First, I did not write that you claimed it strongly or intemperately, or wrote the exact words “evolution is impossible.” I am saying that your arguments against evolution often amount to the claim that evolution is impossible, and that that is a strong claim in the sense that atheism and Catholicism make “strong” claims, while agnosticism and Unitarianism make “weak” claims.
You have certainly claimed that a natural origin of life is impossible, or at any rate, would take about E+44 times longer than the age of the universe (e.g., post 142, no doubt your math is impeccable, your central assumption that the simplest self-replicating chemical structure must have DNA, and indeed a specific chain of 125 DNA base pairs, is not).
It’s clear you believe abiogenesis is impossible, and that evolution is impossible for that reason, and I inferred from other comments of yours that that’s not your only reason for believing that evolution is impossible. (e.g., in answer to AntiGuv’s observation that “Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution.” you say:
That's the beginning, yes, but evolution is touted as beginning with the first self-replicating system and includes aspects of randomness which are clearly also dependant on numbers.
So I have concluded, I think reasonably, that your position is that evolution is impossible.
If in fact you do believe that evolution is possible, say so here, and I will apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs.
Yes, I do, as I have cited the llama/camel breeding. But I do not believe the Darwinian random mutation/natural selection version of it. No apology necessary.
As to the calculations, I merely used the numbers presented and made calculations from them. It is likely that the odds of something "useful" forming randomly are even less than the calculations show. This could happen if the tendancy is for the nucleic acids to form monotonic chains, or some other "non-random" minimum energy configuration.
The evidence against abiogenesis is right in the article and you cannot disprove it. To call the solid evidence presented there as a belief is to demean the strength of the evidence. If Andrew considers that evidence insurmountable, it only shows him to be a rational person unlike the atheists who, while not being able to refute it, insist that abiogenesis is possible without any evidence for it or even a rational explanation of how it could have happened.