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.
No, you're way too far in. It starts well before that.
First off, all organisms are somewhat sensitive to light.
1.If you close your eyes and walk out of the shade into bright summer sunlight, your skin will detect the light.
2, If there's a dark p spot on skin, the skin will be more sensitive to the light.
3. If the spot is in a slightly recessed pit, It will be more sensitive to the direction of the light.
4. If the pit has a smaller opening, it will produce a rough image. (Think pinhole camera)
5. If the pit has clear covering, it will enhance the image.
6. If the covering is slightly thicker at the center than at the edges, the image will be even better.
7. If some of the pigment is slightly different, then the structure will be able to distinguish wavelengths of light. (color)
A very plausible evolutionary pathway. But it's more than plausible. That pathway is still demonstrated by different organisms. All of them still live in the phylum mollusca.
However, the probability of those 1829 mutations appearing in a given population of fish over a specified number of generations is not calculated.
See above. The probability is 1.0. We still see the stages in living organisms.
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 × 10−142
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.
Well, let's look at your assumption for a moment. Take a deck of cards, shuffling it well. Deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that order is 1/52! or about...
1/8X10^65, which is so unlikely we can round it off to zero.
And it happens every time. So your argument just "proved" that poker games are impossible.
But there's an even bigger error. You see, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random. So you need to go back and work on that in your simulation. Let us know what you find. If you're not sure, I can show you a simple way to put natural selection into the process. Fact is, engineers have been simulation Darwinian evolution for some time; these "genetic algorithms" turn out to be more efficient at solving complex engineering problems than design would be. Reality itself disposes of calculations such as the above. God, as usual, knows best.