Would anyone accept evolution if it worked by chance?

Question

Many people seem to think that evolution works entirely by 'chance'. But chance is only part of the story. If it were really the only factor, here's how the show 'Pop Idol' would work:

o Pop Idol announces a new contest, and 10,000 random people turn up for audition. All of the entrants completely different. Some have no singing ability whatsoever. Those that do have different styles, voices, personalities and presentations.

o From these, 100 people are selected at random, with no regard to their abilities.

o The 100 are a random subset of the initial 10,000 entrants, and so have no more talent and ability than the general public.

o In the next step a further random sampling reduces the contestants down to 8. No testing or judging is done.

o Finally, a winner is chosen at random. This contestant is crowned the Pop Idol of the Year, and has a record deal with a major company.

Would anyone run a contest this way? Would science support a theory that worked like this?

@ onelittleangelsittingonmyknee: How DARE you post all that rubbish on my nice clean question?

What a depressing result. With a few charming exception - whom I love deeply and wish to fondle the crevices of - almost nobody got the parallel between Natural Selection and the judging/testing process.

This really shouldn't have been too hard, people.

To all those who took it upon themselves to painstakingly explain to me that evolution doesn't work like that - er, yeah. I sort of know that.

That was sort of the point.

Answer 1

I liked the way you put that on a level that SOME people could understand. I notice it is still over the heads of many though. No science that I ever studied would "put thier seal of approval" on such a random theory or so called process
((SuperAtheist))

Answer 2

Yes but chance is very important in numerous ways. The adaptation (I am using this term to mean the change in the lifeform) occurs by chance. Whether the adaptation is positive or negative is partially controlled by chance (is the life form in an environment that such a change has a positive or negative benefit-changes in one environment can be positive yet negative in a different environment). Because the change often occurs in an individual or a limited number of related offspring, the changed lifeform(s) may die from an unrelated cause (the benefit of the adaptation isn't a guarantee of survival) and not pass on the adaptation.

So to deny chance a role in the evolution of species is a bit short-sighted. It is sort of like saying that chance has nothing to do with chemical reactions.

to alter your analogy

-10,000 people show, and one of the contestants has an adaptation that makes them perfect for singing the blues, but no blues singing is used in the first evaluation and that contestant is eliminated;

-The remaining 100 are slightly better singers than the general public, but ten of them die in a plane crash, including the three best singers;

-The ten left after the next winnowing have above average ability, but the very best is physically unappealing to the extent that it is painful to watch him/her perform. The winner instead is a mediocre singer with beautiful features.

How does that compare with your evaluation?

Answer 3

your presentation describes a process of random selection which is very far from the random process in which evolution works.
an evolutionary process would allow a probability of continued survival for each of the contestants, those with the best singing ability will have the highest probability to stay alive after each testing and selection phase.
this process is by no mean a certain way to select the best individual singer, but repeated over and over again, the proportion of bad singers will dwindle, and although some good singers will perish, a lot more bad singers will perish, resulting in an evolutionary change of the average singing ability of the group of remaining individuals.
now make these remaining individuals mate and produce children, and keep the selection process for 10000 generations, and you will have a new species, homo musicalis.

Answer 4

Not quite sure what your point is, but that is not even close to an accurate analogy.

First there is the thought that someone is running the competition i.e. that there is an intelligence or direction behind this and that we are the "goal product". Then there is the problem with your numbers, realistically they would need to be in the billions with "winners" coming and going as time passes.

On the side, realize that this example only works in westernized society as other cultures have extremely different tastes in music.

Edit:
The point is that essentially it is semi random in that there is not a "plan" behind it, and that the factors that contribute to parts of a species changing to another is way more complex than selection by a panel of judges. I can't stress the orders of magnitude issue though, as people tend to think in "small" numbers.

Answer 5

Yes, if evolution was actually random then of course it wouldn't work. Fortunately for us Natural Selection is the furthest thing from being random. Unfortunately creationists are incapable of understanding simple concepts.

Answer 6

Evolution is a theory based on a supposition. And that is not chance. Pop idol is in accordance with the current theory of evolution; in regards to natural selection. The genius is that humans are able to transfer the context of natural selection from one of need, to one of choice! Amazing.
Pho9nes bring in the element of chance, but then you may as well just show moving dots on the tv screen... but eventually you will see a pattern... it is inevitable. Try it.
But hey, they can pick me... in fact do it, pick me and supply me with all I need and I can be your first winner!

Onelittle below... it is interesting how, to debunk evolution, you use the same argument that atheists use for religion. But when an atheist does it is because they lack faith... so I argue with a little faith, one can see that a gene for alcoholism is triggered in one person and a gene for schizophrenia is triggered in another person. These two meet and have a child who does throughout his/her lifetime fail to demonstrate either of these traits. Further they marry another person and this person, as you indicated is possible, all but makes the opportunity for the two troublesome genes to become manifest again, virtually impossible on the basis of probability. Now this adult, has contributed to a greater understanding of the worlds knowledge particularly in the areas of Genetic coding and is able to switch off, the recessive genes so that only the positive genes remain. So, evolution is no longer negative, but at least static. This same person talking to others expands the listeners consciousness... why do you relegate evolution to a simple issue of physicality? Why do you argue against a theory that is a few hundred years old? In this way perhaps it is you who are failing to evolve because your need to believe that humans "fell from grace" means you cannot see other than a return... to the garden... you are a romantic xoxo! This forwards or backwards, either or, notion is one of the great fallacies that institutions continue to use to disable a thorough understanding of what it is to be human.

Answer 7

not any that I've met but anytime Catholicism gets proven wrong by science they quickly change things look back at the early 1600s when they told everyone we are the only planet and the sun and moon revolve around the earth then along comes Galileo with his new invention the telescope and realizes there are other planets and we all revolve around the sun. when are people going to understand none of the religions have a clue what they're talking about

Answer 8

If it were entirely random, it would not be the theory of evolution.

People who think that have clearly never heard of "natural selection."

Answer 9

We are still evolving into something more intelligent... Christianity is a good business for most unproductive people, but not everybody is that morally corrupt!

Answer 10

Indeed,although a Selection Process is wasted on them anyway.Natural Selection would be a far better way to single out the best.Have them scarp it out for the final.

How many people don't get the concept?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!