It might be fun to ask sometime: "Do you believe any individual creature has a 100% survival chance?" The world is a dangerous place, after all. There are all sorts of disasters: volcanos, tornados, forest fire, prairie fire, flood, etc. But in spite of all this, there is one creature "guaranteed" to always survive: the first one to possess a beneficial mutation. Or so I've been told... I think more honest answers are available.

The evolutionists have a lot of faith in their luck god. A little actual experience with probabilities goes a long way toward understanding these things. A roll of pennies is 50 cents, so it's not expensive to play around & see how many heads or tails one can get in a row.

For those who can program a computer at all, the job is easier. One can put twists on it too. I did some myself one time, testing out gambling. The most noteworthy thing I found is that a small edge is not enough for the house. At 50.5% to 49.5%, for example, it freqently happens that the house is beaten in a series of 10,000 bets. The results look the same as the results of 50/50 tests. This explains why the smallest house advantage in real-world casinos is always over 52%. Smaller advantages should still eventually add up in their favour, but they don't intend to wait around 100 years or more to make a profit.

For anyone with any experience or knowledge about probability, the evoarguments are pretty funny. Some of them'll say a mutation that hurts a lifeform's survival chance by 1/10 of a per cent will be immediately detected and result in death, whereas a "beneficial mutation" of the same magnitude will always be passed on. Now such is untrue. It's just an attempt to sell the selection god(ess).

By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.

Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced. In 3 or 4 generations, you're talking about eliminating at least 8 or 12 decendants (or many thousands in the case of insects & plants), and the selection god(ess)' chances are still only 1 in 1000 for each one. (S)he's never going to catch up. Never ever EVAR! It's mathematically impossible.

And that's not all. In sexually reproducing life, there's a 50/50 chance the mutation in question will be unavailable for "selection". (It's actually worse.) Genes are inherited from both parents and form pairs, only one of which is used. If the mutation isn't used, how can the selection god(ess) "select" the individual? Actually, they've observed a strong tendancy for mutations to be "recessive", so it's worse than 50/50; but even at 50/50 it's not hard to see that the selection god(ess) needs supernatural knowledge in order to the job.

Evolutionists rely heavily upon this supernatural knowledge, whether or not they admit it. The luck god(ess) needs to help the selection god(ess) every step of the way, and that's just not plausible, let alone "scientific".

Even supposing detrimental mutations outnumber "beneficial mutations" by as little as 30 to 1, it is too big a job for both god(ess)s put together. This is a better rate than any of their experts dare to claim, but the math here is certain. The detrimental mutations simply cannot be detected on the first try, and this is exactly what is required. Once they spread, it doesn't become easier to eliminate them - just the opposite. The "good mutations", if they spread, will be likely to remain, but they're going to be outnumbered by 29 to 1. Extinction will occur long before transformation.

The math isn't hard. Assign an average value to mutations. It doesn't matter if you pick a high value or a low value. Neither favors evolutionism. You can say the average mutation effects survival chances by 1% or 0.1%, and it won't change the final outcome.

29 x .01 = .29 > 1 x .01 = .01
29 x .001 = .029 > 1 x .001 = .001

See? It makes no difference at all. They can't win either way. I have simplified this ever so slightly - IN THEIR FAVOUR. (I have rounded DOWN to 29 from the actual numbers which would be 29.xxx, and the mantissa will in any case work AGAINST the evogod(ess).) The only value that works is 100%. If the average bad mutation absolutely guarantees death, and the average good mutation is guaranteed to survive, "natural selection" would work. That's the point of my original question. Do you remember your response?

Actual investigations by evolutionists don't support anything near an 100% figure. Not even 50%. Nor 10%. Think about it: if you evolved a whole new organ, something wonderful and innovative, would it improve your survival chances by 10%? A mutation isn't an organ, and nobody's ever seen any new organ evolve, so they can only estimate/guess at the requirements. Anyhow, the average survival/fitness change supposed for mutations is very, very small.

Observations are all in agreement with what I've just said. The math dictates that defects must pile up far faster than anything good, and the educated person already knows this has happened. Fire up a search engine and see how many heriditary disorders there are - not just among humans; but everywhere they've looked. See how many "beneficial mutations" have been found (even if you don't look critically at what they're trying to pass off). The selection god(ess) is not getting the job done. It is an impossible task for any entity short of supernatural, and as for this selection god(ess), I don't think s/he exists.

It is not hard to see that even when one bends over backwards to accomodate the evofantasies, they don't work. I have been lenient in assuming "beneficial mutation". I have been extremely generous in the rates. I have not bothered with the tendancy of mutations to be "recessive", and hide themselves from the selection god(ess). I have rounded DOWN the mantissa. But you can't climb a mountain if you fall 29 feet for evey foot you ascend. Genetics purely IS antithetical to evolutionism. Prior to Mendel, folks didn't know about mutation. Even if one (falsely) assumes they had an excuse then, they certainly don't have one now.

It has been said more than once that I don't understand 'natural selection'. I understand what Darwin and other have written about it. I may not understand the god(ess), but I really don't care too much about that. I have no use for blind faith and magic.