"`` No . Probability arguments such as those Behe uses are pretty meaningless because there is no basis on which to calculate them. `` - i take it you have n't read the book ? '' All we can measure is average observed mutation rates in populations , which are commensurate with the speed of genetic diversification seen in primate lineages . In fact , such rates of diversification are used as the basis of the molecular clock to infer dates of separation of lineages when the fossil record is n't clear. `` -ok `` Behe does n't understand probability . If he were tossing coins , he 'd be absolutely astonished by the sequence of heads and tails he obtained , because each sequence is vastly improbable. `` - I think you are doing yourself a disservice by by such silly claims . If random mutations are `` random `` do n't you agree that the probablity of 2 mutations happening on the same gene at the same time is pretty low ? And that 2 mutations happening on the same gene at different times is lower than one mutation on the gene ? '' He 'd probably attribute that to ID , too . However , biological evolution is based on cumulative and dependent probabilities , not independent ones , which makes them difficult to calculate . The reason biologists do n't care much for Behe is that he 's demonstrated a lack of understanding of some pretty basic concepts in science. `` '' Since the probability is incalculable , then no. `` - So the theory that RM initiated the changes that led from from monkey to man is unfalsifiable ? '' We infer that mutations are random because directed mutations have n't been observed except under very limited circumstances . If some gene or DNA sequence undergoes a point mutation , who is to say it happened because of some random cosmic ray , or because the Creator decided in his infinite wisdom to suspend the laws of nature for that moment and poke molecules around ? The answer is no-one , because no-one can calculate the relevant probabilities . However , the Creator hypothesis is scientifically barren because it explains everything , and hence explains nothing at all. ``"
"I do n't agree with this either/or binary logic ."
"However , the Creator hypothesis is scientifically barren because it explains everything , and hence explains nothing at"
"I do n't agree with this either/or binary logic ."