[Dan Day]

of course, they are GENEROUS speculations which give huge favor to Evolution,

And you proved this *where*, please?

but they are assumptions nonetheless), but his specific math is not speculation.

True, but without being tied to actual processes to be modeled (and there are those "assumptions" again), his math is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

How many times will this have to be explained to you until it sinks in?

[Southack]

"True, but without being tied to actual processes to be modeled (and there are those "assumptions" again), his math is irrelevant to the topic at hand."

On the contrary, Watson's math is perfectly valid for demonstrating probabilities, especially in regards to scope and scale, hence this thread.