No, I'm repeating back to you your own calculations, and you're failing to recognize them. Once again, slow down and try to understand what I'm saying. You are allowing for a trillion possible genes with the same phenotype but no sequence similarity. Right. I'm calling those distinct genes. For each, you allow 60% of the sites to vary, which I'm calling different versions of those genes. So for each of the 10^12 genes you allow 4^2423, or 10^1458 different versions. We agree that those are your numbers, so what I'm saying is exactly what you're saying -- no misinterpretation.
What I'm telling you, however, and what you're not hearing, is that allowing for only 1 trillion distinct genes that could contribute to a phenotype is an insanely small number of genes, given the vast number of possible genes overall (in the size you've specified). You are assuming that 10^12 out of 10^972 distinct genes could contribute to the phenotype. Alternatively, you're assuming that 10^1470 genes or gene versions could contribute to the phenotype -- out of a total of 10^2431 possible genes or gene versions. As a I wrote above, you're assuming that only 1 out of every 10^960 possible sequence configurations could contribute to the phenotype.
Now try again: what is your justification for thinking that 10^12 is a reasonable estimate for the number of distinct genes (of this size), with no sequence similarity, that could contribute to this phenotype. Why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900? You have assumed that a tiny, tiny fraction of all possible genes could contribute to a phenotype, and then turned around and calculated that the probability of finding one of those few is small. Well, of course it is -- you chose a tiny fraction. Since that tiny fraction is a number you picked out of the air, though, why do you think it tells you anything about reality? That's the question you haven't answered.
So in essence, I am assuming 10^12 distinct insect wings, i.e. different types of such wings and for each I allow 10^1458 gene variants. You then ask, why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900 distinct insect wings? Well, the reason is simple. There are no 10^900 ways to fly, or to see or to pump blood to the organs just as there are no 10^900 ways to semantically express the fact that Steve is older than Mark by 4 years. And observation confirms that. For e.g. we have the two major types of eyes — simple eyes and compound eyes, and not a million, or a trillion although 96% of animal species have eyes. So, assuming 10^12 different types of insect wings is indeed generous to the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0