The "intelligence" of evolution

[blackllotus]

My purpose with this topic is to address a common question raised by critics of evolution. The point raised is that while we may have observed microevolution (small changes within a species), we still have yet to observe macroevolution (development of a new species). The argument is that there is no indication that microevolution can lead to macroevolution and, therefore, we cannot assume that evolution can actually create new species.

I believe that one of the major misconceptions that leads to claims like this is the idea that evolution is "random", which is completely wrong. While individual mutations may be "random" (as far as we are concerned), the overall process of evolution has decision making capabilities. Individuals with unfavorable mutations are less likely to survive, while those with favorable mutations are more likely to survive. The fact that evolution can favor individuals among the random mutations shows that it is not completely random, and, therefore, has an intelligence greater than 0 (possibly still very close to 0).

If the process of evolution does indeed have "intelligence" then doesn't this imply that macroevolution can occur? The fact that evolution is not random means that in the overall scheme of things, it will make "progress". Shouldn't continuous "progress" eventually lead to macroevolution? Thoughts?

 

[oynaz]

"The point raised is that while we may have observed microevolution (small changes within a species), we still have yet to observe macroevolution (development of a new species)."

Wrong. This has been observed countless times with vira and bacteria.

Need something bigger? Take dogs. Very small and very large dogs are unable to have puppies with each other, and as such re well on their way to be different species.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


I think your choice of terminology my prove more of a problem than what you are saying.

Words/phrases like "intelligence" and "decision making capability" cary a great deal of baggage around with them - the implication of a conscious mind, for instance - which is quite clearly not what you have in mind.


I agree completely with what you clearly intend to say, and my only surprise is that (apart from a few Creationists) anybody would regard it as contentious at all, in principal.

By definition, macroevolution is something that takes place over an extended timescale. Of course we have no observed the evolution of an entirelynew species through our binoculars during a field trip. The world is full of things for which we have cogent indirect evidence, and accept; but have not directly experienced. Gerge Bush is a good example - I do not dopubt his existance even though I have only "seen" him on television, n ot in the flesh.


Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment potentially has "intelligence" in the sense you are using the term; and in this sense evolution clearly does have "intelligence"




Peter

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: blackllotusI believe that one of the major misconceptions that leads to claims like this is the idea that evolution is "random", which is completely wrong. While individual mutations may be "random" (as far as we are concerned), the overall process of evolution has decision making capabilities.

If the process of evolution does indeed have "intelligence" then doesn't this imply that macroevolution can occur? The fact that evolution is not random means that in the overall scheme of things, it will make "progress". Shouldn't continuous "progress" eventually lead to macroevolution? Thoughts?

Within evolutionary theories (normally) evolution is a random process. It does not posess intelligence or decision making capabilities. Random doesn't mean you can't say anything about something. Look up the definition of a random process. Your statement that non-randomness imples that "something can happen" or that something will make progress is an absurdity; for instance "crabs walk sideways" is a non-random theory which does not imply that crabs progress forwards or that crabs can fly in the air. Be exact when you make statements and arguments.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Within evolutionary theories (normally) evolution is a random process.
It does not posess intelligence or decision making capabilities. Random doesn't mean you can't say anything about something.

If something is random then it will tend to not develop order. Evolution naturally develops order, so it is not random.

Originally posted by: CSMR
Your statement that non-randomness imples that "something can happen" or that something will make progress is an absurdity;

Non-randomness implies some sort of order within a system.

Originally posted by: CSMR
for instance "crabs walk sideways" is a non-random theory which does not imply that crabs progress forwards or that crabs can fly in the air.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Macroevolution can be caused by a culmination of microevolutions within a species. My point with the "intelligence" of the process of evolution was to show that, given that evolution tends toward greater order within life (better adapted species being more ordered than worse adapted or "unstable" species), macroevolution is inevitable given enough time.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CSMR
It does not posess intelligence or decision making capabilities.

Maybe you are confusing "intelligence" with "ability to think". Something does not have to think to be able to make decisions (bacteria, for example). In this case, I am using "intelligence" very broadly to include any process that is non-random (can make "decisions" albeit in a very different way from which we make decisions). Admittedly, if we were to measure the intelligence of evolution it would probably be near zero (however, evolution is quickening exponentially so in that sense it is getting "smarter").

 

[CSMR]

If you mean "non-random" by intelligent and decision-making you should say non-random because intelligent and decision have their own meanings. Many evolotionary theories describe evolution as a random process. These theories are mathematical in nature and random process is a very definite term. A random process is a random variable which maps a state space into functions of time. Look up "random variable". The theories are particularly interested in what can be said about the random process eventually with high probability, as time tends to infinity. Whether it comes to posess "order" depends on what is meant by that term and possibly on the initial conditions of the model.

 

[darkhorror]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: CSMR
Within evolutionary theories (normally) evolution is a random process.
It does not posess intelligence or decision making capabilities. Random doesn't mean you can't say anything about something.

If something is random then it will tend to not develop order. Evolution naturally develops order, so it is not random.

Originally posted by: CSMR
Your statement that non-randomness imples that "something can happen" or that something will make progress is an absurdity;

Non-randomness implies some sort of order within a system.

Originally posted by: CSMR
for instance "crabs walk sideways" is a non-random theory which does not imply that crabs progress forwards or that crabs can fly in the air.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Macroevolution can be caused by a culmination of microevolutions within a species. My point with the "intelligence" of the process of evolution was to show that, given that evolution tends toward greater order within life (better adapted species being more ordered than worse adapted or "unstable" species), macroevolution is inevitable given enough time.

Random mutation is only a part of evolution, then there is the environment around them, how the animal does without the mutation, how it changes them,... That doesn't make it intelligent, it's just a process that isn't totally random. Also what is the "order" you are talking about?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: darkhorror
That doesn't make it intelligent, it's just a process that isn't totally random.

I think you and CSMR are focusing too much on the definition of "intelligence".

I will use pcy's definition, "Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment potentially has "intelligence" in the sense you are using the term; and in this sense evolution clearly does have "intelligence"

Originally posted by: darkhorror
Also what is the "order" you are talking about?

I am using "order" to refer to how well adapted a life form is to the environment (with the environment being volatile or "chaotic"). I consider a species poorly adapted to its environment more "chaotic" or "less-ordered" than one that is better adapted and thus less likely to die/evolve further.

 

[darkhorror]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: darkhorror
That doesn't make it intelligent, it's just a process that isn't totally random.

I think you and CSMR are focusing too much on the definition of "intelligence".

I will use pcy's definition, "Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment potentially has "intelligence" in the sense you are using the term; and in this sense evolution clearly does have "intelligence"

Originally posted by: darkhorror
Also what is the "order" you are talking about?

I am using "order" to refer to how well adapted a life form is to the environment (with the environment being volatile or "chaotic"). I consider a species poorly adapted to its environment more "chaotic" or "less-ordered" than one that is better adapted and thus less likely to die/evolve further.

Take life form from an environment that it is ordered to, and see a change in environment. Then say that the life form is poorly adapted to it's new environment that would mean that even though it's the same life form it is no loger ordered. Seems it would just depend on what enviroment it is in to know if the life form is ordered or not.

I don't really like how you are using intelligence, you use a know word with certain meaning. Then give it your own deffinition making it something different. So I can say that the process is intelligent but I can just as easily say the process is not intelligent. Both would be correct, it would simply depend on what definition you use. You need to use new wording to make things clear.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


There is an important and intererestion question here, and I'd like to discuss it.

But I'm far less interested in the semantics and terminology: I said in my first post that I thought that the terminology might prove contentious, and tried to pre-empt that problem. Fat chance, it seems.

So I guess I'll have to try to sort out the semantics in order to return to the actual discussion in due course. Sigh.


I said:

Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment, potentially has "intelligence"

and I'd like to stick with this idea. It's not a definition of intelligence, but a slight broadining of the term to allow evolution to exhibit intelligence. I find the extension intuitive, and consistant with what blackllotus was clearly trying to ask in his original post.

Note that I said: potentially has "intelligence". The point I'm making here is that we should define "intelligence" so as to allow a process to exhibit "intelligence", in principle; and then look at what actually happens in order to decide whether a particular process is in fact intelligent.


I think evolution is intelligent. Others may not. That's the topic I thought we were trying to discuss.



It's important to define terms when discussing such complex, abstract issues; but therein lies a trap. We could end up discussing the terminology, rather than the issue. I see it happen in thread after thread. Pointless...


It's very easy to demand that people define their terms, and then try to attack the fundamantal arguement by nit-picking the definionitions. Easy... but totally counter-productive.



The process of evolution is not random, but it has random elements. It comprises a decision making propcess (selection) applied to the biodiversity within a species cased by random mutation and genetic effects. The result is order, and development that looks as if it might have been planned in advance by a conscious mind - though that's not what I believe.

We all know what order is - I hope. Defining it is harder. Featherless Biped...

I think that when blackllotus said:
"I am using "order" to refer to how well adapted a life form is to the environment"
he produced a robust description which was not intended as a definition and should not be used as one.

Ultimately "order" means anthinbg that is not completely random. I think we should consider the phrase "well ordered". It clearly means a lot more than neatly organized, or having repeating features which make it capable of macro-description. The concept of "fit for purpose" exists here, which in turn means that the order of an orgainism or a process must be judged in the context of the environment in which it developed and exists. That includes the possibility that the environment itself may be volatile, with the result that the order we are looking for might best be judged by it's capability for self modification - i.e the ability to adapt to a changing environment.


You see... I'm trying to tie the teminology back to the real topic. Adaptability is a feature we associate strongly with intelligence, and self modification is a key characteristic of an advanced mind - we call it learning ability.


The whole point of this thread is the idea that evolution itself, on a totally different timescale, and with nothing like the efficiency of a human mind, does exhiobit those characteristics.



So could we please discuss the meat...




Peter

 

[CSMR]

You don't want to discuss words, and yet you are very insistent on using two particular words in non-standard and undefined ways: intelligence and randomness. The usual meanings being inapplicable, if you want to alter the meanings in order to say something effectively you should say what these new meanings are. All we know about intelligence now is that inert things are not intelligent. We do not know whether a bean-bag for instance is intelligent. We know nothing about "random" except in relation to "order" and "order" itself has been giving two quite different meanings.

Intelligence:
What do you mean when you say evolution or any process has intelligence. This is a very unusual thing to say. Does it understand something?

Randomness:
Please look up the idea of a random variable which lies behind the mathematical formulations of evolution that you are referring to. The description of all variables in each period is a random process. The mapping from one period to the next is a random function. If you want to use some other notion of random than is used in the theory please say what it is. (Using your understanding of order it seems random means unfit for a purpose but I doubt you really meant to use the word in this way.)

Order:
I would understand order as the intelligible structure of a thing. I woudn't include the idea of purpose in it, but if you want to say that evolution produces things that are fit for survival in a changing environment that would often be correct.

It is not counterproductive to attack an argument by criticizing definitions. These underly the argument. In fact I criticized all parts of the argument, the use of terms and the actual argument. There was nothing in the OP which I did not have some criticism of and such criticism can be useful (if it is understood) because wrong arguments and confused notions are not good.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


Dear me.


Are you really saying you do not understand what blackllotus or I are suggesting...

The purpose of words is to enable communication. Where they are genuinely unclear or ambiguous we do indeed have to establish their meaning. But I don't want to discuss words more than necessary. I see thread after thread here spoilt by needless nit-picking when the ideas people are trying to communicate are perfectly clear.


Actually, I have not tried to introduce a non-standard meaning for either "intelligence" or "random".

For "intelligence" I picked up on what blackllotus clearly intended. In fact, the formal definintions of intellignece are independant of the underlying physical processess that support it, and address only the key issue of processing data or reponding to information/stimulii/environmnet, possibly by means of self modification. These defiinitions implicitely admit to the idea that a process (such as Evolution) might exibit intelligence. We are not talking about human intelligence or sentient beings here - that's far more restrictive. I merely felt that some people might find this broad, abstract, but technically correct, use of the word "intelligence" counter-intuitive (and this has indeed happend); so I tried to make it explicit, mainly in order to establish that no implication of a self-consious mind vested in a physical brain was involved, and thus pre-empt un-necessary semantic discussion.

I actually said was:
Any process that reacts to information, or to its environment, potentially has "intelligence"
with the clear implication that Evolution (a process) might exhibit intelligence. The key word in "potentially" - we would decide whether or not intelligence was present by examining the actual behaviour and results of the process.


I can find no point where I suggested an inert object had intelligence. A process may be abstarct, but that does not make it inert. Consider Aunt Hillary - the intillegent Ant Hill in Goedel Escher Bach (Douglas Hofstadter) - where the intelligence stems from the state of the structure and order in the way the individual ants are organized and interact as a response to external stimulii. The Ant Hill itself may be a fixed physuical object, and is in fact only the physical embodyment of the extended organism (the entire ant colony) where the intillegence rests. In the same way, when I say that you are intilligent I am not referring to you physical body but to your mind - an abstact construct comprising many, complex processes, and vested in your brain.


My only used the word "random" three times. In these two sentances:
The process of evolution is not random, but it has random elements. It comprises a decision making propcess (selection) applied to the biodiversity within a species cased by random mutation and genetic effects.
and this one:
Ultimately "order" means anthinbg that is not completely random
I'm completely mystified as to why you think this is a special and abnormal use of the word random, or of order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
The word random is used to express lack of purpose, cause, order or predictability in non-scientific parlance.


It is not necessarily counter-productive to attack an argument by criticizing definitions. I never said it was. I did suggest it was potentially conter-productive in this paragraph:
It's very easy to demand that people define their terms, and then try to attack the fundamantal arguement by nit-picking the definionitions. Easy... but totally counter-productive.

It's a trick I see repeated time after time on forums - someone tries to disprove someone else's point by atacking a detail of the symantics on which the broad discussion does not depend, often after first demanding that they provide an un-necessarily precise definition of some term. Since no semantic metalanguage can exist, compllete 100% watertight definitions of terms are not achievable, which is why this totally dishonest (intellectually dishonest) tactic is so effective.

I was not aware that I accused any specic person of doing this.



Peter

 

[Pulsar]

Evolution is not intelligent in any sense of the word.

The semantics you need to look for are "cause and effect".

I.e., creature A randomly grows some webbing between it's fingers, allowing it to swim faster. In turn, this allows it to reach it's mates more quickly. It procreates more, and it's children also have the same advantage, and so on.

There is no intelligence. There is a random occurrence then a cause and effect.

You can NOT simply redefine words. Either speak specifically and clearly, or you will NOT get intelligent discourse on your topic.

The definition of intelligence is:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Evolution does none of those things.

From wiki:

The philosophical concept of causality, the principles of causes, or causation, the working of causes, refers to the set of all particular "causal" or "cause-and-effect" relations. A neutral definition is notoriously hard to provide since every aspect of causation has been subject to much debate. Most generally, causation is a relationship that holds between events, properties, variables, or states of affairs. Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases. It is also usually presumed that the cause chronologically precedes the effect.

Cause: Animal randomly evolves a beneficial trait.
Effect: Animal procreates more rapidly.

 

[pcy]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar

The definition of intelligence is:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

But on the macro scale that exactly what the entire Evolutionary Process does do, IMO.

Cause: Animal randomly evolves a beneficial trait.
Effect: Animal procreates more rapidly.

That's the micro scale. Intillegence is normally only preceptible if you look at the big picture.




Peter

 

[CSMR]

You have said that inert things (things that do not repsond) do not posess intelligence. But you haven't said what it means to posess intelligence. When confronted with your statement that evolution possesses intelligence, I would like to know what you mean by intelligence and can only think it must be a very curious notion. To me intelligence has to do with comprehending ideas.

There may be some indefinite common uses of random. Using these to discuss a theory which uses another notion of random has caused the misunderstanding.

I have nothing against your notion of order.

 

[imported_inspire]

Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero. We're talking so much about evolution being 'random' - do we devolution as much as evolution (I'm assuming equal weights in this question for the sake of arguement; I'm not trying to pull a fast one.)?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: inspire
Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero.

No

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: pcy

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar

The definition of intelligence is:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

But on the macro scale that exactly what the entire Evolutionary Process does do, IMO.

No, it's doesn't "reason" at all. You're not taking into account the countless random mutations that either have no effect or are detrimental to survival. It's just purely random coincidence that once in a great while a mutation results in a greater ability to reproduce. There is no "reasoning" involved.

 

[pcy]

Hi,


LsDPulsar has kindly provided us with a definition of intelligence:

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar

The definition of intelligence is:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

though I have to admit I find the word "understand" a bit difficult - OK I have (some) intelligence, and I have some ability to solve mathematical puzzles - but no-one can observe my understanding - only the puzzle solving process. We we say a dog is intillegent when it learns to catch a ball - which implies it can to some extent predict the path of the ball. No-one however, suggets that the dog understands Newton's laws of motion, or Gravitation; but we nevertheless observe the dog solving problems which involve these ideas. To my mind "understand" is too subjective, and has too many associations with human consciousness and self awareness, so I think the words "learn" and "deal with" in that definition are much preferable.


My point is that intelligence is an abstract construct which we associate with some physical object or collection of objects. My intelligence (such as it is) is associated with my body. It is an emmergant phenomenon arising aout of the structres and operation of my brain. When my body dies the processes supporting those structures and operations will cease, so the association is a strong one: but it is still an association - my intelligence is abstract and is not the same thing as my body.


Evolution seems to me to be the same. It's "body" is the biomass of the planet extending over the existance time of that collective biomass. It may also be possible to see it in terms of an individual species. The evolutionary intelligence operates by causing adaption in the speciies or total biomass in order to better suit the environment, (i.e survive). In particualr we can observe the emmergance of species that are better at adapting than earlier species, including non-genetic means of passing knowledge/skills on to offspring (education) and the ability to directly affect genetically inherited characteristics (genetic engineering).

Has this process, which we call Evolution, demonstrated the ability to learn and deal with new or trying situations? Clearly "yes" - the physical environemt on this planet has thrown wobbly after wobbly at us as the (millions of) years rolled by, and the biomass has adapted so as to survive - this planet is teaming with life.

I would say that Evolution has "learnt" about the importance of adaptability and has "learnt" how to cause the development of species with enhanced levels of adaptability.


And in my opinion the ability to learn, the ability for self modification, is the central characteristic of intelligence.




Peter

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: inspire
Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero. We're talking so much about evolution being 'random' - do we devolution as much as evolution (I'm assuming equal weights in this question for the sake of arguement; I'm not trying to pull a fast one.)?

Not entirely sure what you mean by the question, but I'll throw two things out there...

Mutations aren't entirely random, if that's what you're asking. An A is more likely to be mutated into a G than either a T or a C for instance. Given enough generations and a large population size however, one should expect to see most all possible point mutations sampled at one point or another. Larger (and perhaps more important in the evolutionary process) events such as duplications, translocations etc. are much more difficult to predict.

On another level, there are some fairly simple evolutionary scenarios whereby adoption of a more complex system (including the irreducibly complex) is easily acquired, causes a selectable advantage and is probably irreversible (as it's irreducible).

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: inspire
Question: Random, in the mathematical sense, also implies that the expected value of a random variable is equal to zero. We're talking so much about evolution being 'random' - do we devolution as much as evolution (I'm assuming equal weights in this question for the sake of arguement; I'm not trying to pull a fast one.)?

This was the basis of my original point. A random process wil not make progess. If evolution is in fact "random" then the chance that anything beyond a single celled creature could have evolved is extraordinarily low. The fact that evolution can produce creatures that have survival advantages over others shows that the process itself is not random.

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Mutations aren't entirely random, if that's what you're asking. An A is more likely to be mutated into a G than either a T or a C for instance. Given enough generations and a large population size however, one should expect to see most all possible point mutations sampled at one point or another. Larger (and perhaps more important in the evolutionary process) events such as duplications, translocations etc. are much more difficult to predict.

While individual mutations are not random, the set of mutations produced in a given offspring are random enough for our purposes.

Originally posted by: Thraxen
No, it's doesn't "reason" at all. You're not taking into account the countless random mutations that either have no effect or are detrimental to survival. It's just purely random coincidence that once in a great while a mutation results in a greater ability to reproduce. There is no "reasoning" involved.

Don't think of "reasoning" in the sense we use associated with humans. Nobody here is arguing that there is some "brain" behind evolution that "thinks" about how things are going to evolve. Instead words such as "intelligence" and "reasoning" are being used on a much more abstract level. For example, evolution has repeatedly shown us the ability to adapt to drastic climate changes. Poorly-adapted species go extinct, while those that are better adapted evolve and adjust to the new climate. This basically happens without fail and to dismiss the fact that evolution is so "reliable" (in the sense of alway producing well
adapted species) as "purely random coincidence" is just plain silly.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[Don't think of "reasoning" in the sense we use associated with humans. Nobody here is arguing that there is some "brain" behind evolution that "thinks" about how things are going to evolve. Instead words such as "intelligence" and "reasoning" are being used on a much more abstract level. For example, evolution has repeatedly shown us the ability to adapt to drastic climate changes. Poorly-adapted species go extinct, while those that are better adapted evolve and adjust to the new climate. This basically happens without fail and to dismiss the fact that evolution is so "reliable" (in the sense of alway producing well
adapted species) as "purely random coincidence" is just plain silly.

But that's exactly what is happening. If I flip your argument around I could say that the countless species that have gone extict are proof that there is no reasoning or intelligence behind it.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[Don't think of "reasoning" in the sense we use associated with humans. Nobody here is arguing that there is some "brain" behind evolution that "thinks" about how things are going to evolve. Instead words such as "intelligence" and "reasoning" are being used on a much more abstract level. For example, evolution has repeatedly shown us the ability to adapt to drastic climate changes. Poorly-adapted species go extinct, while those that are better adapted evolve and adjust to the new climate. This basically happens without fail and to dismiss the fact that evolution is so "reliable" (in the sense of alway producing well
adapted species) as "purely random coincidence" is just plain silly.

But that's exactly what is happening. If I flip your argument around I could say that the countless species that have gone extict are proof that there is no reasoning or intelligence behind it.

That really doesn't make much sense considering the whole process of weeding out the inferior species is part of what makes the process of evolution able to adapt so effectively to a constantly changing environment. It exhibits intelligence in this sense because it is constantly able to produce a pool of well adapted species that are able to survive within their own climates. When the climate changes dramatically so do the species.

Your idea of "coincidence" ties back into my original post. While any individual set of mutations may be random, the process as a whole is definately not because of the inherently non-random process of favoring certain individuals over others. For example, it is not random that a creature that is able to easily catch its prey is more likely to survive than another creature of that species that has a tough time of catching prey.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Your idea of "coincidence" ties back into my original post. While any individual set of mutations may be random, the process as a whole is definately not because of the inherently non-random process of favoring certain individuals over others. For example, it is not random that a creature that is able to easily catch its prey is more likely to survive than another creature of that species that has a tough time of catching prey.

Sorry, I simply have to disagree. How are you defining random here? I'd say that the process you just described is random. Did the predator choose to be better? Did anything choose? Nope. It's just a result of being able to survive under a given set of circumstances. Also, what is an advantage under one set of circumstances may be a detriment under another condition. And since the environment, extinction events, etc... are beyond the control of nearly all life on the planet it's just random coincidence that one species is better suited to survival over another at any given time. The conditions change and some species die while others move on. It's random.