so you're telling me that you believe every species in the history of earth was lucky enough to mutate DNA that was designed for future mutations that would have relied on that previous mutation already being in place?
Nope. That is not what anyone is saying. Read a book or something.
>>16769821>designedaw man you said the bad word OP, now you're a faggot again!
>>16769823by designed, i mean that it sets the foundation for the future mutations, otherwise those mutations would not be able to survive on their own
>>16769828The brief explanation is that multiple different paths can lead to similar structures. Insect wings are different in almost every conceivable way from bird wings except core functionality. And those "foundational" mutations only had to happen once for each archetype. All of their descendants will inherit the trait and pass it on. So to complete your calculation:>Take the very low probability any one of these mutations will occur.>multiply by the very many different ways this trait could have come up>multiply that much higher value by the incomprehensibly large number of beings that have ever lived and reproduced on Earth in the past couple billion years or so.The probability that the trait will arise approches near certainty.
>>16769843>>multiply that much higher valuewhat's not how probability works. multiplying low chances by additional factors makes the chance even lower
>>16769849Don't get cheeky with me. Roll a die, chance to land a six is 1/6. Chance to land a six or a three is (1/6)*2 which is 2/6 or 1/3. I am multiplying by the number of target outcomes and you're being a pedant.
>>16769856sorry, that just isn't how biology works. there is only 1 in X possible genetic code combinations that can produce a functional protein, and each species would need a different one in order to be considered a different species. that decreases your odds as the number of species goes up
>>16769861Reading comprehension. You're looking at known outcomes and working backwards. There are many, many different working proteins that would all fit the bill and any particular mutation could be any one of them.What's the probability that 10 specific people won the lottery? Very bery low. What's the probability that 10 randos win the lottery? Near certainty.
>>16769876>What's the probability that 10 randos win the lottery? Near certainty.did all of them get the same winning number, or did they all pick a different winning number? my point is that each species has to have a different number, because picking the same number as another winner makes both of you be the same species
>>16769821no, I believe in the magic jew in sky instead, yes, I'm down syndrome if that matters
>>16769886what does judaism have to do with determinism? take your meds
>>16769881>did all of them get the same winning number, or did they all pick a different winning numberThey didn't win at the same time. So it would be different numbers every time.
>>16769821>so you're telling me that you believe every species in the history of earth was lucky enough to mutate DNA that *head cannon*damn, is it really that easy to be a schizo?
