It is a matter of chance for that individual member of the species.
Remember though that evolution happens to populations, not individuals.
This is a word game, and it won't hold water. Populations are made up of individuals. And 'selection' (death) happens to individuals.
But then some evolutionists claim evolution happens to genes. There doesn't seem to be much promise of a consensus, dogmatic propaganda notwithstanding.
Over time, the individuals with the 51% chance of survival will replace the ones with the 50% chance of survival.
That is far from certain.
You should watch the video - it shows this process in action, and repeats it. The outcome is not random.
It's either random, or they cheated. Any time probability is involved, so is chance. You can't have one without the other.
If evolutionists were consistent, they'd have no choice but to understand. Who is it always saying any odds, no matter how high, must
have been overcome, "because here we are!"
I think this is much more a matter of loyalty to the clergy than anyone thinking they can make a sound argument that leads to the desired conclusion. What's the penalty for admitting Dawkins is wrong?
Talk about flip-flopping. One doesn't have to go to abiogenesis to get contradictions. One only need go as far as the 'partner' of 'selection'. Just ask what the chances are of stringing together a handful of just-the-right mutations. Then you'll get an earful of how infinitesimal chances still have a chance to take place.
Now a 50 to 51 % chance is far from infinitesimal! In fact, it has only 1 chance in 101 of making an impact! So in that sense, evolutionists are still believing in overcoming stiff odds. Maybe that's the appeal?