There are four problems with the OP's argument.
One is assuming a particular sequence is the only one which works.
The one thing can be done in different ways. The
Neanderthals had a gene sequence which caused red hair. We have a different, unrelated sequence that causes red hair. Cats and foxes have still
different sequences. There is not necessarily ony one way to do anything biologically.
The second is assuming high odds against prove a thing cannot happen.
If the odds of winning are 9 to 1 against, and I play
a thousand times, it's likely I'll win ten times. Creationists like to believe that pulling some monsterously huge number out of their collective
arsehole means that something with those odds against cannot happen. But if there's a trillion trillion odds against and I play a trillion trillion
trillion times, the chances are I'll get a trillion wins.
Many of the gene sequences we use have not involved in humans, and not even evolved in animals. They have evolved in the uncountable numbers of virii
and bacteria we have been in contact with while evolving to our present form, and which have exchanged or donated DNA or RNA with us.
There is also the fact which creationists can't seem to comprehend, which is that however high the odds, given one roll of the dice, one still might
The third is assuming our genetic sequences were the result of random chance
and had to instantly come into existance in
their present form. However many sequences are built up of parts of other sequences which may have had a lesser function, a different function or no
useful function at all. Any slight usefulness is selected for and then improved on naturally. The fact that mutations are random does not mean the
final results are random.
The fourth is assuming there is something special and preordained about the human form,
leading creationists to the
egotistic fallacy that this universe was created for us. However, with billions of planets circling their stars, some kind of life was bound to evolve
on some. The fact that one of these (at least) lifeforms learnt to ask questions and invent religion does not prove that lifeform was the result of
any grand plan. Naturally, if that lifeform is egotistic, then from the point of view of that lifeform the environment will seem to be tailor-made for
them, because they evolved in that environment and natural selection is the process of tailor-making a lifeform to suit its environment.
Is it so hard to understand that, given a different environment, we would simply be different or not exist, and there might be nothing in this
universe which would give a damn?
People are afraid of this idea because they fear having no rules or meaning imposed from outside. But I say, whether or not there is a super-creative
intelligence behind things, it is up to ourselves to choose our own rules and give our own lives meaning.
edit on 19/1/11 by Kailassa because: post was not green enough