Challenging Chance

If you look at the individual parts of the eye (wires) as simple organs than yes it would seem plausible that natural selection and random mutation could have brought about the complex eye we have today. However each part of the eye is highly complex, even the proteins which make up the eye are far complex than you make them out to be. The human brain consists of 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina which is also part of the brain contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells.


There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. The average person consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes unlimited. Each protein in our body however must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. I urge you to take an honest look at the probability and see if gradual evolution is still a reasonable argument.

The 500 amino acids that make up an average sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (one followed by 600 zeroes). If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations in a second, we would still stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination

There are things that are irreducibly complex (bacterial flagellum) how does gradual evolution explain this. For biological things to operate they need genetic information. My question to you is where did the information of DNA come from how did it arise in the first place. Lots of people have wanted to explain the origin of information by reference to the laws of physics and chemistry or by reference of chemical properties of the constituent parts of the DNA. That would be like saying that you could explain the information in the morning paper by reference to the physics and chemistry of ink bonding to paper. There is a chemical explanation as to why the ink sticks to the paper but that does not explain the way the ink got arranged to convey a message that could be understood by speakers of English language information requires a material medium but it transcends the material medium

Even if every mutation has a positive result (which it doesn’t) an unguided process has far greater odds than that of an intelligent designer. Forgive me for using Occam's razor on this one but to put it simply a designer seems much more probable than chance. There is only one known cause for the origin of information and that is intelligence. It looks like a creator left his signature for us on creation. -Psalms 19