First of all, I doubt there is as much agreement as you imply. I haven't seen it myself. I don't trust textbooks written by folks who go at their exploration with a particular outcome in view. Hence, like most scientists, I remain a skeptic until the evidence is presented in its fulness.
Second, the size of the earth makes the number of samples taken to date more or less insignificant. Is it not a mathematical fact that, the bigger the deck of cards and choices, the lower the probability? The sheer volume of geological data most likely makes for probability akin to a singal individual winning all the lotteries on the same day.
Lastly, since evolution theories have adopted an arbitrary process that will fit the evidence no matter how it turns up, they have no more credibility in describing objective reality than simple declarations such as "God did it."
"Lastly, since evolution theories have adopted an arbitrary process that will fit the evidence no matter how it turns up, they have no more credibility in describing objective reality than simple declarations such as "God did it.""
First, evolution has NOT adopted an "arbitrary" process. It uses scientific method and peer review just like all science.
Lastly, if you see that claiming "God did it" is not credible in matters of science, why do you continue to do it?
Not in the sense being discussed here. Sample statistics reflect population statistics with errors depending on the size of the sample, not the size of the population. In blackjack, the probability of getting an Ace (from afresh shoe) is 1/13, no matter how many decks are in the shoe.