quote:
How is this a bad argument?
For the reasons I gave. Instead of producing any attempt to make a valid estimate you just guess - without taking into account things like the fact that there may be many mutatiosn that give adequate protection, and that there are millions of people who might acquire one or more of these mutations. The fact is that jsut saying that something seems very unlikely to you is a bad argument when you have absolutely no idea of how unliukely it really is.
quote:
Besides I am not saying that the chances of one beneficial mutation is impossible just an entire series of them to give rise to this trait.
And this has the same problems - and worse, if some other trait appeared instead you would make the same argument about that. So you really need to argue about the probability of ANY trait evolving.
quote:
Thus your analogy to the lottery is incorrect. The analogy is more like the same person winning the lottery 1000 or more times..
You don't provide any argument that would justify the "thus". Not surprisingly because you are completely wrong. There is nothing equivalent to the SAME person winning the lottery multiple times. All you are doing is picking out a pattern in hindsight - which would be quite easy to do with any random data. All that is required is that SOME traits evolve which involve multiple mutations - which will be interspersed among mutations contributing to other traits. Really you are making the same mistake again. What actually happened is "very unlikely" - but like lottery winners it is very likely that you will find SOME sequences that, in hindsight are "very unlikely" - just as it is unlikely that a particular person will win the lottery - but very likely that someone will win the lottery.
Edited by PaulK, : Text trunvated on postinge