Steve Shaw

You're an intelligent fellow.

Kind of you to say so. It makes a pleasant change from some of your more condescending remarks like "Read your Darwin" (I have) and "Was it a good college?" (How good would be good enough to satisfy you?). Alas, your view is not shared by Foolestroupe who I think I can now justifiably ignore.

It's always best in a debate to avoid assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like.

You choose whichever is the appropriate definition for the context. If you are talking about science, you use the scientific definition and make it clear that you are doing so.

Break free of "random" and talk biological.

Once more the voice of authority. You still, despite being asked repeatedly, fail to come up with any references or supporting evidence."This is so because I, Steve Shaw say so. Don't argue boy." You are not in school now nor are you debating with a creationist or intelligent designist.

I think I am beginning to understand your problems with "random". The intelligent design lobby are fond of saying things like "Something as complex as the eye could not possibly have arisen by chance." and fail to grasp the point that natural selection is not random as you have been very fond of telling me. Yes, I know that thank you.
As a reult, "random" has become a bogey word and must be totally expunged from the language. You seem to be unable to separate meiosis, which works on DNA, and natural selection, which works on living organisms. This is illustrated by the fact that it took me several days to get you to actually address the point I was making, which was about errors in DNA copying, and kept banging on about natural selection. For instance -

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals.

Complete non-sequitur. The last sentence has nothing to do with the first two. In fact, there is a non-sequitur between the first two sentences. There is nothing to say that a cause can't have a random result; if I flip a coin, I don't cause it to land heads (wish I could). I know, I know, two flips aren't going to be absolutely identical but if every cause is unique then this is meaningless. OK, my first flip may have "caused" the coin to land heads and my second flip may also cause it to land heads but for different reasons but there is no possibility of predicting the outcome.

The sequence is a result of causes. Really? I'm with Mrrzy - Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. At a trivial level mutations will have causes, a bit of thermal agitation, bits of the "machinery" bumping up against each other, no need for your environmental causes. They happen but are not the main story.

For all I know, you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so and you have failed to provide any evidence. You just trot out your dogma. You are turning evolution into a religion which does it no favours.