>The classical probability argument is one of the main stays of the
>anti-evolutionary position.
(clip)
>The thing which is wrong with the probability argument is
>that it always assumes that only one sequence will be able
>to perform the function.
I don't think that this solves the probability problem. Although several
amino acid sequences may function perfectly well for a given purpose, the
number of usable sequences for the given function is not likely to be
sufficiently large so as to deflate the probability argument.
However, the issue that no one addresses is how many chances were available
to form highly "improbable" sequences. A commentary based on probability is
meaningless unless one knows how many attempts were made.
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "To disdain philosophy is really to
Madison, WI 53792 be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal
____________________________________________________________________________