[mc6809e]

is there a prize for the most complete non-sequitur reasoning being offered on free republic or something? The exponential growth of populations is part of the mathematical PROBLEM, not the source of a solution.

You're such a jerk.

Exponential growth acts to create large populations over which beneficial mutuation might occur. So even if the probablility of beneficial mutuation in an individual is small, that probability might become large given a large population.

Consider the total number of prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). According to William Whitman, a microbiologist at University of Georgia, the number is 5 x 10^30.

Now as improbable as beneficial mutation might be, can you really say that it's statistically zero when multipled by 5 x 10^30 ? Of course not.

So how can exponential growth be considered part of the mathematical problem?

[chronic_loser]

You're such a jerk.>>
I love you too, honey, but if we keep meeting like this, people are going to talk....
Look, you start a thread by pissing in someone's soup and then whine about how they react? How quaint. Shall I remind you of your first post on the matter? Anyway

Exponential growth acts to create large populations over which beneficial mutuation might occur. So even if the probablility of beneficial mutuation in an individual is small, that probability might become large given a large population.>>

If we were dealing with only monoline "species" (hate that word, there is so little solid stuff in it, but we have to say SOMETHING), you might have a point. The fact is that we have an EXPLOSION of billions and billions of life forms, all diverse, all unique and all inexplicable in your world apart from numbers of mutations, the size of which cannot even be guestimated, much less calculated.
This is what has led non religious scientists like Hoyle (who coined the term "big bang") and Francis Crick to posit that life, or at least "seeds" of life, came from outside the cosmos. The statistical demands of naturalistic change over time simply cannot be supported by any known models.
As far as the number of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, I could give a shit how many there are, and the number is irrelevant unless you are positing how some type of proto nucleic strand might have come about. If so, I will gladly yeild that to you, and you STILL have nothing. You are still stuck in the same pit you were when you started, unless you are trying to posit the same types of numbers each step "up" (interesting word choice, there) the evolutionary ladder. Eventually you run out of a base, and the demands for positive mutations doesn't slack up at all. As a matter of fact, it INCREASES. Statistically, you are stuck.