[chronic_loser]

The math hasn't changed since Wistar, either.

And the math simply does not support the notion of change from microbe to man, no mantter how generous the terms you offer.

Never will forget the dialogue with my Bio prof in Sophomore genetics in studying beneficial genetic adaptations. We looked at the chances of UV directed mutation, the chances of that mutation being positive (actually we have nothing close to reliable on this, it was sheer conjecture). I asked how many mutations would be necessary to support development of all the phyla and the diversity of life forms (animal and plant) on the planet. I still remember the comment "it boggles the mind." I responded, "screw all the life forms, then. just man..... amoeba to man...., how many adaptations would be necessary?" He became defensive, and I responded "I am just trying to get my head around a mathematical MODEL to see if this stuff is really supportable, or do you just want us to believe it because my genetics prof says it is so?" I will never forget his response... He said "It is mathematically a challenge, but it is the ONLY explanation for why we are here." I just said "thank you" but I wished I had asked him if we should close with a hymn, or recite the catechism or say a hail mary or something, since this had become a religion class.

what a load of horseshit, and it happens in dialogues with scientists every day.

[mc6809e]

And the math simply does not support the notion of change from microbe to man, no mantter how generous the terms you offer.

So long as the chances of beneficial mutation are non-zero, the probability will be non-zero. That's what the math says.

You also have to take into account the exponential growth of populations. The non-zero chance of a beneficial mutation is multiplied by the number of organisms available. This number grows rapidly.

So you have exponential growth combined with non-zero probabilities and over a billion years to work with.

The math may not "support" the notion of change from microbe to man, but it certailly doesn't refute it, either.

Try again "math whiz".