While you are correct that there is a very large number of possible shapes for a mountain to take, our observation is that they invariably show the following configurartion:
a) Wide at the bottom
b) Pointy at the top
Now, given the practically infinite number of physical configuration matter can take, how can you explain this amazing coincidence? Only an incalculably small fraction of possible configurations qualify as wide at bottom/pointy at top.
Of the many, many things living on earth, only a small fraction have the bacterial flagellum. And yet, they live. How can this be?
because its not unlikely to form a mountain. that is the point.
very simple- there is a physical constraint for this specific pattern (wide at the bottom and pointy at the top). this is why its likely to get a mountain shape.
because they have other systems that help them in different way.
You should teach evolution. You could use that as an illustration to convey the directionality of random variation plus natural selection. This would be especially good for convergence.
probably. but still most of the configurations are non-functional so this is irrelevant.
think about that: you need to mix about 10 different random parts. how many of the possible combinations will give us a working system like a cell-phone or a camera? of course that the vast majority will be non functional combinations.
But most of the possible configurations of material that make up mountains are not wide at the bottom and pointy at the top. So how do you explain the fact that every single mountain, almost without exception, shows this configuration? What are the odds of that?
This does not appear to be an answer to the question I asked. Perhaps you meant to post it somewhere else?
actually they are because of the physical constraint i mantioned. on the other hand there is no physical constraint to form a functional complex system by mixing different parts.
you asked how many possible âother systemsâ are there. the answer is very few compare to the whole number of combinations.
You are wrong. Functionality is, itself, the constraint that determines which arrangements will persist over time and thru generations.
That does not answer the question.
If all mountains looked exactly the same as each other, the physical constraints that determine they are wide at the top and pointy at the bottom would not explain this.
But every mountain is of a different shape because, even though the proportion of possible shapes that are physically stable (wide at bottom/pointy on top) is very small, the absolute number of possible configurations that meet these criteria remains very large.
By the same reasoning, the fact a specific functional arrangement of proteins (e.g.the flagellum) is very unlikely does not mean it is designed, anymore than does the fact that a mountain shaped exactly the Matterhorn is very unlikely.
but to get that functionality you need the correct mix of protein out of many possible combinations. this is why i asked you how many combinations according to your opinion can be functional out of the number of possible combinations.
I see. So weâre supposed to answer that question, but youâre not going to answer the question about how many possible arrangements of rock will function as a mountain.
