Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

And what have you produced?Easy to ignore what you don't understand, isn't it? You should learn about probability space. Then read again what I wrote.

So if 10% of all sequences of lenghth 200 would be useful, you would also expect that 10% of all sequences of length 200000 are useful?Because that is what it means if the number of useful gene sequenes grows as fast as the space of all possible sequences.

Empty claims from the arrogant evolutionist who produced not a single useful argument.

Well, it does not appear to be self-evident to Taq. But he thinks he understands probability better. Little does he know.Suppose we see usefull sentences of a few dozens of characters. And we also see a book of a few hundreds of thousands of characters.We would want to determine how this book formed. Does it consist of shorter stories that exist seperately or have existed in the past and for whatever reason stopped existing? Can we find possible paths along which this book developed from random changes of shorter stories?What model are you proposing for this?

I done so multiple times. Your ignorance and amateuristic level is your problem.

I specified the length of gene sequences to be a few hundred upto 2 million. What part of that do you not understand? In other examples, I specified lengths as well.Do you know which bases a gene consists of? Do you need people to spell everything out for you?So no, you are not capable of discussing these things you so poorly understand.

Nobody is talking about a single sequence here. That is a straw man and you know it.Funny how you always work towards nested hierarchy. Biased much?

So how would you determine if books fit a nested hierarchy? Given two random books, how do you even compare the two? They may not even be the same language.