Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

But seriously, the idea wasn't to set the numbers at some arbitrary value to incite awe, but to give an understanding of why it's not as awe inspiring as one would first assume. The point being that one doesn't have to get all 999's in a roll. You get to keep any 999 you get along the way, and only re-roll the non-999's. A diligent roller could knock it out in a month two if he's unionized. Your threshold of awe is set way too low.I have a higher threshold of awe than do you. If awe has a genetic component, that difference, plus selection, is the material for evolution.Of the six and one-half billion people on Earth there is a mean value for the threshold-of-awe with values spreading out on both side of that mean. If awe ever becomes a dangerous trait those with a higher threshold will fare better than those with a low threshold. And they'll pass along that trait to their kids, who will also fare better. The mean value for the threshold-of-awe will shift to the high end.And not a single die need be cast today to do it. The die had been cast for millions of years, aimlessly widening the spread away from the mean. All the while getting to keep, not just the 999's, but all the rolls that weren't deleterious. Mutations that merely increased the spread away from the mean in seemingly insignificant ways under the circumstances that existed when they arose can become harmful or beneficial millions of years further down the road. It's not the mutation that arrives just in the nick of time but the selection pressure.There's lots of time to roll the dice, and the only ones we don't keep are the ones that hurt. And in some far-flung future my descendants will be unfazed by how awe-full your descendants will be.Edited by lyx2no, : Prose

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

The "odds game", as you call it, is not all or nothing. One examines at the mechanics of the game and describes the game with the math. Not the other way round. Coyote, to whom you were responding, also mentioned the mechanics of two ways to play to an end. One where sixes are retained and one where they are not. Evolution is a game that clearly gets to keep the sixes already rolled. All 25 matching is an end. The difference is in the means. As I'm a bit brighter then a lump of coal it instantly dawns on me that answering your question in the positive is trivially true. What is this penchant you have for trivial truths?The two means given by Coyote are not trivially distinct, right?Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

All that would be necessary would be for a self-catalyzing molecule to come into existents that would be hardy enough to survive its environment. After that any miscopy would be either more or less robust. The more robust would make more copies then the less robust: keeping the sixes as it were.The selection pressure existed long before that molecule came into existence in the form of temperature, salinity, pH levels and a million other things that are more harmful to some versions of the autocatalyst then others.There is no problem to confront. Mutation and selection existed long before anything that could be called life did.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.