Why are you stuck on the word random? The changes are not exactly random.
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
Many variables influence the changes.
Relax, the Evolution Theory is a fact.
Good night, sleep tight.
Well, thank you for the good night, sleep tight wishes.
Absolutely, evolution theory is a fact. I mean, it is written down in different ways in loads of books, it is talked about and taught in schools, and scientists use its ideas to do all kinds of experiments. Why state the obvious? Evolution theory absolutely is a fact? But nobody has shown that evolution is a fact. And what does relaxing or not relaxing have to do with it?
From New Scientist: Evolution myths: Evolution is random:
Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but.
From Wikipedia: Natural selection:
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations.
Perhaps these writers don't know what they are talking about by using the word random. But it seems more likely that the word random is used throughout evolution ideas and evolution theory. Since it is used, it is important to define it in its use.
Roll the dice, flip a coin, or shoot some pool. Isn't the result often due to some randomness? Or is it only due to cause and effect? It's all due to cause and effect. The only random that exists is due to our inability to see/know/understand all the causes. In other words, random in science only comes from our weakness that denies us the ability to view all the causes.
For example. Science fact exists only when you can demonstrate something that is repeatable in science. And it has to be repeatable every time for the same set of circumstances. And it has to be shown that no other result can be derived from that set of circumstances.
So, how can we tell that evolution is factual? We can't duplicate all the forces involved, because we don't know them. But if we knew them, we still wouldn't even know how to measure all of them. But if we could measure all of them in the present, what does that have to do with the DNA measurements we would need from countless creatures over the thousands of years that evolution supposedly took place in the past? But even if we were able to take these DNA measurements from the distant past, we would still have to find a chain of DNA changes over thousands of years, that would provide a truly beneficial change in some creature by turning it into a better creature. If we don't find this stuff, we don't know that evolution happened. But even if we know that evolving does happen, we would need this stuff to show that evolution was a substantial reason for some of the creatures that we have. And if we found out that it was, we would still have to determine that there wasn't some form of creation or something else... just to say that evolution was how it all happened.
Not only have we not gotten to first base regarding things in the previous paragraph, but we haven't even decided where we are going to set up the baseball diamond.
To say that evolution is factual based on a bunch of creatures that look similar but different, and their fossils, without having the DNA to make this determination, is totally anti-science. Show us the proof for evolution, or stop saying that evolution is true, real, and factual. If you keep on saying that evolution is true, real, and factual, without having the stuff mentioned two paragraphs up, you are simply proving that you are not able to think, or are simply trusting what somebody else says, or are a liar.
Evolution is a hoax.
