Dating the origin of the orchidaceae
So now the question arises: if there are several different mutations under consideration, do we multiply all the probabilities together, and then compare the probability to the number of opportunities, or do we compare each probability to the number of opportunities, and then multiply the adjusted probabilities together?Evolutionary theory (and mathematical probability theory) tell us that we should do the latter; each mutation can arise independently, spread through the population by natural selection, and combine through sexual reproduction (or gene transfer in simpler organisms). The concept is considered to be mostly bollocks when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through — it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement.
It gives the creators infinite room to declare any number of things (that do not presently have an evolutionary explanation) "irreducibly complex", while at the same time denying the applicability to other structures with a known evolutionary history.
Behe also has defined and redefined irreducible complexity: In response to these demonstrations however, IDC proponents belatedly "reinterpret" their initial claims in order to lift them out of the critic's reach.
A first strategy to this end consists in shifting the burden of proof from plausible evolutionary pathways to the actual evolutionary story, maintaining that the broad outlines of a plausible evolutionary account amounts to nothing more than Darwinian wishful thinking and speculation.
Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark; the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates.
Another famed and also flawed example references "the watch on the beach".
The argument is no more advanced or "evolved" than William Paley's "Watch Argument" which stated that as a watch looked created, it must have a creator.