"Fully knowing that chance in itself is not agency - there is no causality in chance , chance is a byproduct of an event therefore can not effect anything , so the equation would look something like : chance + any amount of time = nothing , therefore evolution or any of its pseudo-intellectual ilk are simply impossible ."
"... and I was n't disappointed I do n't know what 'chance as causality ' is supposed to mean , but to speak of evolution being 'based on chance ' is highly misleading . If I have an accident on the way to work tomorrow morning , there will be a definite cause ; a specific series of events leading up to it . We can not guess what they might be . Nevertheless , we can still makes statements about the statistical likelihood of such an accident occurring , yes ? Does that accurate statement of probability mean that my fate on the road is literally determined by a dice roll , that if my number comes up , I crash , with 'chance as causality ' ? Of course not . We are merely describing the likelihood of an event in a system of which we have imperfect knowledge . As our knowledge of the system increases , our assessment of that likelihood changes : if you know my age and gender , my driving habits , my route and how busy or quiet it is - all these things permit a more accurate assessment of the odds . If we had perfect knowledge of a deterministic system , the odds would be 1 or 0 . Similarly , every mutation that has ever occurred has had a definite proximate cause , and if we knew what they all were and what they would all be in the future , evolution would lie mapped out before us in all its detail . Nevertheless , in the absence of perfect knowledge of these individual causes we can still describe the occurrence of such events statistically , saying how long we might have to wait , or how many trials we might conduct in order to expect a given outcome . So to say that the evolution of the nylon bug , for instance , was based on chance is misleading : the evolution of the nylon bug was based on whatever proximate cause shuffled its DNA . Correctly viewed , evolution is not a series of unlikely events , but a series of highly likely ones . It is highly likely , for instance , that some bacteria in a large colony would experience a mutation enabling the digestion of nylon . Sure - breaking that event down on a per-bacterium basis yields tiny probabilities , but why stop there ? Why not break it down on a per-bacterium , per-microsecond basis ? The chances just got even smaller ! See ? It 's a silly way to think about it , because in the end it 's the chance of the event occurring that matters , not some arbitrary deadline by which it must occur or cell to which it must occur ."
"chance in itself is not agency byproduct of an event"
"speak of evolution highly likely ones way to think about it"