I was just browsing the forums again when I ran across this hilarious little (well, not so little any more) thread, and I might as well get involved since this topic interests me significantly.
First off, the most minor point I have, is that if one wishes to claim
that our languag is butchered enoff, then please, for Fades sake, use a spell check and be consistent in your own usage of English so that we may understand your points better.
That aside, the primary problem I have with the principle argument of AGs that the evolutionary model as it stands now is a statistical improbability is that is based upon false statistical models. The simplest answer that I can give you are these famous words by Terry Pratchett:
Every probability curve must have its far end
Given that, the more in-depth answer arises from the method in which your sources seem to have arrived at the conclusions they seemingly have. Primarily, the process of evolution does not rely solely on random mutations of an organisms genome. The current model hypothesizes that given the time available, evolution would have involved not only mutational evolution, but also survivalist evolution (think survival of the fittest). The layers of complexity the statistical model youve quoted,
AG said:
how many bad mutations it took to get one good and usefull mutation then muliply that number by the cells in the human body and then multiply that number by the number of EVERYTHING on planet Earth
Which, if anything like the actual method used to come up with the figures you cited (well, more like !exclaimed!) then I must say that the scientists you rely on should have failed any biostatistics or inferential statistics classes they should have taken. A more accurate, though not perfect (since when has statistics ever been perfect, eh?) is a method called social group-theory and statistical analysis. Long story short, what SGTSA entails is an analysis of how positive traits can influence and affect detrimental influences and modify purely random statistics away from the standard model (which you have inaccurately attempted to use) to a self preserving model.
Thus, the mutations and constructions required to go from a simple 5386 base-pair Phage Φ-X174
virus to a 3x10^9 base-pair Homo Sapien (thats you) can easily take place in the millennia available for the process. In fact, the amoeba dubia has the largest genome know to date, having a stunning 67x10^10 base pairs simplicity does not give rise to simpletons.
And Alexander Garcia, why bring up BLACKS or Irish monkeys at all? Any comments of racist origin (of which I believe there were an original
three a whole lot, eh?) in the original Darwin manuscripts have no bearing on the modern theory of evolution or the practical law of evolution. Please, for the sake of objectivity, save that for other places.
