macroevolution via mutations is not just ‘sorta impossible’ or even ‘quite impossible’- it’s not possible- period- The number is so large that it blows the upper thresh-hold of probability right out of the water-
And this is just for 1 mutation to create new non species specific information via mutation- Evolution demands hundreds of billions of such new species specific information to be added at every single ‘leap forward’ stage of macroevolution
To put this in perspective- it would take a trillion monkeys, typing 10 random keys per second, a length of time one trillion times as long as evos claim the earth has been around just to type the words “to be or not to be, that is the question” (You can find the monkey shakespeare simulator online by doing a search for it)-
This is just for one line of words with correct punctuation.
The bottom line is that even this possibility chance is dwarfed by the impossibility of macroevolution- at least monkeys stand a chance, albeit small, of typing a correct sentence IF given enough time- but the mathematical probability that a mutation could add positive new non species specific information to a specie’s genetic code makes it impossible that it ever happened, even once- let alone hundreds of billions of times
going back to the impossibilities of mutations to add new non species specific information (and absolute requirement in order to move one species to another species KIND- this can only happen by adding new non species specific information- IE: a frog (or whatever species evos think evolved into bats) would need information added that would ‘evolve’ an echo location system IF a frog is to evolve into a bat- frogs do not have such information coded into their systems)
The mathematical ‘probability’ is so far beyond the actual upper limits of possibility that it must be considered impossible- completely impossible. and again, this is just for one positive mutation adding new non species specific information
A simple organism or species which has just one part would need to survive long enough in it’s environment until a mutation happened which added new non ‘species specific’ information to add to this simple species’ information- then it would have to survive long enough for another, then another-
the following illustrates the impossible scenario of simple systems evolving into more complex systems
[[For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.]]
http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
All this must be ignored and great faith must be put into a hypothesis of macroevolution in order to believe that nature violated it’s own rules billions of times
Your point - that what is infinitesimally possible is impossible - is valid. There is no good argument for evolution other than doctrinaire belief in evolution. People simply have to be open to miracles.
The Bible amazingly tells us there was not one miracle, but a series of them. Thus, the origin of the universe cannot be explained, nor is there a good explanation of life, nor of the Cambrian explosion of life, nor of the emergence specifically of photosynthesis, the higher forms of animals, nor the emergence of humans. None of these things is even remotely explained by science.
BUT having said this, the flimsiness of evolution doesn’t prove young earth creationism. Both of those viewpoints are overwhelmed by the scientific evidence. Old earth creationism is arguably consistent with the best evidence available, but, seems to conveniently interpret the Bible in order to reconcile science and revelation. This is only possible for the Bible. All other faith traditions are totally whack when it comes to science.
But, really, I don’t care about any of that. The sheer majesty of the creation speaks to the power, imagination and infinite care of the Creator. So, if the Biblical account is merely poetic, it’s o.k. by me.