Originally posted by trilobyte:
soilguy posted:
b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?
This is your strawman argument.
I never said close physical proximity to another. What I said is that a mutation must effect the same trait.
Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?
This is NOT a straw argument, and not an argument of my making. YOU made this argument, not me.
You've made assumptions regarding the probability of mutations without any facts. You assume the chances for a mutation to occur anywhere on the genome is equal. It's not.
The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known, but you'd have to do a lit review in a good university library to find them. Then, with a good statistician, maybe you can come up with actual probabilities.
You haven't falsified evolution based on your made up probabilities. Even if you come up with more realistic probabilities, what do they really tell you? Can I say to the winner of a lottery that they couldn't have won, because the odds are against it? That's essentially what you're doing.
While you have your calculator out, what's the probability that Genesis is literally true?
