Apparently you can't show the flaws in the math for this thread, either.
Those were your claims, after all, that there were numerous errors...
Let's check your reasoning, shall we?
Natural selection merely culls an existing species or allows an existing species to prosper/multiply.
Sure, but you're *really* underestimating all the nuances and consequences when you try to dismiss that as "merely".
Natural selection per se adds no mutations to DNA nor does it create distinct new DNA from whole cloth;
Correct, it's the *mutations* that add the mutations to DNA and create distinct new DNA from whole cloth.
How could you possibly have overlooked that?
Even a children's primer to evolution points out that at its most fundamental evolution arises from the interaction of *TWO* processes: Variation (via mutation and other mechanisms) and natural selection.
So why are you now acting befuddled about how natural selection *alone* can't produce evolution? That's correct, but trivially so. It's natural selection in tandem with varation which runs the engine of evolution.
Were you not aware of this? Are you so ignorant of basic evolutionary theory? Are you so willing to denounce and "disprove" it even without knowing even the most basic things about it?
instead, natural selection only applies to existing species as they stand, leaving science to still answer the question as to the origin of those species.
Sigh. See above. I have led you to water, I can't make you drink.
As you just stated, each aspect alone does not explain evolution. But the combinations of variation, selection and time are a very powerful force.
Three very important and factual aspects of nature which can not be denied.
Apparently you can't show the flaws in the math for this thread, either.
Those were your claims, after all, that there were numerous errors...
I'm hardly "befuddled". I pointed out that natural selection was insufficient, and now you have conceded that point by bringing in "variation".
It is "variation" that is the subject of the math for this thread (i.e. the probability of natural, unaided variation creating order), so you have only now caught up to the fundamental concept under discussion.
Nonetheless, congratulations for making that leap.
Now that you've caught up, perhaps you can explain all of those alleged "errors" in the math for the natural variation in the mathematical simile for this thread.
Or do you do math?