The Probability of Evolution by Chance

[Anthony Puccetti]

That's not a very helpful answer. Instead of using labels, could you describe what has to happen?

I edited my reply in post 36: Organisms would have to be much more genetically changeable than they are. Mutations would have to affect many more things than just pigmentation,bodily growth,resistance to disease,or cause disease and deformation.

 

[gluadys]

Deterministic selection would be the alternative to chance or random selection,as chance and random is commonly understood. Supernatural causation is out of the question,as far as science is concerned. I keep reading that natural selection is not random,but scientists do not say the alternative.

If natural selection is non-random,how should it be characterized?

In something that occurs randomly, there is a fairly even statistical distribution of probability--as in a fair coin toss or distribution of cards in a game. Your chance of getting heads on any one toss is 0.5; your chance of getting a card of a particular suit on any one deal is 0.25 and mathematicians can work out the probabilities of much more complex situations. But in any case the probability is the same for every occurrence of the pattern in question.

In something that occurs non-randomly, the probability is not the same for every occurrence. Insurance companies vary their rates for automobile insurance according to the age and gender of the driver to be insured because the likelihood that there will be a claim on behalf of a 22-year old male is much greater than the likelihood of a claim from a 52-year old male or a 22-year old female. That is not random. It may still be a matter of chance, but it is not evenly distributed chance.

Natural selection refers to the uneven distribution of reproductive and/or mortality rates associated with the appearance of certain character traits in a given ecological situation. If you are familiar with the Hardy-Weinberg equations, you know how this uneven probability is calculated, and how, knowing the selective factor associated with a trait, one can calculate the change in the proportion of the population expressing that trait from one generation to the next.

I am not certain of what sort of label, other than non-random, one would apply to this. I think "differential" might be more appropriate than "deterministic". In a purely random situation, the odds are not different for one group than the other. In a non-random situation they are.

 

[gluadys]

I edited my reply in post 36: Organisms would have to be much more genetically changeable than they are. Mutations would have to affect many more things than just pigmentation,bodily growth,resistance to disease,or cause disease and deformation.

Mutations do affect every aspect of the genome and can affect every aspect of the phenotype. I expect you hear most about the items mentioned because they are most easily seen and most readily understood. But they are only a few samples of what can take place in any part of the physical being.

Perhaps you can give an example of the sort of change you mean and what puts it beyond the currently known level of genetic malleability.

 

[Lepanto]

Gluadys, it seems that you don't fully understand evolution.

Please go to read "Encyclopaedia of evolution", it states that "adaptation... turns out to be slippery, sometimes even circular and paradoxical... Some biologists have even suggested eliminating the concept of adaptation altogether..."

There is NO such thing as adaptation, it's all chance mutations (+ natural selection). Richard Dawkins said there seems to be designs in the world but there is no purpose behind it. How can you say there is no purpose on one hand , and then say evolution is not by chance on the other hand ???

Besides adaptation, another deceitful concept is "evolution is non-random".

I believe those who believe evolution is non-random has been misled and deceived . I believe evolution is random, it is based on chance. Here is the reasoning:
____________________________________________________________

Suppose A is a random activity, entirely based on chance ;
Suppose B is a non-random activity and B follows and depends on A (if A does not happen, B doesn't happen) ;
Since B depends on A, then B depends on chance to a certain degree also ;
Therefore A + B is based on chance, no matter how non-random B is.

But if A follows and depends on B, then it is not.

For example, if I won the lottery 20 times, then I shall pick a beautiful house to buy. Winning the lottery 20 times is based on chance, picking a beautiful house is not by chance. But since it depends on the former, then it becomes also a matter of chance. How can you say the whole matter is not based on chance ??

Saying evolution is not based on chance, is like saying "if I won the lottery 20 times, then I shall pick a beautiful house to buy" is not based on chance because "to pick a beautiful house to buy" is non-random.

(Natural selection is certainly non-random, but mutation is based on chance)
____________________________________________________________

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

In something that occurs randomly, there is a fairly even statistical distribution of probability--as in a fair coin toss or distribution of cards in a game. Your chance of getting heads on any one toss is 0.5; your chance of getting a card of a particular suit on any one deal is 0.25 and mathematicians can work out the probabilities of much more complex situations. But in any case the probability is the same for every occurrence of the pattern in question.

In something that occurs non-randomly, the probability is not the same for every occurrence. Insurance companies vary their rates for automobile insurance according to the age and gender of the driver to be insured because the likelihood that there will be a claim on behalf of a 22-year old male is much greater than the likelihood of a claim from a 52-year old male or a 22-year old female. That is not random. It may still be a matter of chance, but it is not evenly distributed chance.

I don't think that is what scientists mean when they say that NS is a non-random process. Random is only defined as even statistical distribution of probability in the field of statistics. Normally random means without aim,reason,pattern or regularity. Scientists say that is NS non-random because traits that favor survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than traits that don't,and scientists think that the results of NS can be predicted.

Natural selection refers to the uneven distribution of reproductive and/or mortality rates associated with the appearance of certain character traits in a given ecological situation. If you are familiar with the Hardy-Weinberg equations, you know how this uneven probability is calculated, and how, knowing the selective factor associated with a trait, one can calculate the change in the proportion of the population expressing that trait from one generation to the next.

I am not certain of what sort of label, other than non-random, one would apply to this. I think "differential" might be more appropriate than "deterministic". In a purely random situation, the odds are not different for one group than the other. In a non-random situation they are.

I once read an online interview with a scientist who was a former Catholic priest who said that NS is a deterministic process. The term differential does not characterize how NS acts upon genetic variants.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, it seems that you don't fully understand evolution.

Please go to read "Encyclopaedia of evolution", it states that "adaptation... turns out to be slippery, sometimes even circular and paradoxical... Some biologists have even suggested eliminating the concept of adaptation altogether..."

Is this the one by Mark Pagel or by Stanley Rice? Both are out of my price range. In any case, I would need to see a fuller citation to see what the author is talking about.

There is NO such thing as adaptation, it's all chance mutations (+ natural selection). Richard Dawkins said there seems to be designs in the world but there is no purpose behind it. How can you say there is no purpose on one hand , and then say evolution is not by chance on the other hand ???

I didn't say there is no purpose behind it. Richard Dawkins said that. I disagree with Richard Dawkins. Saying there "no purpose" behind evolution is theology not science and while I respect Dawkins as a scientist, his theology leaves much to be desired.

Besides adaptation, another deceitful concept is "evolution is non-random".

I believe those who believe evolution is non-random has been misled and deceived . I believe evolution is random, it is based on chance. Here is the reasoning:
____________________________________________________________

Suppose A is a random activity, entirely based on chance ;
Suppose B is a non-random activity and B follows and depends on A (if A does not happen, B doesn't happen) ;
Since B depends on A, then B depends on chance to a certain degree also ;
Therefore A + B is based on chance, no matter how non-random B is.

But if A follows and depends on B, then it is not.

For example, if I won the lottery 20 times, then I shall pick a beautiful house to buy. Winning the lottery 20 times is based on chance, picking a beautiful house is not by chance. But since it depends on the former, then it becomes also a matter of chance. How can you say the whole matter is not based on chance ??

Saying evolution is not based on chance, is like saying "if I won the lottery 20 times, then I shall pick a beautiful house to buy" is not based on chance because "to pick a beautiful house to buy" is non-random.

(Natural selection is certainly non-random, but mutation is based on chance)
____________________________________________________________

A better analogy of the relation of mutations to natural selection would be this: suppose you decide to base your decision on a "random" throw of the dice. You decide you will buy a beautiful house if you throw a double six.

You throw a three. You decide that throw doesn't count. You throw a ten. You decide that throw doesn't count. You throw a seven. You decide that throw doesn't count. And you keep on throwing and discounting the throws until you throw a double six. You decide that throw counts.

Every throw of the dice was random, but was your decision really random?

 

[gluadys]

I don't think that is what scientists mean when they say that NS is a non-random process. Random is only defined as even statistical distribution of probability in the field of statistics.

Well, it is. I have seen that explained many times.

Normally random means without aim,reason,pattern or regularity.

True, but since science cannot comment on aim or reason (especially divine aim or reason) those aspects of the normal dictionary meaning don't apply in science.

Scientists say that is NS non-random because traits that favor survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than traits that don't,

IOW it is a statisically measurable probability, a pattern, a regularity. Whether it has aim or purpose is not relevant. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but science qua science can't decide on that.

and scientists think that the results of NS can be predicted.

Yes, it can be predicted and calculated if one can measure the strength of the selective factors. (That is more problematical as one cannot even be sure one knows all the selective factors,much less how strong they are. It is easier to measure the difference in proportional appearance of a variant and calculate the strength of selective factors from that.)

I once read an online interview with a scientist who was a former Catholic priest who said that NS is a deterministic process. The term differential does not characterize how NS acts upon genetic variants.

Well, I have not read that interview. If you can find it again, provide the link.

Why does "differential" not capture the mode of natural selection?

 

[sfs]

Butting in . . .
The phrasing, "mutation is a random process but natural selection is not random" is, I think, pretty frightful; fortunately, it's not the kind of thing that turns up in the technical literature often. In statistics or most of science, a random distribution does not have to be uniform, and most random distributions aren't, so there's no reason that natural selection should not be described as a random process -- biased toward a particular outcome, but still biased. What evolutionary biologists mean by random, however, is not what most scientists mean. When they say that mutation is random, they mean that mutations do not occur in order to fill a particular need; they are random with respect to what's beneficial to the organism. In this sense, natural selection is not random, because it is nothing but the filtering of mutations by what is beneficial to the organism. It's pretty sloppy usage, though.

I can't think of any sense in which natural selection is a deterministic process, however.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Well, it is. I have seen that explained many times.

Scientists do not normally use the statistical definition of random when they say that NS is non-random.
They mean that NS is cumulative and it favors the survival and reproduction of beneficial mutations or traits.

Why Natural Selection is Not Random « For the Sake of Science
<This notion that natural selection is both a non-random process and an undirected one at the same time can lead to confusion. The concept is essentially that this mechanism lends itself to increasing complexity because it builds in cumulative steps. For a step to be cumulative, it (quite obviously) must be based on the previous step. A random process does not lend itself to cumulative steps because, by definition, it is not based on anything. So in this way natural selection is non-random. But it also does not look to end in the phenotype of a tiger or a bat. It has no conscience, merely results. For this reason, it is undirected.>

Evolution by Accident
<Natural selection is a non-random process because there is a preferred outcome but mutation is, to all intents and purposes, random. This is what Jacques Monod means when he refers to evolution as a combination of chance and necessity. The "chance" is the randomness of mutation and mutations supply the raw material for evolution. The "necesssity" is the non-random process of natural selection.>

http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html
<Natural selection is a deterministic process; a beneficial mutation will always reach fixation in an ideal population (i.e., natural selection will cause it to replace all the other alleles), and a deleterious mutation will always be lost. We have no way of saying for sure whether or not a particular nucleotide will mutate because mutation is a random process &#8211; we can only assign a probability that it will mutate.>

 

[gluadys]

Scientists do not normally use the statistical definition of random when they say that NS is non-random.
They mean that NS is cumulative and it favors the survival and reproduction of beneficial mutations or traits.

I don't see anything in these citations that is NOT referring to statistics.

Why Natural Selection is Not Random « For the Sake of Science
<This notion that natural selection is both a non-random process and an undirected one at the same time can lead to confusion. The concept is essentially that this mechanism lends itself to increasing complexity because it builds in cumulative steps. For a step to be cumulative, it (quite obviously) must be based on the previous step. A random process does not lend itself to cumulative steps because, by definition, it is not based on anything. So in this way natural selection is non-random. But it also does not look to end in the phenotype of a tiger or a bat. It has no conscience, merely results. For this reason, it is undirected.>

It is because NS is non-random that accumulation of beneficial traits is possible, but the non-random nature of natural selection also applies in the case of a single trait (such as the industrial melanism of pepper moths). NS is non-random from the get-go not just after new traits are being selected on top of traits previously selected.

Evolution by Accident
<Natural selection is a non-random process because there is a preferred outcome but mutation is, to all intents and purposes, random. This is what Jacques Monod means when he refers to evolution as a combination of chance and necessity. The "chance" is the randomness of mutation and mutations supply the raw material for evolution. The "necesssity" is the non-random process of natural selection.>

"preferred outcome" refers to non-random change in the statistical distribution of alleles in the gene pool.

evolgen archive: Random Mutation and Natural Selection
<Natural selection is a deterministic process; a beneficial mutation will always reach fixation in an ideal population (i.e., natural selection will cause it to replace all the other alleles), and a deleterious mutation will always be lost. We have no way of saying for sure whether or not a particular nucleotide will mutate because mutation is a random process – we can only assign a probability that it will mutate.>

A beneficial mutation will reach fixation because its statistical distribution in the gene pool is non-randomly changed from the time of its initial appearance in one or a few individuals to the time it appears in all individuals. How can you say this is not about statistical distribution?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I don't see anything in these citations that is NOT referring to statistics.

I posted the quotes to show that scientists,when they say that NS is non-random,do not have in mind the statistical definition of random that you used: an even statistical distribution of probability. They have in mind the common definition of random: having no aim or direction or pattern or purpose. While it's true that a random process may have an even statistical distribution of different outcomes,this is not the idea of random that scientists are referring to. They are implying that NS does have aim and direction and pattern,if not purpose. It leads to predictable outcomes.

 

[gluadys]

While it's true that a random process may have an even statistical distribution of different outcomes,this is not the idea of random that scientists are referring to. They are implying that NS does have aim and direction and pattern,if not purpose. It leads to predictable outcomes.

OK. My wording was probably not the best, but that is also what I was trying to say.

When mutations occur, they don't have a predictable pattern and there are no predictable outcomes. But natural selection does show a pattern and does yield predictable outcomes.

I might quibble as to including "aim" in that definition of non-random. As to whether there is "purpose" to the direction of natural selection, that is in the mind of God and scientifically untestable.

 

[Lepanto]

How would you know that? We've seen many times that science is the only institution where you are rewarded (hansomely!) for disproving the prevailing ideas. That's as far from a dictatorship as you can get. I hate to break it to you, but there is no supreme council of scientist who tell scientists what to believe - scientists go by the evidence.

Papias

Papias, as I read more and more of your posts, I got to know more and more about you, but I don't want to say anything except 1 thing.

I was not wrong when previously I said you bow down to scientists. I believe you are so impressed with the appearance of science and technology. As a consequence, you see scientists and technologists as idols and therefore you think all scientists are honest and open-minded.

But the reality is not like that. You forgot (or maybe never knew) the Christian concept of "Original Sin". The science circle is not what you think. Read this:

&#8220;A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution... When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: &#8216;In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.&#8217; &#8221;
- excerpted from "Nature's probability and Probability's nature", by Dr. Donald E. Johnson

Scientists who doubted Theory of evolution have been persecuted. Therefore 800 scientists declaring they doubt Theory of evolution is a big number.

(Imagine in pagan Roman Empire at the time of Nero, suppose there were 500 Christians openly professed their faith in spite of fierce persecutions, would you say 500 is a small number ???)

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

I was not wrong when previously I said you bow down to scientists. I believe you are so impressed with the appearance of science and technology. As a consequence, you see scientists and technologists as idols and therefore you think all scientists are honest and open-minded.

Completely false. I see scientists as humans. Humans, who are often overly concerned with getting ahead, and who may lie, cheat and steal, and who may be overly influenced by wrong ideas, just like everything else. The difference, as I pointed out above and you quoted, is that in science, the reward structure specifically rewards those who disprove supposed dogmas, and the need for evidence in science catches and removes falsehoods from cheating. That't why science has done so much, and found of so much of the truth.

But the reality is not like that. You forgot (or maybe never knew) the Christian concept of "Original Sin". The science circle is not what you think.

As pointed out above, the structure of the scientific endeavor may as well be based on original sin, if you look at what is assumed true of scientists as humans. Science has built in mechanisms taking original sin into account, and trusting no one. Can you say the same of the creationist sites you clearly believe without question?

Read this:

“A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that ..... When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: ‘- excerpted from "Nature's probability and Probability's nature", by Dr. Donald E. Johnson

Are you aware that no evidence for this supposed "Chinese paleontologist" has been found, aside from the repeated story told by creationists? Do you have any evidence that the story wasn't made up wholecloth? Do you think that original sin tells us that people may make up things?

....but not the government. In America you .....

The fact that this quote implies that evolution is only supported in America is another reason to suspect it is fabricated. Evolution is supported by practically all scientists worldwide, including literally millions of Christians.

Scientists who doubted Theory of evolution have been persecuted.

Scientists who criticize evolution are not run out - look at Behe (still at his professorship), and others. That seems like a big topic. Ifyou'd like to start a thread in the main forum on that, feel free.

Therefore 800 scientists declaring they doubt Theory of evolution is a big number.

800 out of dozens of millions scientists worldwide, is nothing. That's less than 0.01 %. So, do you consider 99% to be strong support? Remember, scientists are humans. Some humans will believe anything.

(Imagine in pagan Roman Empire at the time of Nero, suppose there were 500 Christians openly professed their faith in spite of fierce persecutions, would you say 500 is a small number ???)

I'm still waiting for your report of scientists being burned alive for supporting evolution and such. A lot of scientists are retired, and have nothing to fear from speaking their mind. Yet, practically no vocal support for creationism. Hmmmmmm.......


Papias

 

[Lepanto]

I thought initially you are a 30+ year old. But now I am more and more sure you are not. You are naive about the science circle when you thought there are no persecutions there against those who speak out against TOE. Persecutions and discrimination do exist in science circle. 800 is a significant number when you consider the persecutions and discrimination. Anyway, I reckon the arguments presented by the 800 are still better than the rest who talk like authorities outside but got not much substance inside.

It's good that you talked about the concept of "original sin", but , curiously, the only time you mentioned it was when you defend TOE.

I have always been arguing only against atheistic evolution, there is no point for you to be an ardent defender of atheistic evolution. But you are always the first to come up to its defense and you show an extraordinary kind of hatred towards Creationism. I think this tells us something special about you.

By the way, can you prove the Chinese paleontologist does not exist ?

 

[gluadys]

I have always been arguing only against atheistic evolution, there is no point for you to be an ardent defender of atheistic evolution. But you are always the first to come up to its defense and you show an extraordinary kind of hatred towards Creationism. I think this tells us something special about you.

Actually, there is no such thing as "atheistic evolution". There is evolutionary science, which is neutral on the question of the existence of God. And there is atheism (and theism) which is not neutral on the question of God. And is not science.

Christians who have accepted evolutionary science would be quite happy to stand with you to argue against atheism.

But why does evolutionary science have to enter the picture at all when arguing against atheism?

 

[Lepanto]

Lepanto: Generally its door is open only to those believe in evolution. It is almost a dictatorship, rather than a democracy.
How would you know that? We've seen many times that science is the only institution where you are rewarded (hansomely!) for disproving the prevailing ideas. That's as far from a dictatorship as you can get. I hate to break it to you, but there is no supreme council of scientist who tell scientists what to believe - scientists go by the evidence.

Papias

Papias, here are 2 of the many examples of bias in the science circle:

(a) Stephen J Gould published an article in Scientifc American which was intended to "refute" Professor Phillip E. Johnson's book "Darwin On Trial". Prof. Johnson wrote a refutation and then tried to have it published in the same magazine. But Scientific American refused to publish it.

(b) "&#8230;in August 2004, a technical journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific periodical. After the publication of the article, the Smithsonian&#8217;s Museum of Natural History erupted internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor&#8212;an evolutionary biologist with two earned Ph.D.&#8217;s&#8212;questioned his editorial judgment and demanded his censure. Soon the controversy spilled over into the scientific press as news stories about the article and editor&#8217;s decision appeared in Science, Nature, The Scientist, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The media exposure fueled further embarrassment at the Smithsonian, resulting in a second wave of recriminations. The editor, Richard Sternberg, lost his office and his access to scientific samples and was later transferred to a hostile supervisor. After Sternberg&#8217;s case was investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog organization, and by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, a congressional committee, other questionable actions came to light.

Both investigations found that senior administrators at the museum had interrogated Sternberg&#8217;s colleagues about Sternberg&#8217;s religious and political beliefs and fomented a misinformation campaign designed to damage his scientific reputation and encourage his resignation. Sternberg did not resign his research appointment, but he was eventually demoted."
(excerpted from "Signature in the cell", by Dr. Stephen Meyer)


Evolutionists knew they could not handle Creationist arguments. Therefore the best they could do was to refuse publishing Creationist materials.

 

[Papias]

Lepanto wrote:

I thought initially you are a 30+ year old. But now I am more and more sure you are not. You are naive about the science circle when you thought there are no persecutions there against those who speak out against TOE. Persecutions and discrimination do exist in science circle.

So because you cannot respond to my points, you simply resort to bare assertions and personal attacks. That speaks for itself.


You say I'm "naive about the science circle", yet I'm the one who has conducted research at the University level, published papers, and so on. You can't even write with proper English. That too speaks for itself.

800 is a significant number when you consider the persecutions and discrimination. Anyway, I reckon the arguments presented by the 800 are still better than the rest who talk like authorities outside but got not much substance inside.

As I already pointed out, your 0.01% is not a significant number, when there are literally millions of retired scientists who have nothing to lose by speaking out. Your supposed 800 is less than 1% of just the retired scientists.

I hate to break it to you, but you aren't even in the field, and don't have any science background, so it's quite silly for you to think, much less post, that "your reckoning" is worth anything compared to those who do understand the field and the evidence. Heck, compared to them, I'm aware enough to realize that my "reckoning" is comparatively worthless too.

It's good that you talked about the concept of "original sin", but , curiously, the only time you mentioned it was when you defend TOE.

Well, duh. We are, after all, in the Origins forum discussing evolution. What did you expect, that I'd talk about original sin in the context of discussing how to cook tapioca pudding?

By the way, can you prove the Chinese paleontologist does not exist ?

Why would I want to do that? Are you unclear on the fact that the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person who made the claim? You claimed that a Chinese paleontologist said that. I'm still waiting for the proof.

Papias, here are 2 of the many examples of bias in the science circle:

For a), first, could you provide a reference for that, which is not from creationist propaganda? Secondly, did you consider that Scientific American generally publishes things by scientists - Gould is a scientist, Mr. Johnson is not, and has no background in actual science.


For b)-

It sounds like you've been reading too much creationist propaganda. If you read objective sources, you'll see that much of your claim is false. For instance:

The claim was rejected in August, 2005 on the grounds that Sternberg was not actually an employee. A report issued by Republican intelligent design advocates Mark Souder and Rick Santorum echoed Sternberg's claims about his treatment at the Smithsonian, but no action has resulted.[5][16][17] The report was described by Steve Reuland as containing "extreme dishonesty",[18] for claiming that "the Deputy Secretary [of the Smithsonian Institution]&#8217;s statement completely failed to address the central question of whether the harassment and discrimination identified in the OSC report took place",[16] when the "things that the Smithsonian inquired about &#8211; Sternberg&#8217;s office space, access to collections, status as a Research Associate, etc. &#8211; were the very things that the alleged harassment and discrimination consisted of."[18
​

You can read about the whole thing in detail here, and see how your source (who is a creationist invovled in the whole matter) distorted the information: Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you are always the first to come up to its defense and you show an extraordinary kind of hatred towards Creationism. I think this tells us something special about you.

"Extraordinary kind of hatred"? really? Are you sure I'm not just pointing out how silly an argument is when a silly argument is made, or one that is contradicted by the evidence? I'm interested to see what makes you think visceral hatred is involved.

I have always been arguing only against atheistic evolution, there is no point for you to be an ardent defender of atheistic evolution.

Then you should never post here in the Origins Theology forum - with that as your goal, you will want to be posting only in the Society forum, here: http://www.christianforums.com/f408/. And, as I've stated many times, I'm a defender of Theistic Evolution, not atheistic evolution. I even believe in a historical, real, human, Adam, who brought about original sin.

All discussions about evolution are assumed here to be THEISTIC evolution only, as it explicitly stated in the description of this forum at the top of the main page. It reads:

Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.

Papias

 

[FrozenOne]

(1) To have a meaningful design created by chance is small.

(2) To have a structure created by chance is even smaller.

(3) To have a structure that is durable created by chance is even much smaller.

No need to go much farther that abiogenesis, or in other words, life coming from non life. The chance of simple amino acids to form from the right strands of molecules is nil, even given perfect conditions. This is just step 1, many steps before you even get to DNA. What I mean by nil is even if you filled up the entire volume of the known universe with this soup in ideal conditions, you could try to randomly shake the universe "can" and still not even get 1 amino acid to form over the entire theoretical lifetime of the universe. Yes, the odds are that small, nil in fact.