[[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.]]
Lol- Suuuure it doesn’t apply- life just evovles from non life al l the time- Don;t dust your house, you could be killing a future inlaw- who knows what might spring on up out of the dust? His argument is just fine- regardless of what you are tryign to macroevolve-
I'm starting to think that because you don't accept macroevolution, you think that any argument that comes out "no" must be valid. It's not.
Your link says
The one in 10^68 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want?Who says we want any particular sequence? That's only the case if we're trying to evolve a specific animal--in which case, yes, the odds are small.
He makes a similar error in the comments. He writes
It’s possible to win the lotto every week for a year, but it’s not going to happen as the odds are too small - it’s not probable.That's true if you only buy one ticket a week. But if you buy all the tickets each week, it becomes more than probable, it becomes inevitable. Evolution buys a lot of tickets.