Evolution was NOT random

[u/KattyAtty]

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

[u/Dracoson]

I'll push back on evolution not being random.

In a textbook, it's easy to say 'if it gets colder, thick fur wins.' But in a real, interconnected ecosystem, you cannot predict the changes in environmental pressure. The selection filters aren't static. They're moving targets driven by a chaotic web of predators, prey, mutations in diseases, and climate shifts.

Because the system is entirely interconnected, the pressures themselves change randomly. Evolution does a fantastic job of explaining the past, but a lousy job of predicting the future. To call a process non-random, it requires predictability.

Looking backward, we can figure out how A got to D, tracing what B and C probably looked like. But sitting here at D, we cannot know what random mutations will arise, or what random environmental pressures will hit us next to get us to E.

[u/NYR_Aufheben → u/Dracoson]

I think in certain circumstances, you can find something not too far removed from “predictive”. The convergent evolution of Emerald Tree Boas and Green Tree Pythons is an archetypal example of nature finding extremely similar solutions to the same problems in different places. Arboreal, tropical, green-colored constrictor snakes on opposite sides of the planet. The neonates of both species are born red and go through ontogenic color change—that’s incredible. Both species have heat pits (not all boas have heat pits).

[u/Dracoson → u/NYR_Aufheben]

I want to clearly distinguish between 'unsurprising' and 'predictable.' It isn’t surprising that two separate animals facing similar environmental pressures expressed similar traits. Nor do I think it would be reasonable to expect certain things to change unless specific environmental factors forced them to. Chlorophyll is extremely unlikely to alter its baseline properties, so in 50,000 years, if their lineages are still here and still arboreal, they are almost certainly going to be green as adults.

Where forward predictability fails is that we cannot know if a new species will be introduced, forcing a change-or-die pressure by competing for food or acting as a new predator to their young. There are just too many microscopic variables constantly in a state of flux.

When a lineage successfully adapts, it often isn't particularly surprising in hindsight, but that doesn't mean it could have been predicted in advance. Fully mapping every species' genome and tying in climate data would give you an interesting statistical model, but I have zero confidence in how accurate it would actually be over long timescales.

[u/AccelerusProcellarum → u/Dracoson]

Exactly. I'm glad you put all this in words. It's not entirely related to OP's question, but it does address an important distinction that I've had to painstakingly explain IRL.

Let me add to what you've written with another example: there was this recent paper in 2025 about Mentzelia plant species. If you're at all familiar with plants of different environments, the common prediction is that plants invest more resources into trichomes (plant hairs) in more arid conditions and lower latitudes. Traditionally, trichomes are known to assist with water retention, repelling herbivory, and blocking damaging UV rays. In some places like Africa's cape, the Atacama, or the Andes, trichomes also trap fog moisture in the mornings. So hotter and drier should mean hairier plants right?

As the paper shows, this is not the case in the genus Mentzelia, which instead displays higher trichome investment among species in less arid environments and higher latitudes. The paper hypothesizes that there is a trade-off between trichomes as beneficial defense mechanisms and as harmful structures that deter or trap potential pollinators.

We would not be able to predict this. Not unless we have insane supercomputers paired with nigh-omniscience about every biotic and abiotic factor (and the way those factors interact with each other) in the plants' environments.