Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

I think Coyote answered this question:

quote:

---

The typical mathematician or creationist would be there for decades, rolling all 25 dice each time, never getting more than a few sixes. They would then tell you its impossible, the odds are just too high.

---

Your answer seems to put you in the 'typical creationist' bracket. Is that like with evolution? Coyote continues:

quote:

---

A biologist or evolutionist would probably roll the 25 dice, and then reroll only those that weren't sixes! With several repetitions the whole thing would take just a few minutes.

---

You might argue that analogy doesn't work - but the game clearly allows for cumulative selection. Do you agree that this makes it a lot easier than getting all the dice to turn up '6' or '999' or whatever?

Like some kind of 'diceome' where child rolls inherit their parent's diceomes.If only there were some kind analogy in biology that 'saves' successful genetic mutations and some kind of way that insures that the mixes that are better at reproducing are the ones whose 'saved genes' get passed on to their children.The thing with analogies is that if you aren't careful, you'll miss the point. We could create an analogy that was closer to the real thing, but the analogy would get more and more complicated until we might as well do away with it. Once everyone agrees that cumulative selection can do interesting things, we could just discard the dice analogy altogether. Or......maybe we could have a population of piles of dice, and each pile of dice replicates but those piles of dice with more sixes in them get to create more children than those with fewer and each replication introduces a random roll to one of the die in each pile and...