[RussP]

RussP wrote:

The evolutioninsts base their theory on probabilities, yet they do no probabilistic calculation whatsoever.

Doctor Stochastic Replied:

Of course this is just another Creationist lie. A simple examination of: R Durrett, R Durrett, "Probability models for DNA sequence evolution" and the references therein refute the claim entirely.

RussP replies:

To be technically correct, perhaps I should have qualified my claim by saying that I have not come across any probability calculations in my reading on evolution, which includes admittedly only two or three pro-evolution books on the subject, including "The Blind Watchmaker."

I am not a biologist, so I obviously don't have time to read all the literature out there in that field (I barely have time to scratch the surface in my own field of aerospace engineering). However, I assumed, perhaps naively, that Dawkins would cover the major points, which did not include any probabilities. If I need to read some obscure biological journal to get the basics of evolution, then I'd say your side isn't doing a very good job.

Having said all that, let me ask you a question. Of all mutations that occur, roughly what percentage do you think are harmful, and what percentage do you think are helpful to the organism? And do those percentages vary by species, etc.? I think this is a key point, and I would really like to know the answer. Thanks.

[Thatcherite]

To be technically correct, perhaps I should have qualified my claim by saying that I have not come across any probability calculations in my reading on evolution, which includes admittedly only two or three pro-evolution books on the subject, including "The Blind Watchmaker."

So if I read a couple of pop-science books about aeroplanes and don't see any reference to probability calculations about component-failure its sensible for me to conclude that it doesn't go on..... sheesh; at least we now know the true extent of your knowledge of that which you reject.

As it happens evolutionary biologists including Dawkins have done a ton of probabilistic math and I am fairly sure that he *does* refer to it in BW, though I don't have a copy to hand to check with. I think you haven't been looking very hard (ignorance being the centrepiece of your position)

[Doctor Stochastic]

...I have not come across any probability calculations in my reading...

Then why didn't you just say that you were ignorant of the subject. You made several absolute claims like "no probabilistic calculation whatsoever."