chance and evolution

[eMTee]

Some evolutionists say that evolution doesn't happen by chance. I ask if it isn't by chance, then how else has it or does it happen?

[Smokinjoe9]

I am sure there are other possibilities, chance seems like a possibility, just not the best one(too me). I suppose saying chance is how it happened will work fine, until another(better)theory comes along.
I understand that proof is required, but I would be worried about holding the theory as true until ALL the facts are straight...
Don't get me wrong I know about probability, and sometimes it seems obvious what the outcome is, but that doesn't make the theory true.

[Buffy]

There's a big difference between "pure chance" and a sequence of events each of which has a certain amount of chance involved.

When an Evolutionist says its "not chance" its to point out the fallacy of the analogy that Creationists try to use where the "chance" that an eyeball would evolve is "like a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747", which is then calculated to be so large a probablility as to be improbable.

But the problem with this analogy is that evolving an eyeball takes a long time, and has lots and lots of intermediate steps. Each step involves a bunch of different mutations, some of which are useful, others of which are not, but together these mutations that are indeed based on "chance" become useful and survive to successive generations. Not all of these mutations have to be initially useful since they can hang around if they are not detrimental, meaning they're there when some other mutation happens and then the combination of the two turn out to be very useful, and then they get reinforced. When you look at all the steps involved, the fact that it doesn't really matter which ones mutate by chance in which order because *eventually* the useful one will show up, it turns out that theres almost a 100% guarantee that these complex things will show up eventually. So, in that respect, evolution of life isn't an amazingly improbable event, its almost guaranteed to happen!

Cheers,
Buffy

[zadojla]

Most "evolutionists", like Stephen Jay Gould, believe that evolution is highly "contingent" on events. The conclusion is that if you were to start with the same system, evolution would certainly occur, but the precise results would not repeat over multiple trials (if that were possible).

[eMTee]

How did science create it's vital organized paturn? everything has a beginning, and how did science decide what to create, and how to create it?

[BEAKER]

Originally Posted by eMTee

How did science create it's vital organized paturn? everything has a beginning, and how did science decide what to create, and how to create it?

Science doesn't decide; science (hopfully) discovers; how, when, where, annd why. - But of course the hypothesese are debatable.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by eMTee

Some evolutionists say that evolution doesn't happen by chance. I ask if it isn't by chance, then how else has it or does it happen?

Surely chance is involved, but if things were truly random, we wouldn't be here.

[bumab]

Randomness (mutations) gives you the pieces with which natural selction acts upon. Natural selection is explictly NOT random, it involves what's best for the given situation.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

...But the problem with this analogy is that evolving an eyeball takes a long time, and has lots and lots of intermediate steps. Each step involves a bunch of different mutations, some of which are useful, others of which are not, but together these mutations that are indeed based on "chance" become useful and survive to successive generations....

Buff- Although the tornado/junkyard/747 analogy might be inappropriate, to my knowledge no one in the gradualism camp has ever demonstrated a credible mathematical counterexample either. This is one of those cases where the evolutionary argument is more faith than science. The math is not substantially improved by suggesting that the steps can be incremental, or that most steps fail. In most instances, these outcomes do not improve the statistics (that is, the liklihood that a viable complex form will eventually arrive from abiotic sources) without generating other unpalatable assumptions.

Personally, I think the general argument for gradualism is very weak, and the tornado/747 analogy is not a bad handle to describe the problem.

[eMTee]

you say that creationism is based on faith...but when the evolution comes up..I see more faith than evidence.

One person says evolution is not by chance..another says that it requires chance..is science the maker of all things? How can you say that science works along with the situation at hand, creating whatever it can in watever environment it is in..changing all the time along with it's situation at hand, and say it is not by chance?

At the same time..when you break apart all the evidence...you keep on finding a more complex universe that could not have evolved randomly.