Yawn. These kinds of *a priori* probability calculations are, for the hundredth time, meaningless. You can pick out any one mutation of those that occurred and eventually went on to become fixed and ask how likely it was that *that* mutation would have occurred *and* become fixed, and you’ll get some unimaginably small probability.

Take some particular substitution with a probability of 1 in 10 billion, then ask what it’s probability of fixation is, which if ~neutral is about 1 in 50.000 for the human population, which means the probability of that mutation occurring *and* becoming fixed for a population with an effective size of 10.000, is 1 in a quadrillion. 10^-15.

That’s a very low probability, and we seem to have calculated *that the occurrence and fixation of neutral substitutions are impossible?* But somewhere on the order of 50 to 100 of those are fixed every generation.

Of what use is it then, to calculate the prior probability of a particular of one of them? It doesn’t tell you that what occurred didn’t occur, or was implausible to occur, or couldn’t occur. It does not even weakly indicate it in any way. It is a useless and meaningless probability. Why can’t ID proponents fathom this elementary concept?

It’s like rolling a handful of 10 dice 50 times in a row, then picking out one particular throw of that handful of 10 dice, after having thrown it, and calculating the odds of that particular throw occurring. Does the number you derive somehow show *you didn’t actually throw that result?* Obviously not. It’s a meaningless calculation to do. It can’t possibly show you that what you just did, did not plausibly occur. Then why would you do that for some historical mutation occurring when the exact same principle applies?

How can this inane question keep coming up? It’s a pointless calculation that cannot possibly rationally inform your beliefs about whether history occurred.