I think we're talking past each other. I'm not really sure what claim I made you're responding to. I was responding to this claim you made, with the context of "evolution":
> ...it is practically impossible to improve through random effects.
It's true that evolution is not aimed at a specific target. I made that point in my comment.
>Randomness doesn't improve any organism or any feature of any organism: it only improves diversity...
Here is a list of examples of beneficial mutations: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html It includes things like "adaption to high and low temperatures" and "12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment."
The claim is that random mutations can occur -- at some rate, low though it may be -- and are more likely to be kept through natural selection.
> ...it is practically impossible to improve through random effects.
It's true that evolution is not aimed at a specific target. I made that point in my comment.
>Randomness doesn't improve any organism or any feature of any organism: it only improves diversity...
Here is a list of examples of beneficial mutations: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html It includes things like "adaption to high and low temperatures" and "12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment."
The claim is that random mutations can occur -- at some rate, low though it may be -- and are more likely to be kept through natural selection.