I don't mean to be disrespectful but you apparently don't understand how evolution works, go find a 10th grade biology textbook. You might find the argument you're making is nonsensical given how evolution by natural selection actually works.
Discussion
I know how the reproductive system works, and the probability of two "beneficial" mutations happening in opposite genders at the same time in the same place such that they are able to reproduce that mutation in another generation defies all mathematical probability. DNA only comes from DNA.
"A little bit of science drives a man from God; a lot more science drives him right back."
It's got nothing to do with mathematical probability, evolution is not pure chance it's the opposite of that actually. The currently accepted theory is that the DNA double helix evolved from a simpler version a self-replicating single strand RNA.
> "A little bit of science drives a man from God; a lot more science drives him right back."
Is that where the case you'd expect groups like the national academy of sciences to be the most religious not the least. Same for the most educated countries. Meanwhile the population with the least percentage of atheists: prisons.
If chance is at the helm of reality and history, there can be no science, no math, no probability, no persistence of personhood, nothing persists and so nothing remains. But even then I'm applying logic to a realm of chance wherein logic does not and cannot exist.
> If chance is at the helm of reality and history, there can be no science, no math, no probability, no persistence of personhood,...
Nonsense, lots of things might be set up by chance like the fundamental constants of nature, but that does not preclude us from discovering the laws of physics and mathematics, and from those laws, everything else.
There no laws if chance governs all.
You clearly didn't understand my comment, go back and reread.
I understood it. If chance governs all, then there can be no "laws" about anything. No predictions can be made. No scientific method could be applied. It cannot be assumed that things will be tomorrow as they have been in the past.
You clearly don't get it, go reread and look up the anthropic principle.
The improbable scenario in which this set of constraints developed entirely by chance, to allow what we see, is difficult to believe. As are most alternative explanations.
As I've already said in other comments, evolution is NOT governed by chance.
Yea I didn't mention evolution. Would not the set of constraints on reality needed to result in what we see necessarily need to arrive by either chance or by design?
The chance part is that we find ourselves in such a condition, among infinite possible conditions. Sure, we could only yak about it here where such things are possible, but it is still improbable from here.
When you look at text books they say one thing. When you get to the real studies, you see the problems with all of the theories that are treated as fact. Not only are almost all mutations harmful and almost all beneficial mutations only slightly beneficial (most, if not all, are actually lost information that makes them survive better in a particular environment, but less fit overall when considering all environments), so they cannot be selected for, but also DNA is so complex that many sections do one thing when read in one direction, another when read backwards, and yet another when you start reading in the middle. A mutation that might be beneficial in one of those spots is pretty much guaranteed to break it when read in another way for another function. Also the mutation rate is putting so many harmful mutations into the genome that, if we had actually been around for millions of years like we're told, we should have so many mutations that nobody should be able to live. Evolution only makes sense when you look at it from a birds eye view and don't look at the details. That doesn't even take into account how nobody has ever even gotten close to figuring out how the first cell came into existence. One of the best proven scientific laws is abiogenesis, life only comes from life and not non-life.
Textbooks are for indoctrination. They have lots of out-of-date science that has been disproven.
