"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."
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?
1) Each raindrop will randomly distribute the particles of dirt that it strikes. (variation)
2) Random distributions of dirt particles will remain mathematically uniform over time and individual raindrops will cancel each other out. (time)
Hence: It is impossible for erosion to occur. (FALSE)
---------
1) Each raindrop will randomly distribute the particles of dirt that it strikes. (variation)
2) Gravity will cause the water and particles to move downhill in a biased direction. {selection}
3) The downward movements of water and dirt particles will combine and accumulate. (time)
Hence: It is possible for erosion to occur. (TRUE)
"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." I'm hardly "befuddled". I pointed out that natural selection was insufficient, and now you have conceded that point by bringing in "variation".
Where you were obviously "befuddled" is where you went on to say that considered "science still to answer" the question of where new genetic material comes from. Quite the contrary, this is dealt with in in Biology 101. Were you out sick that semester?
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (takes deep breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, yeah, that's rich. *I've* finally caught up to the "fundamental concept". *snicker*.
Son, you can't calculate "variation" alone, without considering selection. That's what the original author tried to do, and it's just plain stupid.
"Unaided variation" isn't how nature works, so any blindered calculation of "unaided variation" will necessarily produce wrong answers.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Or do you do math?
I most certainly do, son.
That's why I know quite a bit about what sort of math produces relevant results, and what kind is just playing with a calculator.