Yes, it is most definitely understood as a random process since some time before the modern synthesis became established, very early into the 20th century.
The only way you can have a deterministic process of the evolution of some population is if you assume unlimited carrying capacity (population numbers that can grow to infinity) and selection coefficients which are not random themselves, and that is something very unlikely for any real population.

Very intriguing.....But saying that evolution is a random process is logically wrong. Specially when we know that every cell is sophistic-ally linked and created.

Louiesan wrote:Very intriguing.....But saying that evolution is a random process is logically wrong. Specially when we know that every cell is sophistic-ally linked and created.

What turgid wibble! Evolution is random because there is stochasticity involved, even in selection, where you have a weighted probability instead of a uniform probability of higher fitness depending on genetic makeup. The stochasticity involved in mutation is also one thing you shouldn't forget.

The problem is that the word 'random' has a very different connotation in general speech, where it's taken to mean that all outcomes are equally likely. This reading of 'random' with respect to evolution is wrong. As GenesForLife has already said: instead random here should be seen as the counterpart of a deterministic system known as a 'stochastic process' where probability distributions best explain the likelihood of specific outcome, rather than them being entirely determined. It's bloody complicated, and the flexibility of the English language does not help in the slightest.

And of course, when scientists use the word 'random', what they mean in rigorous parlance, is that they regard testable natural processes as being responsible for the outcome, but lack the observational data to pin down precisely which testable natural processes, out of several well-documented possibilities, was actually responsible in the given instance at the given moment. As a direct corollary thereof, scientists do not use the word 'random' in the same sense as the all too familiar and duplicitous creationist misrepresentations of their usage. Creationists deliberately and mendaciously equate 'random' and 'chance' with 'completely haphazard and with no underlying mechanistic explanation', which is a blatant misrepresentation of the sort that they routinely deploy in their apologetic fabrications. Scientists, on the other hand, erect postulates such as "repeated applications of testable natural processes A, B, C, D and E are capable of achieving this outcome, but which of these, and in which order, is observationally unknown to us at this stage, therefore we need to model the outcome in terms of a probability distribution, based upon the known outcomes of applications of A, B, C, D and E in test setups".

Louiesan wrote:Very intriguing.....But saying that evolution is a random process is logically wrong. Specially when we know that every cell is sophistic-ally linked and created.

Right, and the hard empirical evidence for this is what, precisely? Please, point me to the relevant scientific papers supporting this assertion.

Louiesan wrote:Very intriguing.....But saying that evolution is a random process is logically wrong. Specially when we know that every cell is sophistic-ally linked and created.

I have no idea what you mean. Every cell is made with sophistry?

Calilasseia wrote:And of course, when scientists use the word 'random', what they mean in rigorous parlance, is that they regard testable natural processes as being responsible for the outcome, but lack the observational data to pin down precisely which testable natural processes, out of several well-documented possibilities, was actually responsible in the given instance at the given moment.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. This is simply not what scientists mean when they call any process and "random process". Until evolution popularizers and self-appointed internet "experts" stop loudly propagating this basic falsity about the definition, meaning, and usage of "random process", they will continue to promulgate a view of evolution that not even Darwin himself considered correct.

Oh, please, do tell me which scientists don't think testable natural processes are in operation ...

Oh, dear. Is this going to be yet ANOTHER discussion which devolves into an argument about whether Semantics controls Science and reality or not?

The factuality of Evolution is NOT dependent upon the definition of the word "random," or whether this or that person meant to use the OTHER sub-meaning.

mjpam wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:And of course, when scientists use the word 'random', what they mean in rigorous parlance, is that they regard testable natural processes as being responsible for the outcome, but lack the observational data to pin down precisely which testable natural processes, out of several well-documented possibilities, was actually responsible in the given instance at the given moment.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. This is simply not what scientists mean when they call any process and "random process". Until evolution popularizers and self-appointed internet "experts" stop loudly propagating this basic falsity about the definition, meaning, and usage of "random process", they will continue to promulgate a view of evolution that not even Darwin himself considered correct.

I certainly wouldn't expect Darwin to have considered this correct considering he was understandably ignorant of the advances in scientific methods that have been developed since his death.

Isn't it usual, when you position yourself to be debunking something, to offer substance rather than an empty claim?

Calilasseia wrote:Oh, please, do tell me which scientists don't think testable natural processes are in operation ...

Oh, please, do tell me that that is what you think I actually said. :eyeroll:

"Random", as it is used is science and by scientists, does not mean what you said it means when scientist use.

mjpam - did you read the first word of Cali's post? It says 'and' - that means he was adding to what was previously said, so your retort must be directed at those posts, surely?

Spearthrower wrote:mjpam - did you read the first word of Cali's post? It says 'and' - that means he was adding to what was previously said, so your retort must be directed at those posts, surely?

Apparently, you didn't read any other word than that, because he speicially mentions what scientists mean when they say "random", and he was patently wrong about how scientist define and use "random".

3 posts mjpam, and you still have yet to make a point.

willhud9 wrote:

mjpam wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:mjpam - did you read the first word of Cali's post? It says 'and' - that means he was adding to what was previously said, so your retort must be directed at those posts, surely?

Apparently, you didn't read any other word than that, because he speicially mentions what scientists mean when they say "random", and he was patently wrong about how scientist define and use "random".

Too which Cali asked for you to name him which scientists don't. Derp.

Not one scientist has ever used "random" in the way that Callilissea claimed that was common for scientists to use it.

Spearthrower wrote:3 posts mjpam, and you still have yet to make a point.

Your perception that I don't have a point doesn't necessarily mean that haven't already made it.

I very concisely stated what my objection Callilissea's assertions was; it really is all there in plain English.

mjpam wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:3 posts mjpam, and you still have yet to make a point.

Your perception that I don't have a point doesn't necessarily mean that haven't already made it.

I very concisely stated what my objection Callilissea's assertions was; it really is all there in plain English.

4 posts.

What I am asking for is some substance: what specifically is wrong, and why? Give some contradictory information rather than simply asserting it. That's the only means of expanding on this topic, surely?