I try not to respond to emotional or uncivil posts.
Sure. Of course you'd rather not.
Really? Got some evidence to support your claim?
If true, then that would not surprise many ...
Gee, I don't know ... maybe if one has invested much time and money in an erroneous theory, they might suffer from confirmation bias.
Um, hmm. See above: "
... rather than point out the flaws in the above ..."
I did.
It is commonly believed that if a pathway of functional continuity can be envisioned, a plausible evolutionary pathway has been proposed. For example, the evolution of the eye is often explained by a pathway of gradually increasing curvature of the retina, with each step resulting in slightly increasing visual acuity. Generally ignored is the calculation of the probability of the mutations that create a curved retina to appear in a given population. For example, Nilsson and Pelger proposed a model of eye evolution in fish, beginning with a flat photo-sensitive spot [4]. They proposed 1829 steps of incrementally increasing curvature of the retina and narrowing of the pupil, and demonstrated that each step would have been functionally superior to the preceding step. In the article, they conclude that a camera eye could have easily evolved in 364,000 years. However, the probability of those 1829 mutations appearing in a given population of fish over a specified number of generations is not calculated.
The following is a calculation of the probability of these changes to appear in the genome. Assume a genome size of 1.5 billion base pairs. Assume that one point mutation results in one step of an increasingly curved retina (a very generous assumption). Assume a population size of 20,000. Assume 1000 viable offspring per generation. Assume a mutation rate of 150 point mutations per generation. Assume a fixation rate of 0.002 for each favorable mutation. Using the binomial distribution formula, the probability of such a pattern of mutations over 364,000 years is 1.5 × 10−1423 (see calculation below*).
*Binomial Distribution:
Calculation of probability of the evolution of a globe-shaped eye (Nilsson and Pelger) in a population of fish:
Probability mass: f(x,n,p)=nCxpx(1−p)n−x
Probability of success: inverse of genome size (1/1.5 × 109) × 0.33 (3 possible nucleotide substitutions for each position) x fixation rate (0.002) = 4.4 × 10−13.
Number of trials (n): number of reproducing pairs in population (20,000/2) = 10,000 × number of mutations per generation, per germ cell (150/2 = 75) × number of offspring per generation (1000) × number of generations (364,000) = 2.73 × 1014 success number: 1829 (incremental steps of eye evolution).
Results
Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.
Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.
Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−1423.
Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero. Think about achieving 60% heads with 10,000 coin tosses. With mathematical certainty, random mutations will not deviate from predictable random outcomes to preferentially effect specific genes.
Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.
Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.
Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−1423.
I will now leave this thread as there is "
no point in continuing. Debating with evolutionists is like debating about one's religious beliefs. No that's not accurate. It 's exactly the same. Macro- evolutionists also also believe in things not seen."
