Random selection is still natural selection right? Just that

>>8742300
>(but potentially)
Here I meant to say NOT that it potentially leads to adaptation but rather mean that it potentially could select for certain traits - by accident.

You're thinking of something called genetic drift, which is the passing of alleles down to the next generation by pure chance as opposed to being beneficial in the environment and organism lives.

Evolution is a combination of many forces, of which natural selection and drift are amongst them.

>>8742300
Natural selection specifically refers to non-random selection via survival in nature. Random selection doesn't really make sense, since random would imply nothing is being selected at all. Rare events causing certain phenotypes to be selected would still be natural selection and non-random.

>>8742384
No that is not it. I'll try explaining it better. A few individuals are removed (they die) from the population. They do not die because they are worse at surviving but because of a chance event where you cannot select for.

Is this still natural selection yes or no?

The only difficulty with my reasoning I see is that some chance events could have something that is selected for. A viral outbreak is not a random selector.

Are accidents random selectors? Maybe if they are rare enough they are.

I hope I communicated what I mean better now.

>>8742412
Setuping a killing machine, which will works on pseudorandom function in computers, seeing how fucking unrandom and unnatural will all that be.

>>8742412
This is more the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

>>8742425
So some individuals just being killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no prior warning or indication.

I would say not, it seems similar to a genetic bottleneck/founder effect. But I am not sure if there is a phrase for this kind of thing.

>implying being lucky isn't a selected trait

Well if random is part of nature then yes. Random selection tests robustness of genes.

>>8742427
That would be artificial, and depending on its actual method of killing, nonrandom.

>>8742434
>So some individuals just being killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no prior warning or indication.
Yes that is what I mean but I am unsure if there really is not something that is selected for.

A drought might be accidental and rare, but it seems likely that some traits make you better at surviving it.

I can't think of such a "wrong place at the wrong time" event. Maybe a lightning strike.