Improbable and Impossible are not the same thing.
No matter what way you spin it, they are distinct and one will never equal the other, no matter how improbable something may seem.
You may not get it, but improbable is the
opposite of probable. Assuming improbable events took place merely because you wish it to be so is a pretty weak position, if I may make an understatement.
Russel2 also posted a response to this in the symmetry thread which I thought was appropriate. Natural Selection makes a very big difference in the odds of beneficial mutations.
I don't suppose he explained how anything can be selected if it doesn't exist, did he?
But even if the myth of the beneficial mutation were true, Dr. John Sanford has demonstrated that no form of selection - not even truncation selection (which is more severe than any artificial selection) is sufficient.
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome is a splendid book, and the evolutionist attempts to address it have been a sad/funny mix of the usual bogus personal attacks and obvious straw man misrepresentations of the arguments. It's like watching a pee-wee squad try to stop a Hall-of-Fame running back. (Maybe worse.)
My favourite common criticism is that he doesn't hide what he says behind $100 words. The man was a college professor. It was his job to know how to communicate! And of course they'd like him to use terminology that lends itself to obfuscation. Who doesn't understand why? WHO?
