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”?

[Jose]

I'm still waiting for YEC to tell us how a negative mutation makes a species start over from scratch.

I think he was thinking of a positive mutation (the "magic" mutation), and I think he was thinking that "selection" is killing everyone else who doesn't have the mutation (rather than mere differential reproduction). Maybe he's thinking this because he can't forget about antibiotic resistance, which pretty much works like this, and he's accepted it as an example of evolution (but won't say so). The idea would be that the rare survivor would have to start a whole new population, complete with genetic bottlenecks--just like the guys on the Ark did. Interesting...it's OK if it's the Ark, but not if it's natural.

[Cathar1950]

Nyril wrote:

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.

Good post I still am reading. I read this article about fish using their fins to get around weeds(at least that was what the fossils seem to imply)and the legs were used to maneuver among the over growth looking for food. One Of the things that evolution seems to do is adapt to the environment in useful ways. They are not just chance happenings or random mutations.
Ok I will get back to reading.

[Jose]

Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are!

Actually not. It is pushed as the explanation of the data that we have. There is a difference.

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.

I note that the "atheistic" version of the theory is also the theistic version. The data are the same for the minority of scientists who are atheists, or for the larger number who are theists.

The theory does not presuppose that mutations happen randomly or by chance. The theory is based on a huge body of data, including observations such as my own that are unpublished (for obvious reasons) that if we look at the DNA sequences of a bunch of different molecules that were subjected to mutation, the mutations turn out to be in different places on different molecules. The statistical calculations that have been applied, in order to determine whether there is any pattern to the locations of the mutations, tell us that there is none. They appear to occur at random.

Having their locations be random does not mean they occurred "by chance" or "without cause." The cause is almost always some kind of DNA damage, by chemicals or by radiation. We can increase the rate of mutation dramatically by exposing things to Xrays, radioactivity, or a variety of nasty chemicals--in which case, the mutations we get are not "by chance" because we caused them. They are, however, in statistically random locations in the DNA.

Second, natural selection is only one mechanism by which evolution can occur. There are others--but all display the same characteristic: some individuals have more offspring than others. In an environment where resources are limited (ie, real life), if some individuals do better, then others will do less well. In enough generations, the genes of the ones who do well become the most common. "Doing well" could be through natural selection, or it could be through human-imposed selection, or it could be through "random events" like being killed in a flood or surviving the flood.

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.

I'm not sure I see what you are saying here. The "distribution" is the distribution of many events that we look at to determine whether there is a pattern. Needless to say, we can look for patterns in mutational distributions only by looking at existing species. We necessarily infer that the same principles apply to species we have not examined, and to individual life forms that lived in the past. We consider this to be a reasonable inference because of the chemistry of DNA. Why should it have been wildly different in the past? Since there is no justification for assuming that it has been different, we infer that it has been essentially the same as now---just as we infer that gravity has worked pretty much the same way.

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”?

The short answer is that the scientific meaning and the colloquial meanings get mixed up. Scientifically, we mean that the locations of the mutations could not be pre-defined, and occurred in a statistically random pattern. Or, we may mean that the meteor crashed into the earth in an infrequent type of event that reflects no obvious periodicity. The former (mutation) does only what we say it does: create genetic diversity. The latter (unpredictable events) provides environmental changes, which may or may not result in some of the genetic diversity being advantageous. If it is advantageous, then biological change may occur in a population. If not, then that population may become extinct.

BUT none of this is atheistic. God may be there causing the mutations. He may be placing mutations in locations that look entirely random, so that we won't be able to tell that he's playing games with us. He may be there throwing rocks at the earth. We don't know. The data neither rule out the hand of god, nor demonstrate that it is essential. The data are completely silent on gods of all kinds. Therefore, there is no justification for bringing gods into the explanation of the data. There is also no justification for saying gods are impossible. You'll note that what is presented in school is merely the data and its interpretation, with no mention of gods good or bad.