Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

0 evidence = 0 probability.
Now if you present evidence, that probability might change.

Verifiable and testable evidence. That's convenient isn't it. Bullshit. Support your assertion or retract.

Because evidence is verifiable and testable. Faith is wishful thinking.

There are a few problems with this question. First of all it seems to be a loaded question. One that is voiced in order to cause further dispute. Even the word mindlessness you have manipulated from AZPaul3's statement into something different than how he used it. He called evolution mindless, not mankind or any entity at all that can become mindful. Maybe this is part of the issue you have understanding evolution. It is not a thing.
But the question can not even be addressed at all until you define terms that are used in the question.
What do you mean by nirvana? What do you mean by mindlessness?

Is this a fact? Do you have a source for this data?
I am not disputing that this may be true. What I am saying is that such a specific data point should be reinforced with the actual data if you want to use it in an argument.

That is fine. Please provide a link. I should not have to do my own research to confirm this statement. Also, it does not support your original assertion. Child mortality could have been much lower or much higher thousands of years ago. Your 60% seems to have no basis in factual data. 1800 was not thousands of years ago.I am not disputing that infant mortality was exceedingly high it is just your statement has no empirical data to support it. Also, what do you mean by thousands of years ago? Roman times? There is very little data for this in just looking doing some quick searches I have found estimates anywhere from 20-50%. Bronze age? Stone Age?There also seems to be some evidence that precontract native societies had a much lower child mortality rate than postcontact. Finally there is also a big difference between infant mortality and childhood mortality. So 43% is not the infant mortality rate(newborns) but childhood mortality rate.
Again, I do not disagree that infant and childhood mortality was much higher in the past. I have a problem with a specific number being given to a vague time period. Also, I have a problem with the extrapolation that if mortality was higher in 1800 it must have been much higher "thousands of years ago".
I want to see the data not hear assertions.

There was no intention of an attack on you. Without holding peoples feet to the fire and requiring support for statements, anyone can say anything or make any claim they want. Also, by asking for supporting data, it forces people to actually look at their preconceived ideas to see if they actually stand up to the scrutiny.
This is a thread in the science forum. Claims are not accepted on faith, but on data.
I am very sorry if you felt attacked. I would have requested the same from any other member. If you do not feel you should have to defend your claims, maybe this is not the correct forum for you. On the faith side of the forum there are not the same rigorous requirements for an argument.