I didn't address that at all. But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong. That can be said to be the root of evolution. A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process. Most of those have little effect. Many have detrimental effects. And some provide advantages to that life form.
Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong. The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.
There are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. So guess what?
"Impossible." No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power. More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."
Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.
I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
americanloons.blogspot.com
Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “
Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much:
Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function
Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.
So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution.
The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.
Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions
occurring simultaneously,
As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.
