The Origin of Species (When is a theory not a theory?)

There are just a couple of things that continue to bother me when discussion turns to evolution. 

First, we're told that this theory explains how higher organisms (like us) gradually developed from much simpler organisms.  This is based on observations of certain small birds which are identical to other small birds except that their beaks are longer (or shaped differently).  We're told that the difference happened by accident (a mutation) and that this accident allowed the mutant bird to survive in a changing environment.  We're told that the mutation was passed on to offspring and that, over time, the birds showed a mating preference for others with the same beak so that after many generations, all descendants of the original mutant possessed the new beak.

This part is believable, though improbable.  The likelihood of a stable mutation that can be genetically transmitted to offspring is small.  The likelihood of the original mutant surviving to produce offspring is small.  The likelihood of the mutant successfully mating, given that differences are generally not accepted by prospective mates, is quite small.  The likelihood of sufficient mutants reaching adulthood and mating with one another to produce a stable breeding population is very small.  Entire breeding populations (known as flocks or herds or packs...are often wiped out completely by sickness, fire, storm, famine or any of a host of devices that nature keeps for such purposes.

As you may know, the probability of a series of things happening together is the product of their individual probabilities.  For example, let's say that the probability of a successful/useful mutation is one in a hundred (1%).  For many species in the wild, the probability of surviving to breeding age is one in three (33%).  Let's imagine that the probability of attracting a mate given that you are visibly different is one in five (20%).  Let's further assume that the probability of any specific individual becoming the basis of a stable breeding population is one in 100 (1%).  The actual probabilities may be much lower but these will do for this illustration.  There are many other conditions, each with it's own probability that might also come onto play but with only these few variables we calculate the probability of success at .01 x .33 x .20 x .01 = .0000066 or less than one in one hundred thousand.

By the way, at this point we have only succeeded in producing a new sub-species because we have assumed that the mutants have bred with non-mutants within the species.  One of the defining characteristics of a species is that interbreeding with another species is not possible or at least highly improbable.

Evolutionists deal with improbability through the use of time.  If enough time goes by, they say, virtually anything is likely to happen, regardless of its probability.   That's hard to argue with.  Hard to argue isn't quite the same as persuasive, though.

The point that is most difficult to accept is the mutation that produced sexual reproduction.  We go from a time in which all reproduction (in single-cell organisms) is via mitosis.  The cells simply split and become two identical cells.  Suddenly, everything changes.  We now need another individual in order to procreate.  This is not a mutation.  The difference can't be explained by evolutionary (meaning incrementally small changes over a long period of time) change.  It seems we are left with only a handful of choices.

• We need more complexity in the origins.  At least we need both sexual and asexual reproduction to be represented in the universe.
• If we insist on a single original lifeform, we need to change the basic building block of evolution from mutation to something else.
• We have to relegate evolution to a much smaller role.

Of course there are many other theories out there to explain the breadth and depth of the diversity of lifeforms on our planet.  They aren't getting enough attention because only one theory, evolution, has been granted the "scientific" seal.

It's not important to me to explain how we became what we are because the the real value comes in understanding how we will become what we should be.  It just raises my hackles when someone says that they have an explanation for Homo sapiens and it is evolution.