Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[Daniel Price <dprice@JEFFCO.K12.CO.US>]

Mr. Haskell raised the following point:

> One of their main arguments is that the modifications are very
> improbably, and most are not beneficial, and so the probability of
> beneficial evolution creating the diversity seen today is
> microscopically low. They are, of course correct that the
> overwhelming majority of mutations are not beneficial, but then they
> neglect the non-probabilistic side of the equation--natural
> selection, which is most decidedly *not* random, and which, when
> conditions are right, can allow the most useful of all the random
> mutations to become dominant within a surprisingly short generational
> span.

If a particular event occurs, the probability of it *having* happened is
one hundred percent.  Whether or not the occurrence was quite probable or
was highly improbable is completely irrelevant after the fact.  Anyone who
argues that the universe as it is must be the product of intentional
design, simply because of the slim likelihood of chance events leading to
its current state, misses the above point.  Tell lottery winners, and the
young lady struck by a meteorite, that what has happened to them is so
improbable that it could not have occurred.