What is “Chance” in Atheistic Evolution?

[An Observer]

Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! The Atheistic version of the theory consists of two steps:
1) The theory presupposes that mutations happen randomly (or by chance).
2) The theory asserts that natural selection is the mechanism by which survival of species determined.

Most educated scientists accept step 2, …. “natural selection” as the means by which species survival is determined.

However, most proponents of Atheistic evolution either ignore step 1, or they assert that a random distribution causes the events.

I assert that a distribution (chance, random or otherwise) cannot cause an event. I further assert that the distribution is the observed result of multiple independent events.

The question I place before my atheistic friends:

What is the meaning of the common phrases used in grade school science books on evolution....i.e. “it was a random event”, and “it happened by chance”?

[jwu]

Atheistic evolution is only a specific interpretation of the theory of evolution. The TE itself doesn't say "there was no God involved", it simply doesn't say anything about God's role - neither positive nor negative. Phrases such as "it happened by chance" should be used very carefully in textbooks, as they indeed have a strong atheistic notion, whereas the actual theory of evolution does not say such a thing. Whether it happened by chance or by divine intervention we simply do not know. "It happened unpredictably" or something like that would have been a better reflection of the generally agnostic stance of science.

Personally i am am agnostic theistic evolutionists (agnostic in regards to if it can be proven or not), but i still find atheistic evolution to be a realistic scenario.

I assert that a distribution (chance, random or otherwise) cannot cause an event. I further assert that the distribution is the observed result of multiple independent events.

What exactly is the term "event" supposed to mean here? English isn't my first language, so i'm not sure if's simply supposed to be the spoken language term or if it is supposed to be understood as a special term used in statistics here.

jwu

[YEC]

According to the evos theory, these mutations typically produce a small change...lets say the fin on the way to becoming a leg is slightly more "robust" allowing it to "walk" on the ocean floor just a little better than the fish that didn't receive the mutation.

Now, the T.O.E. tells us these mutations added up over the ages and produced a leg.

One question that needs to be addressed is just how many mutations were required in the original fishs offspring to produce the change of a fin to a leg?

The second question, considering that the mutations are random and not directed...what are the odds of a mutation occuring in the same or similar DNA strand responsible for the developement of the fin to leg?

The third question is a combination of 1 and 2....What are the odds of a random mutation occuring in just the right DNA strand and then occuring over and over and over again untill a leg has evolved?

Now on to being selected....

Would "nature" be able to differentiate such a small change and select it?

As an example, take 1million people all 6 feet tall and place them in a parking lot.
Now add another person, lets say 6 feet 1 inch tall and place him randomly in the mix of people.
Throw in a basketball.....Will the 6 foot 1 inch tall person get the ball?

[Nyril]

One question that needs to be addressed is just how many mutations were required in the original fishs offspring to produce the change of a fin to a leg?

More then one. Less then infinity. Why does it matter?

The second question, considering that the mutations are random and not directed...what are the odds of a mutation occuring in the same or similar DNA strand responsible for the developement of the fin to leg?

Things aren't as direct as you want them to be. It is entirely likely that fins were adapted to allow creatures to venture out onto the surface to lay eggs (no things to eat them!). Better fins give them better movement on land. When it happened that the creature spent more and more time on the land, the fins got better and better for moving on land, and their underwater function was only as good as needed.

Eventually, you get to the legs we have today.

The third question is a combination of 1 and 2....What are the odds of a random mutation occuring in just the right DNA strand and then occuring over and over and over again untill a leg has evolved?

Easy. The odds are irrelevant. Shuffle a deck of cards, the odds of a specific order are roughly 8.065817617 * 10^67 to 1 that you'll get a specific pattern, and yet people can still shuffle cards.

As an example, take 1million people all 6 feet tall and place them in a parking lot.
Now add another person, lets say 6 feet 1 inch tall and place him randomly in the mix of people.
Throw in a basketball.....Will the 6 foot 1 inch tall person get the ball?

Your analogy is not what happens in the TOE. Instead, throw in one women who only finds tall men attractive (she uses no other criteria). The taller, the more likely she is to make sweet love to them. She is willing to look at all the men in our system (in the parking lot) before she makes her choice.

Which one gets kids? (Answer: The Tallest one)

[YEC]

One question that needs to be addressed is just how many mutations were required in the original fishs offspring to produce the change of a fin to a leg?

More then one. Less then infinity. Why does it matter?

Time could be an issue, for example there may not have been enought time for the mutations to occur in the time frame the evos suggest.
Or,
there may not have been enough mutations to produce the morphological changes.
Or,
The odds of the X amount of mutations re-occuring in the proper DNA strand would render the theory impossible.

There are plenty of reason why it matters.

The second question, considering that the mutations are random and not directed...what are the odds of a mutation occuring in the same or similar DNA strand responsible for the developement of the fin to leg?

Things aren't as direct as you want them to be. It is entirely likely that fins were adapted to allow creatures to venture out onto the surface to lay eggs (no things to eat them!). Better fins give them better movement on land. When it happened that the creature spent more and more time on the land, the fins got better and better for moving on land, and their underwater function was only as good as needed.

Eventually, you get to the legs we have today.

Nice theory, but what how did the fins get better and better?

The third question is a combination of 1 and 2....What are the odds of a random mutation occuring in just the right DNA strand and then occuring over and over and over again untill a leg has evolved?

Easy. The odds are irrelevant. Shuffle a deck of cards, the odds of a specific order are roughly 8.065817617 * 10^67 to 1 that you'll get a specific pattern, and yet people can still shuffle cards.

Understood...but what are the odds of you shuffling the same deck and getting the same order? (or just one card out of order)

Now do this many times over.

The odds are VERY relevant

As an example, take 1million people all 6 feet tall and place them in a parking lot.
Now add another person, lets say 6 feet 1 inch tall and place him randomly in the mix of people.
Throw in a basketball.....Will the 6 foot 1 inch tall person get the ball?

Your analogy is not what happens in the TOE. Instead, throw in one women who only finds tall men attractive (she uses no other criteria). The taller, the more likely she is to make sweet love to them. She is willing to look at all the men in our system (in the parking lot) before she makes her choice.

Will she even notice the 1 inch differance? What if one of the guys has high hair...like Kramer? Or is wearing boots compared with bare feet?....it should be clear that the differances will more than likely get mixed in with the "evolutionary noise"

Which one gets kids? (Answer: The Tallest one)

suppose she does happen to find the big guy...do you think her kid will also turn out big?

[Nyril]

Nice theory, but what how did the fins get better and better?

If one person has blond hair and blue eyes, and they make a kid with another person that has blond hair and blue eyes, you can expect that the kid has blond hair and blue eyes that they got from their parents.

If nobody on the planet is allowed to breed that does not have blond hair and blue eyes, in a few generations, only an extremely small majority of people will lack blond hair and blue eyes.

In this way, people have bred a certain trait into the species.

People from Asia are characterized as being short. Parents are short, their children are short. In effect, there are billions of short people in that region of the planet. If they allowed only the tallest of them to breed, would the Asians get taller or shorter as a species?

Simply put, if a creature with better fins reproduces more often then a creature with worse fins, then the children are more likely to reproduce as well. It is in this way the best fins are continually selected, and over millennia, the shape of the species is changed.

Understood...but what are the odds of you shuffling the same deck and getting the same order? (or just one card out of order)

Now do this many times over.

The odds are VERY relevant

Right. But get a million people shuffling. No, get a billion people shuffling. Enlist the population of the world to shuffle. Better yet, get a computer that can have trillions of deck's being shuffled

Or just give 1000 people a 1000 years to shuffle. Or 10,000 people 100,000 years. Or 10,000 people 1 million years.

Regardless of the odds, when you have multiple trials, and extended periods of time to work with, the odds are not a problem.

Will she even notice the 1 inch differance? What if one of the guys has high hair...like Kramer? Or is wearing boots compared with bare feet?....it should be clear that the differances will more than likely get mixed in with the "evolutionary noise"

You can't even follow your own example along. If I had responded to your basketball analogy by saying that the tallest guy has a gun (and lots of ammo) and kills everyone else, you would of told me I'd missed the point.

suppose she does happen to find the big guy...do you think her kid will also turn out big?

Yes.[/quote]

[ST88]

I assert that a distribution (chance, random or otherwise) cannot cause an event. I further assert that the distribution is the observed result of multiple independent events.

The question I place before my atheistic friends:

What is the meaning of the common phrases used in grade school science books on evolution....i.e. “it was a random event”, and “it happened by chance”?

RANDOM, as I understand it, means effectively random. If we knew all of the variables involved in the earthquake & tsunami off the coast of Atjeh, we would have been able to predict it. But the fact is, we don't know all the variables involved. Until that time happens, these events & other natural disasters will be seen as random.

Considering the mutations in DNA, there are a number of events over which we have no control that affect the structure of DNA, such as cosmic radiation, enzymatic action, reactions with environmental pollutants, & others. Since it is not possible -- yet -- to predict the location & direction of cosmic rays (though their location & direction has perhaps been determined since the beginning of time), they appear to us as random. I am comfortable calling them random & occuring by chance simply because they appear to us to be so. This is also the idea behind computer-generated random numbers. Obviously, a computer cannot come up with a truly random series of numbers, but the way it has been programmed to present us with a set of random numbers is so complicated and arbitrary, that we can't tell the difference.

[gluadys]

According to the evos theory, these mutations typically produce a small change...lets say the fin on the way to becoming a leg is slightly more "robust" allowing it to "walk" on the ocean floor just a little better than the fish that didn't receive the mutation.

Now, the T.O.E. tells us these mutations added up over the ages and produced a leg.

One question that needs to be addressed is just how many mutations were required in the original fishs offspring to produce the change of a fin to a leg?

At least one. Possibly only one.

The second question, considering that the mutations are random and not directed...what are the odds of a mutation occuring in the same or similar DNA strand responsible for the developement of the fin to leg?

There is no one DNA strand responsible for the development of a fin or a leg, so the question is meaningless.

The third question is a combination of 1 and 2....What are the odds of a random mutation occuring in just the right DNA strand and then occuring over and over and over again untill a leg has evolved?

Equally meaningless. The concept of mutation being proposed here is not in touch with reality.

Now on to being selected....

Would "nature" be able to differentiate such a small change and select it?

Yes.

As an example, take 1million people all 6 feet tall and place them in a parking lot.
Now add another person, lets say 6 feet 1 inch tall and place him randomly in the mix of people.
Throw in a basketball.....Will the 6 foot 1 inch tall person get the ball?

He will have a slightly better chance of getting the ball, yes. Will he get it for sure? No.

[YEC]

nyril posted:
Right. But get a million people shuffling. No, get a billion people shuffling. Enlist the population of the world to shuffle. Better yet, get a computer that can have trillions of deck's being shuffled

Or just give 1000 people a 1000 years to shuffle. Or 10,000 people 100,000 years. Or 10,000 people 1 million years.

Regardless of the odds, when you have multiple trials, and extended periods of time to work with, the odds are not a problem.

What you are describing here is not the real world presented by the evo scientist.

Even your numbers...trillions...doesn't reflect the real world.

In fact the odds of a negative mutation occuring prior to a beneficial mutation occuring and destroying what has already been established or the environment out pacing your long awaited mutations adds to your problems.

[Yarr the Pirate]

A negative mutation would hardly destroy anything - it would make that individual less likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and he would die out, not the species.

You're saying that a negative mutation would eradicate the entire species - that makes no sense whatsoever. I know a man who is an albino - a negative mutation, he is unfortunately doomed to a shorter lifespan. It's not going to destroy my city however.

As an analogy, we're not dealing with a tornado constructing a 747 here. We're dealing with time and pressure working on coal until a different carbon structure (diamond) is produced.