randomness could occasionally play a role.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:44:55 -0400 (EDT), Virgil gmale.com>
wrote:

On May 14, 1:44

"dkomo" comcast.net> wrote in message news:g0cmbb$1o1o$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

The paradigmatic case of a 'random' cause of mutation is getting hit
by a gamma, X, or uv ray. If you truly believe that quantum randomness
is not involved in the emission or absorbtion of electromagnetic
radiation, then I think you need to reconsult whatever 'tao' you have
used as your source of quantum mechanical wisdom.

r norman wrote:

"dkomo" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g0cmbb$1o1o$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

GS: And the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists because of our ignorance,
right? You should see Prigogine's discussion of the role of irreversible
processes in the emergence of dissipative structures. It won't do you any
good, but I'm not really offering it for YOUR benefit.

On May 13, 2:23 pm, dkomo comcast.net> wrote:

I think the statement that I keep hearing is:
"Variation is random with respect to the fitness of the variation."
Or variations on this. Another statement I hear is:
"Mutations are random with respect to the functionality of the
mutation."
The idea being presented is not "determinism versus
indeterminism." The idea is: "viability versus nonviability."
In the case of Gould's "punctuated equilibrium," by contingency
he is saying that even after long periods of natural selection, the
variation that accumulates is not viable with regards to episodic
events. For example, some species of animals may have survived the KT
extinction merely because they were hibernating or migrating somewhere
else at the time of the meteor impact. The correlation between
surviving the KT event and the accumulated variations is nil.
The nautilus species may have survived because the common
ancestors of all extant nautilii were in their deep water larval state
at the time of the impact. The fact that they spend part of their time
in deep water was uncorrelated to the episodic fall of bolides. That ...