[[As far as I’m concerned, they’re both digital models of an analog system, and neither one can even lay claim to knowing what all the variables are that I can see.
Step away from the glittering generalities.]]
Lol- the only one indulging in ‘glittering generalities’ is you who simply waves a hand at mathematical statistics and pretends it’s the same as a GA system when they are clearly entirely different
Your flaw in reasoning stems fro mthe fact that the statistics that make Macroevolution impossible are NOT improved by adding more ‘unknowns’ because it is the myriad ‘known’s that make it impossible- it’s a buiological impossibility as well- Chemical impossibility, and second law violating impossibility- The knowns in the stats just make it even worse (if htere is such a thing as ‘worse than impossible’)
The myriad ‘knowns’ are overwhelming- so overwhelming infact that they make it impossible- the only variables you could possibly add to ‘make it better’ would be to introduce ‘unknowns’ that VIOLATE scientific principles itself
If you care to know more about the reliability of the mathematical impossibility- take a look here:
http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability-of-evolution.html
GA’s also factor in natural impossibilites- simply ASSUMING they ocured naturally ‘at soem time in the past’- As well, GA’s ARE carefully guided to gauruntee predicted outcomes, and are done in such a way as to deviate from actual nature- Mathematical statistics do NOT do so- despite hte handwaving claim
That guy makes the exact same logical error he's complaining about! His argument only makes sense if you're trying to evolve humans or some other specified organism. If you're just trying to evolve something, his argument doesn't apply at all.
How do you know what they're factoring in is impossible? You don't, and can't. But you'll say it anyway because it sounds good.