AB,
BH,
Thank you for another detailed response to my post.
I fully understand what you are saying.
Just hold that thought for a minute...
So in summing up, you believe that random errors in copying DNA have generated every minute detail of your human body. Every bone, every bone joint, every blood cell, every skin cell, every nerve, every hair, every organ, every component of every organ, every brain cell ....
You also believe that each incremental step in these developments produced sufficient functionality in its own right to be passed on using natural selection.
Ah, so you haven't understood it at all then. What you've actually done is just to commit the lottery winner's fallacy again - you've considered the human body and thought, "what are the chances eh"? It makes a sort of sense too if you look through the wrong end of the telescope - start with the finished article, then marvel at the unlikelihood of an unguided process arriving at it.
Here's the thing though: you have the logic completely backwards. The universe cannot know or care what organisms emerge, or indeed whether any emerge at all. It's quite possible that with different mutations and different environmental pressures different organisms entirely would have come about, and indeed that maybe one of them would be posting somewhere, "so you believe that every third eye on the back of our heads so people can't sneak up on us, every shinbone on the back of our legs so we don't bump into coffee tables, every flat round hand that makes us so good at ping pong happened by random chances then do you?"
You are in other words still fundamentally locked into the bad thinking of the lottery winner who thinks he's special, and not into the correct thinking of Camelot that really doesn't care who wins.
As you've just ignored the other points that undo you, I won't return to them.
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process. Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers. Dembski once likened the natural selection process to a blind man trying to find the solution to a Rubic's cube, asking his sighted friend, "is this it?".
Except of course that isn't true at all, and the "atheist" there is just a red herring. What actually happens when a Behe or similar pops up is that his arguments and evidence are tested, and found to be false - the nonsense of "irreducible complexity" for example. Why then would anyone bother with "derision and character assassination" when he has the arguments on his side?
Oh, and the Rubik's cube analogy fails in any case by the way for the same reason that your argument fails - you need to decide
first that the completed puzzle is the correct answer and then wonder at the unlikelihood of chancing upon it, whereas in fact there's no blueprint to start with that chance events are trying to find.
