[betty boop]

An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable.

Excellent analysis, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much for the outstanding essay/post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[tacticalogic]

An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable.

Isn't it fun and easy to fault Darwin for failing to employ mathematical theorums that were just coming into use at the time he was developing his own theories?

[Natural Law]

"An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable."

It isn't untenable, it is just not as definitive as others. Bayesian probability theory, like a number of other probability theories, all provide mathematical support for evolution and Intelligent Design. Another and possibly better method, would be to consider Schramm–Loewner evolution, (also known as Stochastic Loewner Evolution or SLE). I've actually done some work with this to "evolve" complex design models as opposed to using simple or Taguchi orthagonal arrays. This has resulted in significant reduction in the amount of time consumed during the finite element analysis phase of design modeling.