Replies

"And you know, those who think statistics are against evolution -- they're against evolution from the beginning."

How can you possibly know this?

I think any argument involving statistics, mathematics, logic, and perhaps especially, observation should be taken seriously. I see no reason to rule out criticism, or support, based upon statistics.

It seems natural selection from the available genetic material can only go so far. It seems plausible that it can serve a conservative role. This would include the elimination of three legged dogs and nearsighted eagles. Cats come in several colors: white, black, gray, orange. Perhaps strong selective pressures could reduce the gene pool to black cats only. But that is merely subtraction of genetic information. I don't see how selection can add information and give us a fire-engine red cat or a green cat. Nor is it likely that selection alone can get us from the first mammal to a bat or to a whale.

So that is where mutations come in. But what is the probability that a cosmic ray to groin will provide an improvement? It's kind of like taking a magnet to your hard disk to upgrade your software. Given enough time - sure. But is there enough time? I think math and statistics is critical, and should not be ruled out