# The Theory of Evolution is the opposite of chance? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 7, 2007, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090 "2007-01-07T23:21:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090/21 "2007-01-08T18:33:11Z")
I fear I must disagree with **Darwin’s Finch** - for the first time ever, I think. Consider a set of ball bearings shaken and released in deep space. Their trajectories will be determined by chance - the shaking - though they are purely deterministic after that. If you release them in a gravity field their trajectories will not be determined by chance - but will be downwards. There is no purpose in either case. The opposite of purposeful is not randomness, necessarily. Perhaps the problem is that “the opposite of chance” seems to imply that the outcome of evolution is deterministic and predictable, even if there is no purpose. While it is not purely chance - we’ll never see an elephant fly - there is certainly some involved, since evolution only guarantees a local optimum, not a global optimum. Thus we wind up with a blind spot. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090/22 "2007-01-08T19:19:42Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I fear I must disagree with **Darwin’s Finch** - for the first time ever, I think. [/quote] While I don’t have a problem with you disgreeing with me…could you be more explicit regarding with which point you are disagreeing? I gather it’s something to do with the statement “the opposite of chance is predictability”, but I’m not entirely certain. > [@tdn](#): > > While I don’t doubt this on a general level, won’t more dramatic changes have a better chance of sticking? It seems to me that an African leaping snail that can evade predators by leaping an extra .0000000001 millimeter further than its peers has gained no significant survival benefit. That tiny little change would have no real chance to accumulate. Think of it more as a statistically significant variation than an imperceptibly small advantage. “Statistically significant” of course, does not necessarily mean “macro-mutation”, but rather in the general distribution pool of variations, there might be a range (or ranges) within that distribution that is (are) more optimal than the rest. Those who fall within that (those) range(s) have a better chance of surviving and reproducing than the rest of the population. If the phenotypic result of the mutation is hardly evident, then it’s likely not going to be a selective boon to its owner. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090/23 "2007-01-08T19:40:33Z")
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] Think of it more as a statistically significant variation than an imperceptibly small advantage. [/QUOTE] Within the entire population, you mean? I’d buy that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090/24 "2007-01-08T22:21:27Z")
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] While I don’t have a problem with you disgreeing with me…could you be more explicit regarding with which point you are disagreeing? I gather it’s something to do with the statement “the opposite of chance is predictability”, but I’m not entirely certain. [/QUOTE] Pretty much. Mostly because the OP is clearly confused You said [QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] No. “By chance” is not the opposite of “having a purpose”. “By chance” simply means either that multiple results are more-or-less equally likely, or that we cannot predict the outcomes of multiple trials. The opposite of “by chance” is “predictable”. [/QUOTE] Now the OPs misconception about purpose has been pretty much cleared up. My point is that evolution, like many search space heuristics, is a situation where the opposite of chance is not predictability. Evolutiuon does hill climbing, so that we know that over time, barring environmental changes, species will climb Mt. Improbable to become better adapted. But which peak the species hits is somewhat due to chance, since genetic variability might move a species to a local optimum. Like I said, those who say evolution is the opposite of chance seem to be addressing the people who don’t get that natural selection moves species up the hill. A drunkards walk will never get you to the top of a hill, let alone to the top of a specific hill. That is my, very minor, disagreement with the way you stated it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theory-of-evolution-is-the-opposite-of-chance/387090.md?page=1)