Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

You've misparsed the sentence. "Theorized" modifies "position", not "odds".Mark's question was rhetorical. He's trying to get you to think about how impossible it is know the odds if we don't even know how it happened.Look at it this way. Say we enter you in a race, and you want to know the odds that you'll win, so you ask the race distance, and we say we don't know. You ask who your competitors will be, whether it will be people your own age, or world-class atheletes. We say we don't know. You ask if it will be cross-country, on a track or on a road. We say we don't know. How are you going to calculate the odds?It's the same with the first DNA. How did it come about? We don't know? Did it come about in a single step, dozens of steps, hundreds of steps, thousands of steps? We don't know. Did it arise on land, beneath the land, on the sea or beneath the sea? We don't know. How, then, are you going to calculate the odds?In other words, any website or book that is telling you that you can calculate the odds of DNA forming naturally is just making things up. At a minimum science believes that the first DNA was a result of gradual change over a long period of time, and that there were many stages prior, and this is the basis of Mark's rhetorical question. If the odds you speak of are being calculated for DNA forming in a single step from scratch from a soup of consituent chemicals then this doesn't represent any view within science.--Percy

When you're typing a reply into the little box you'll see several links to the immediate left. Click on the one that says, "*UBB Code is ON". It will tell you all you need to know.--Percy

Not an important point, but SciAm is not a "peer-reviewed" journal. While the articles in SciAm certainly go through various levels of review and editing, they are not "peer-reviewed" but are primarily a recitation of recent developments targeted at laypeople. You've misunderstood what Mayr is saying. He isn't saying that the TOE doesn't adhere to physical laws, because it most certainly does. All he's saying is that it is inappropriate to develop evolutionary laws. Mayr makes his point more clearly on page 81 when he says: It isn't that biological concepts don't follow these laws, but simply that they are made at such a high level of complexity and abstraction that they cannot be expressed in terms of fundamental physical laws.--Percy