Questerr
I guess I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks as I didn't grasp anything at all relevant from your "Deck of Cards" quote.
I am the result of the union of my parents and half my DNA is from each of them. After I am here, the probability of exactly me being here is 100%. Before I was concieved the probability of exactly me being concieved was 2 raised to the 46th power. The genetic probability of any two humans being identical genetically to each other out of the 6 billiion or so alive today is virtually zero. So what is the point of mathematical masturbation? Sounds like an irrelevant straw dog introduced to cloud the water.
Evolution requires an genetic mutation. This is the starting point for EVERY alleged evolutionary event. A mutation is a mistake. DNA puts 2 and 2 together and gets something other than 4. When the DNA molecule rips in half, a base pair stays intact or falls off and is lost. Either way, it is a mistake in division and the result is a random change, which is almost always detrimental to the individual.
And there is evidence that mutations may not stick in the long run. Drysophila experiments have mutated thousands of generations and never produced anything that was not a fruit fly (Translation: no speciation). And when individuals with similar mutations are allowed to breed only with like kind, the mutation disappears after 4-5 generations.
Mutations are a mistake and evolution requires millions of such mistakes to be made in sequence. One way of looking at the result of evolution is that we are all just the end result of a long series of mistakes.
ID and evolution are, indeed, diametrically opposed. We are either created or are the result of genetic mistakes. I maintain that we are too perfect and too complex to have ever arisen out of mistakes.
Regardless of how evolution is painted by supporters, the only forces driving evolution are random and unfocused. The initiating event for all evolution is a mistake. Mistakes, randomness and unfocused energy do not now and have never resulted in highly complex levels of organization. If I dump a pile of blocks and shingles and pipe on a vacant lot the wind and sun don't put them together into a house. Assembly requires intelligence and focused energy. So if a house can't be put together by unfocused energy and random forces, how does DNA evolve which is thousands of times more complex than any house ever built?
If you would like to see an example of random mutations, check out the web site randommutation. Type in a coherent phrase and start generating random mutations. The order and coherence of your phrase will disappear in short order.
One of my points in this forum is to point out that the alleged evolution of DNA is highly unlikely. Mathematically it is improbable, even given a few billion years of mistakes. And there are no other naturally occurring examples of codes or languages. The alleged evolution of DNA is an assumption with no mathematical support and no support from nature.
And even if DNA did arise from simpler beginnings, human DNA still requires 6 billion complex chemicals to position themsleves in precisely determined locations. Whether this happened all at once or over a few billion years is irrelevant. Evolution says this happened over a few billion years so the mathematic probability is the same, just spread out over more time. All 6 billion must wind up in the right place.
Window XP is an exmaple of a code, as is DNA. Windows is estimated to contain 30-35 million lines of code. So your DNA is many times more complex than anything Gates and Company have produced. Ask Bill Gates sometime if Windows XP occurred naturally. Ask him it those 30-35 million lines of interrelated code wrote themselves. And Human DNA is several times more complex that Windows and it is supposed to have arisen as a result of mistakes?
Science gives us only 2 choices to explain why we are here:
A. We are here as the end result of a series of mistakes.
B. We were intelligently created.
If DNA did not evolve, then evolution is impossible. And there is no mathematical support for DNA evolution and no support from other naturally occurring codes in nature. So if A is not true then the only alternative is B.
Unless you have a third alternative, that is.