Getting back to my original point, it's tautologous that if you attack people with random violence the first victim will be a particular person, however this person was an unfortunate victim of random violence. S/he was chosen randomly. If that person had not been there that day, it would have been someone else, because it is whoever is present that the perpetrator intends to kill. (random) In the same way natural selection will only randomly choose what it is given, whatever it is given, but of course there is not real, "selection" it's just that the traits best for survival that happen to occur, and be passed on.
That the fittest ones will survive is a tautology, it will always be true. But this doesn't remove the random nature of the scenario. So then in all possible worlds, every person on earth could be the first victim, and in all possible worlds, natural selection could have selected all possible traits.
Popoi: Random violence isn't random in every sense of the word, no.
No but something is meant by random-violence, it just means there was no particular intention for a specific victim. Obviously it goes without saying, that the decision to act violently itself is not random but that the victims are. So I was asking, is random violence, random? It is best described as random IMHO, even if the first person is a particular person, this is kind of a "pseudo-non-random" thing, in the sense that there must always be a first victim, so to say "the first victim wasn't random" is bit of a misconception. The person was decided randomly.
Popoi: Again, we're interested in the whole, not just an individual trial. If you take two steps forward on a heads and one step back on a tails, it shouldn't be a surprise that you end up walking forward over time. We wouldn't tend to describe that outcome as "random", because that generally implies some amount of unpredictability
This doesn't depict natural selection because the, "whole" is an illusion. What is selected isn't the whole, it is just the randomly selected mutations that happened to randomly occur, there are many other hypothetical mutations which didn't occur, in other worlds. That is to say, because natural selection has selected what it has selected, this does not mean it would not have selected something different had the occasion presented itself. In this way, it is a pseudo-selection. In all other possible worlds, everything would have been selected in any potential environment P. For example if malaria didn't exist, selection wouldn't have chosen a vast amount of people with sickled cells in Africa.
This next analogy is only to make you understand what I am trying to say because I know that last bit might not be entirely clear; If you say you are hungry, and you prefer a meal, and there is only one shop in town, and they have two things to eat, one peanut and one green bean, because you are hungry you take the peanut. This isn't the "whole" because in other worlds, had you been given more options you likely would have chosen something more substantial.
In the same way, what natural selection has, "chosen" in our world, only represents what was randomly sent to it. The parameters are random, so then the choice is a pseudo-selection, in that the "selection" is so weak that it only represents something very limited.
So then on any other given day if you were offered a tomato or an apple you may have taken the apple.
So the "non-random" element you argue, seems very one dimensional, limited, tenuous and inconsequential, whereas the true governing factors are largely random and very consequential. So then, what mutations you are sent, are VITAL. What then are the chances of a bird evolving a hook and barbule locking system which just so happen to be perfect for their feathers, and feathers which are perfect for flying? You scream "ahh selection wasn't random" but selection can only choose what it is sent and why would it be sent all of the just-so-happen-to-be-perfect, parts? This is the importance of my argument; that the "random" factor is much more powerful than any non-random factor, anyway.
Rational answer; It wouldn't be because mutations are random, the individuals it gives them to are random, it is just as likely a horse will receive mutations for bird-parts instead. It is just as likely that a horse will evolve feathers, and perhaps more likely given hairs have follicles and scales don't. If you look at a hair follicle and a feather follicle the structure is fairly similar, but scales are one piece, scales are shed as a skin, so the chances of a horse getting a mutation for a feather, are better than the chance of scales evolving from a mutation.
Just because I want to build a car doesn't mean that if I randomly order parts online I will be sent the specific carburetor to match another specific part. "ahh but you get to select to keep which parts", yes but that won't mean I will receive the B1956 part to go with the B1957 part.
When I also consider bats and birds, birds have a far more complicated and complex contraflow lung system but bats apparently evolved the more simple, modified bellows type lung which is basically just the ordinary lungs like we have, only smaller. Is it a coincidence that birds seem to require the mass-exchange, two-stroke, contraflow system? It seems a realistic scenario that both bats and birds would have the modified bellows type.
The problem becomes that you have to add up the coincidences and the amount of them don't match up with the random mutation scenario. If we take a particular kind of animal, like the sea-anemone dart eating slug, it is designed as a whole, to eat darts. These would perforate any usual slug, and it makes much more logical sense they were designed that way as a whole, when we see there are a variety of anatomically congruent parts that all help it to do that job. Does the bombardier beetle just happen to have the correct chemicals for example?
These things are granted to evolution, circularly, without any direct evidence to show they evolved. Essentially you ask us to on faith, believe a build up of coincidences in every creature, aren't teleological when the one thing that would solve all of these problems most parsimoniously, is teleology. After all there is no reason to suppose a car's parts all happen to be the correct ones by accident. It is identical with lifeforms, they share all of the features of intelligent design also, identically. We can show a contingency plan in a car as we can in any lifeform, we can show specified complexity, information, viability, peculiarly clever solutions to obscure problems that only exist for specific species. Therefore I must say, this strikes me as a very weak hand this mutations and selection business.