I deleted my response to Goku. Basically I believe his tactic is always the same, to basically present the speculation and conjecture of evolution theory. Also when he said statistically those traits most beneficial for survival will be selected, I believe there was nothing in my posts to suggest I would not understand that. In other words, when evolutionists start to patronise by using the "I'm teaching you evolution here" tactic, that's when I walk away.
I notice this a lot as a rhetorical device - that if a person omits certain facts and things they know, (we can't type everything), then the debater will then take the opportunity to explain those things, and this gives a false impression that the other person didn't know those things.
Now I know most evolutionists themselves aren't aware they are doing this but when people just start stating things that go without saying, because they want to present the false argument of, "you just don't understand evolution", then to be frank I am not going to hang around being insulted by people.
All of my points are strong ones - "selection" is only limited to selecting those most fit for survival, that as a "non-random" element, even if I conceded it, is only what logic calls a vacuous truth. In the very same way if there is random violence the first person to be attacked will be the first person to be attacked. (both tautologies, showing they are both weak points.) For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across. In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".
I didn't state basic things because I am looking to patronize; I stated them because it is those basic things that address the objection to evolution you raised. It really is that simple.
Yes, natural selection is selecting those most fit, and what is most fit in a given environment is non-random, and thus the end result of the process over many generations is non-random. You can call it a tautology and vacuous truth because it sounds so self-evident when phrased that way if you want. However, it is that vacuous truth that demonstrates your statement about evolution being nothing but mindless randomness is in error.
For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across. In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".
There is a fundamental error to this analogy. The problem, as Popoi explained, is that natural selection is not random selection. Natural selection doesn't take every mutation that comes along; there are standards.
I suppose that is one of those patronizing points; of course natural selection doesn't select mutations at random - white rabbits in snow-filled terrain will be selected while brown rabbits will not be selected due to camouflage (or lack thereof). While you seem capable of stating examples that are true in order to 'prove' you understand them, like the rabbit one in the other post, you also make statements like your attractive women analogy that suggest you don't always apply that understanding.
The cause in my example was that black bunnies got picked off. In another environment it would be different, that those with sickled cells wouldn't die of anemia, so they would survive. In both circumstances the true cause was something particular, but collectively you call this, "natural selection". In a way it could be called, "natural circumstances combined with mutations". But natural circumstances are randomly doled out.
This has now occurred to me - a new thought, that the natural circumstances you call "natural selection" are in fact random circumstances which are tenuously called "selection" collectively, but those circumstances themselves also occur randomly meaning natural selection is random. Malaria in that area was random, bunnies in the snow surviving was random.
Conclusion; Natural selection is random after all!
The "selection" part is referring to what is selected in a given environment irrespective of how that environment came to be. I don't play first person shooter games and I'm pretty sure this is not how they work (although I remember something like this in Metal Gear Solid where you could change your clothes to match the terrain to conceal yourself from enemies), but let's try this analogy as inspired by your bunny example. You are about to go into a specific map with a specific type of terrain; maybe it is the desert where tan and light brown colors are best for camouflage, maybe it is a forest where green and brown are good, or a tundra where white and grey are good, maybe a canyon where a mix of browns, tans, and reds are good, and so on. The map is chosen at random, and once the map is chosen you can select which colored uniform you put on. The circumstances surrounding your environment are completely random, but would you say that the selection of which uniform you take is random because the map you were forced to play on was chosen at random?