Really I can do the maths in my head on the specific points I have emphasised and allowed for a few miracles but not millions and this is simply not a matter of improving naturally.
As far as your time is concerned it takes me less than a minute to type a reply and if you think this is too much then of course for you it is too much trouble.
While I appreciate those giving me their point of view I do not take kindly to them demanding I also take their view.
What you said is fine but it is standard theory and my question is not about the standard it is to do with the perfect copy scenario which has not been answered with anything that leads me to think the standard represents the particular evolutionary probabilities I specify.
Now I am not demanding you change your mind far from it, either you can work out how a particular copy can reach perfection simply by small genetic mutations that naturally allow perfect copy or you accept the standard without working it out.
Your choice, be my guest.
That's because I only really know standard theory. I haven't read up on it as much as you think I have but one my lecturers specialises in this stuff and never misses an opertunity to talk about it. I suggested reading up because this is not maths, as you seem to think and these people are experts on the subject, unlike me and I think you should learn a bit more about it.
And by the way, our genes are far from perfect, as I have tried to explain. Most of it is "junk" DNA, not useless but hardly the most useful coding out there. It does not reach perfection but rather, the number of variations are whittled down by natural selction. Deer which can't run are killed by wolves or foxes or other predators. Birds with wonky wings can't fly properly and fall to their deaths. It's not a case of knowing what is needed and reaching perfection as those with parts not built to function the way the organism needs them to quickly fall prey to "nature", as my step-dad likes to put it.
One more small point, I am a lateral logical thinker so well capable of working things out for myself rather than reading what someone else decides for me.
On the other hand you have read up on this so what you gave was the best answer based on what you have read so rather pointless me reading the same stuff.
When I am finished posting on a thread I never bow out saying unless everyone accepts my opinions they are wasting my time because it is only from opposite opinions will I get the opportunity to look at all sides.
I am not looking for any one sided arguement based on a bias of any kind.
I'm not being biased, but the evidence supports it and I have to listen to the evidence. The evidence is compelling and strong, and you have shown that you do not truly understand it. Evolution is not about reaching "perfection" of any kind, but rather organisms which suit their enviroment, for example, long fur in cold climates, out-surviving organisms which cannot handle such conditions. That is the meaning of "survival of the fittest", that those who, by mutations in the DNA, are suited to certain conditions will survive for longer in those conditions.