"First, the end process in my example was rain, not evaporation. Try to keep up." - Dan Day
Acting petty and pedantic fails to promote a scientific discussion (yes, I know, you've got some quips and retorts about just how "scientific" this discussion has become - because you are utterly predictable). Moreover, my point was valid for evaporation and is still also valid for condensation (i.e. rain). - Southack
"Second, the point is that it most certainly *does* take a very unlikely specific configuration of water molecules if, like the author of the original post, you foolishly make your calculations without taking into account all the physical processes at work." - Dan Day
That's ridiculous. Rain is NOT dependent upon any specific sequence of ordered molecules of H2O, and because it is NOT dependent upon sequence, its processes are less complicated, less complex, and more probable than are actions which require large amounts of specificly sequenced data (e.g. the ordered characters of the alphabet which comprise the first sentence of Hamlet, the ordered sequence of base pairs which comprise a functioning gene, et al).