Steve Shaw

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided.

The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use. There are lots of words that have different meanings in science and general use. Ask someone if they drink alcohol and then hand them a glass of butanol. "Theory" causes a lot of problems. Must we stop talking about scientific theories so as not to confuse the public?

Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

That is getting close to a statement of faith. There is no science in it. I suggest you take a look at a couple of Uncle DaveO's posts here and here. You are very good at making categorical statements with a sort of priestly authority but back them up with little other than your own discomfort with the word random.

A while ago you said -
I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases,
to which I replied -
Really? Please provide references and examples.
I'm still waiting. Give us some science.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Given the mathematical definition of random, every time you say something like "The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution."