Actually I'd like to take issue with the idea of statistical improbability. While I have admittedly not studied the mathematical details of the approach ID proponents have taken (or is it only one mathematician?), common sense tells me that mathematics alone could not possibly produce any more proof or accurate model of how mutation and natural selection could or could not progress from single cell to modern life forms in the current geologic time scales projected for the age of the earth and the span of life on it, any more than the most brilliant meteorolgist, using the most sophisticated instruments available to modern science, accurately forecast the weather next week, and for exactly the same reason: way too many variables to take into account (picture Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park musing on Chaos theory). I can't imagine we even know the tip of the iceberg concerning what might constitute all the variables and processes that could have an effect on cellular mutation and/or natural selection; climate, habitat, ecology, food supply, predators, the unpredictable forces of vulcanism, meteor impacts, drought, etc., etc. Furthermore, how much do we really understand about the life force itself? It's tenacity, variety, and unique qualities -- there's still so much we don't understand at all. Way too many factors to make any kind of positive statement regarding what is possible or not possible over billions of years from a statistical standpoint. Knowing too however that assumptions are dangerous, I'm hoping Don (or anyone else familiar with it) can distill the material in question to address some of these concerns...? ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs