[BuglerTex]

You are rignt; the math is way wrong. This is not a linear thing, it is parallel, and exponential, and factorial, Either a superfactorial or exponential factorial, since we are discussing organisms, not numbers. The answer is off by a power of immense size. Take away his slide rule.

But this reinfoces my position that the improbability of it all refutes random selection. Stochastic learning. Superstitious conclusions.

[Dimensio]

But this reinfoces my position that the improbability of it all refutes random selection.

I do not follow your reasoning. How does a fundamentally flawed mathematical probability argument reinforce your opinion of the probability of an event? How, exactly, is natural selection refuted by an invalid argument with false premises?

[b_sharp]

"But this reinfoces my position that the improbability of it all refutes random selection

What the heck is random selection?