At the time, I thought it would be interesting to discuss lotteries as a side issue, and what 'random' might mean in that context, but it was evidently a mistake. Let's concentrate on the basics.
Assuming we are determinists, the lottery itself is determined in the same way as everything else in the universe. Your buying a ticket, the draw, everything, these are all determined. There is no such thing as a random event.
You may or may not take a determinist view - after all our exchanges I still cannot tell. I think this is an important question.
You might add a capital letter to distinguish a particular example from a class of things, where both have the same name. 'Sun' to mean the nearest sun to earth, as opposed to the many other suns. You might capitalise 'Biology' if it was the name of a course. But 'Nature' with a capital is something you expect only in poetry.Universe is written in capital letter in English to the best of my knowledge, like Nature, Biology, Sun, Milky Way, Physics and so on. If I'm wrong, tell me.
When Nature adds a codon to an existing DNA chain...
This is capitalising nature because you are treating it as an agent, as if it was a person. Since DNA is part of nature, you are (literally) saying there is an agent: 'Nature' that acts on nature. Likewise:
Some renown scientists also claim that Universe evolved by natural selection.
This again presents 'Universe' as an agent. But the universe is simply 'what is'; it is 'everything'. Whatever state it is in, it is 'the universe'. Natural selection is part of the universe, not something outside it, acting on it.
You wrote 'evolution remains in the grey zone'. I have been guessing why you think that; this was one possibility. But I would rather stop guessing and have you explain clearly what you mean.When did I say evolution, or more exactly natural selection, implies any judgement? And because it doesn't, can't we judge that?
I do not want to criticise you if you are writing in a language which is not your own; I could not conduct a philosophical discussion in another language. On the other hand, a close analysis of language is important. I think the ambiguities of language can create genuine philosophical problems, and when I say I do not understand exactly where you have a problem with evolution I mean just that.Semantically speaking, the "right" word I used is an exaggeration of course. It means that reaction will only follow if any reagents likely to are present in the conditions that allow that. We could simply say if the right reagents are there, but you complicate and one must rephrase everything. This together with problems with English version used, which is meaningless for a foreign speaker aiming at communication only, makes things even more complicated.