One Hundred Million Americans and a Toad

With Lewis and the Pope (but not 45% of Americans, according to
Gallop) I do not object to the theory of evolution on theological
principle. Nevertheless, I have often been perplexed by what I (who am
ignorant of Biology) think is a problem for Darwin. It concerns the
nature of explanation, not so much for the survival of species but
their origin. Creationists (about whom I am also ignorant) may have
similar arguments to the one I am about to propose, but it so happens
that for what it is worth these thoughts have simply emerged from my
own idle speculations which although they occurred years ago (browsing
through a Creationist's book), I have never followed through. This is
my problem.

Apparently there is a toad that has a long egg-laying proboscis which
allows it to lay its eggs on a specially sensitive spot of skin on its
back. This has survival value in various marshy terrains. The
Creationist, as I recall was incredulous at such phenomena developing
independently and so rejected evolution.
But what occurred to me was something slightly different. It was not
so much the problem of explaining features emerging that possess
survival value, but how to account for the lack of features that don't
have survival value.
Suppose probability of (growing a large proboscis) = a thousand to one
& p(getting a sensitive spot on the back ) =a thousand to one
& assuming independence ( I wonder about this?)
& suppose 1000000 occasions – all the above seem plausible.
Then P(proboscis and spot) = a million to one.
Now, I have no problem about a million to one chance happening in a
million trials (63% likely, in fact, by my calculations).
But, shouldn't there be 2000 other toads, half of those with proboscis
but no spot, the other with spot and no proboscis? Does this happen?
There doesn't seem to be any positive reason to lose that spot. Just
because something doesn't have survival value doesn't mean it won't or
shouldn't survive. It seems to me that if evolution is true which I
believe (help my unbelief!) then such intermediary forms should be
apparent at all stages including our own stage. But do we identify
such forms?

Now, I really don't know much about Darwin's theory, but I now and
again catch this or that popular spokesman who, purports to give an
explanation for such and such. These "true disciples" cause me
scandal. For again, on Darwin's theory, it seems to me that there are
many things, the result of random variation, that possess no survival
value, and require no explanation at all. They are simply down to
chance. (Toss a coin 100 times. You get 46 heads. Why not 47? No
reason, that's just chance. It's roughly 50%, and that's what
matters). So why don't such Darwinist's say this? Obviously, it makes
perfect sense that they do constantly come up with such explanations
(academics have to survive) but I don't think they are true to their
(my) creed.
So where is my mistake?
CF

On 6 Nov 2004 05:19:14 -0800, chrisseanfriel.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Chris Friel)
wrote:

 >Now, I really don't know much about Darwin's theory, but I now and
 >again catch this or that popular spokesman who, purports to give an
 >explanation for such and such.
Perhaps it would be wise to learn more about the theory before you try
to discount it. On the web, talk.origins is a good place start.


 >These "true disciples" cause me
 >scandal. For again, on Darwin's theory, it seems to me that there are
 >many things, the result of random variation, that possess no survival
 >value, and require no explanation at all. They are simply down to
 >chance.

If you had taken the time to learn more about the theory of evolution
rather than speculating on the basis of ignorance you would have found
that evolutionists do indeed say that some random variations may not
posses a positive survival value. They may indeed be 'simply put
down' to chance. And that is an explanation.
Of course, as the environment changes, it may turn out that such
'useless' variations are quite beneficial for survival. Or perhaps at
one time it did have survival value but no longer does because of
changing circumstances.
James
---
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't
believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast."
Through the Looking Glass<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->