I agree, evolution seems mathematically impossible without intelligent design - God.
RNA, DNA are like Lego bricks, and every Lego brick has a code which says where it has to end up in relation to every other brick. Imagine sorting out a pile of a trillion Lego bricks, we would use intelligent design to assemble them, but evolution relies on blind random mutation.
Random mutation is needed before natural selection can work. Starting from 3.7 million years ago, there are no organising Hox gene, there are no other genetic organising systems in place. For about three billion years there was not the need for any mutations that would become vertebrae, jaws, eyes, fins, rib cages etc, and life is happy.
Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, and you had to assemble them in the shape of a fish, complete with its skeleton. You can have as many billions of attempts as you like. There are some conditions, a small fish of around a trillion cells would become full size within about a year. This means you would have to assemble the Lego bricks at the rate of about three billion every day, or about a hundred million bricks every hour for a year. And if this was to be done in some kind of random way, you would need a blindfold to make it more realistic.
How can blind nature come up with an organising system to do this?
Sorry.
Have you seen the actual equations to Intelligent Design?
Can you show these maths for Intelligent Design?
There are no such equations.
Plus, the maths aren’t that important in biology as they are in physics.
But regardless if it is physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science or astronomy. What is very important to sciences, are the physical evidence, experiments, tests, data - all scientific observations - these are what really matters in Natural Sciences - mathematical equations don’t take precedence over testable evidence & data.
Like the explanations and predictions that are proposed in a hypothesis, theory or theoretical model, equations required testing too.
So if the evidence or experiments don’t support the mathematical equations in a hypothesis or theory, then the equations are wrong or not relevant, not evidence or experiments.
The numbers you have given, show no actual equations and no contexts that it applied to “design”, so really your numbers don’t involve any maths at all.
And you have no evidence to support the numbers you have given.
You talk vaguely about fish, as your example. But which fish.
Fishes come in all species, and they ranged in size from the very tiny as the ember tetra, to as large as the whale shark.
The points being, that you wouldn’t expect the ember tetra (2 cm long) and whale shark to have the same numbers of cells.
Hence, your example of number of cells in a fish, is too vague and since you didn’t specify what fish, your numbers have no real context.
And btw, Eric, not all fishes have jaws. Examples, hagfishes and lampreys. In fact, jawless fishes predated jawed fishes.