[js1138]

I did. You are demonstrating that I was correct when I described the statement, among others, as provocative.

You continue an unbroken streak of responding only to the Peripheral parts of any argument.

I started a specific line of argument in #1446, and you ingnore the argument in favor of responding to the one-sentence lead in fluff.

Let me continue. Wolfram suggests that variations in mutation is highly constrained, which leads to the possibility that the calculations of astronomical odds against favorable mutations is bogus.

One could posit all kinds of religious and pseudo religious "causes" for this -- anything from God designing the physical constants to produce evolution, to "multiverse" scenerios in which every possible thing happens in infinite parallel universes.

In either scenerio, evolution happens, but Wolfram's hypothesis would explain why the probabilities favor evolution.

[AndrewC]

You continue an unbroken streak of responding only to the Peripheral parts of any argument.

And you continue to produce things that I did not write. I merely said they were provocative. I took no side in the actual statements.