Maybe to cut off a long and pointless discussion: Is your claim that it is hypothetically possible for the same trait to evolve twice, much as it is hypothetically possible to have a true coin come up heads a million times in a row?

And, @Rich_Hampton, is your claim similar: That it is possible theoretically, but also practically impossible in the same sense that a coin coming up heads a million times in a row is practically impossible?

yes and no. yes- its possible and no- its not so improbable.

probably a lot but if you agree that the same 10 bases can evolve twice where you put the limit for evolution? 20 bases? 30? there is no such limit and thus there is no real limitation to evolve a fish fin twice.

So, then, I presume you also think it is ānot so improbableā that a bunch of chemicals could have just smacked together by chance to form a living cell and there is no need to presume that an intelligent agent or god would be needed to make this happen, correct?

If not, then you also need to specify exactly how you determined where to draw the line to determine that a fin evolving twice is plausible, but a cell popping into existence from chemicals smacking together is not.

The limit will show itself in the real world. Look at the current lifeforms and find identically genetic traits that have evolved in different lineages.

when i said that its not so imrobable i refer to evolution theory. so according to evolution it will not be so improbable to evolve a fish fin twice.

so again we are going back to the assumption that evolution is true. by that logic i can say that since special creation is true then all fins were designed by convergent design and thus arent the result of common descent. see the problem? this is why i asked for a real calculation and not just assumption. and there is no such calculation.

That is a real calculation. Itās the same method used to determine the likelihood of a hurricane, earthquake, etc, for a particular locale in a given year.

It also doesnāt claim what produces the effect, only the frequency with which it appears. You could use the same calculation to determine how frequently the intelligent designers apply the same genetically identical design to a second lineage.

as for you question: no, i dont think that its likely to evolve a cell from a bunch of chemicals.

base on what? base on the assumption that evolution happened. by the way we can also explain it by convergent loss. so again we can see that evolution can explain any finding.

So take the number of genetically identical traits and divide that by the number of years. Just for fun you can do this for the last millennium, century, decade or year. All you need to do is supply the numerator. Go ahead, try it.

your question assuming something that i dont believe. so i cant realy answer something that i dont believe anyway.

easy: since all fish were created at once, and say that there are about 300 different groups (kinds) of fish. my calculation give us about 300 convergent events per day. see the problem with your calculation? it depend on the assumption that evolution is true and thus its not realy a calculation but an assumption.

its actually was a theoretical assumption (i dont have a problem with different groups designed in different times) to show why Rich claim is base on assumption and not a calculation. if you can answer that question it will be interesting to see your calculation. although i dont think that such a clculation exist.

The argument was about genetically identical traits appearing outside of lineages. Your example was the fish fin appearing on the dolphin and penguin. Thatās the number of events that is supposed to appear in the numerator. You can use this simply approach to calculate the average occurrence of earthquake or hurricanes for a given locale.