Data, Information, and all that....

Now, since that entirely and fully satisifes my question, why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of calling me names and generally carrying on like an intellectual bully?

Well, it's my understanding that the chemical reactions that occur in the body happen under the same situation - in the chemical environment of the cell, in the presence of the enzymes that are there, the chemicals react the way they do because that's the way that takes the least energy. They would have to react like that in order to preserve the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, right?Certainly a crystal is a very simple reaction compared to what is happening in cells, with DNA. Nonetheless the difference is not qualitative, it seems to me. Of course according to DNAunion I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

Just curious: By extension, when I go to the Indian casino up the road and shoot craps, does the fact that the craps roll only happens at the craps table and never in the lobby or by the Bingo games - that is to say, not "equally spacially distributed" - mean that the craps roll is nonrandom?(Ah, but of course, you're talking about DNA and not casinos. Guess I might as well say "ah" in preparation for you to jump down my throat again. Prove me wrong, maybe?)

Am I to presume that you say that simply because you don't have an answer? Because it looks that way. Why else would a simple question be responded to with ridicule?How did I know that your response would be along those lines, I wonder?

So explain how. What factors? My analogy demonstrates that when people use the word "random", they do so without reference to the spacial location of the event in question. You haven't even come close to defending your interpretation of random, yet. Oh, please.

Now I know I must be wrong - an anonymous internet poster called me an idiot! How can I possibly refute that?

Jesus it takes a lot of work to get a meaningful response from you, DNA. Why is that? Naturally, since Dawkins is the arbiter of all language. Oh, wait.Of course, all I was saying (which you might have noticed had you not flown off the handle exactly as I predicted) was that nobody who uses the word "random" in practice does so with the expectation that it always means "randomly distributed in space." So you're right, Dawkins is right, and I'm right. Mutations are random, except in space. That's still random.That's all my point has ever been.