What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'

I find Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker computer models very helpful in this regard. He shows how a random character generator, operated on by a selection pressure, can produce parts (and even the whole) of Hamlet in very few generations.Most creationists argue that creation (of any complex artifact, not just life) by chance has a very low probability. But the possibility is nonetheless there. You seem to argue that the probability of anything being made by chance - the 747 in the tornado, etc. - is not only low, it's zero. This is an assertation that you should probably support as it is an unusual claim.

This is just stupid. Probability can't be negative. Probability can only be a ratio between 1 and 0. Learn some math, dude! Phenominal ignorance of the basic tools of science don't make your position look any better.At any rate, if you ascribe no creative power to chance, how do you explain genetic programming, where computers regularly create superior electronic circuits through a process of random mutation and selection? The evidence is pretty clear that things CAN be created from chance. After all, what's so magic about creating?

Woah, hey, settle down. I'm not the one saying things like "negative infinity". Maybe we could reduce the flippancy on both sides of the issue, perhaps?Anyway, if natural selection is reducing the defectives, as you put it, what is left? That that is adequate or better. Obviously, random mutation can make an organism worse. That's not disputed. What you have to prove is why random mutations can't make something better, even by the tiniest bit. It seems to be to be natural that if it can get worse, it can get better. Please prove why this isn't so.

Well, good, then! As a self-avowed evolutionist, you must have accepted the Darwinist position. Unless you were being sarcastic, but I don't know why you would, since it's not an effective debate tactic...Oh, wait.