Missed the new posts while I was typing the previous one.

Originally posted by Darkslash
Did I say it did? Jumped right into that conclusion, did we?
Only-Now did. It was more directed at him but I wasn't sure if you agreed with him since you didn't correct him, just tried to further explain his point.

Accidents of gene replication leading to abnormalities within a species leading to the increased fitness of one mutation over another leading to natural selection of the most fit... is completely random. Who can tell when, where, and if a species will end up naturally selected? That's the beauty of the theory. (Do you even know where I stand on evolution?)
Regardless of where you stand, what you said was inaccurate. Believing in evolution doesn't automatically make you an expert on it or garuntee that you understand it properly. What you're saying here is more accurate (although not entirely, I'll get to that in a moment*) but that book's disclaimer was most definitely inaccurate to imply that evolution is entirely undirected. It suggests evolution is all one big coincidence, which is incredibly misleading, since coincidence has nothing to do with it.

*Evolution works through both mutation (gene copy mistakes, I assume those were the "accidents" you were referring to) and simple genetic drift (offspring in species that reproduce sexually do not have the exact same DNA as their parents). Also, mutations or genetic drift do not always necessarily result in increased fitness. Most mutations don't have any significant effect on the animal's ability to survive at all. Of the ones that do, most have negative effects. Additionally, what's "most-fit" in one environment may not necessarily be "most-fit" in another. Sudden environmental changes can affect evolution just as much as genetic changes can.

Also, still waiting for an answer to this:
"If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out."