> Put another way, imagine there's a computer with a random number generator spitting out letters (1-52 (a-z,A-Z, ignoring punct) in perfect randomness. How lon

> Put another way, imagine there's a computer with a random number generator spitting out letters (1-52 (a-z,A-Z, ignoring punct) in perfect randomness. How long would it take the computer to create 'War and Peace'? As others have already stated, this isn't how natural selection or evolution works. The mutations are, as far as we know, random. The organism they work on isn't recreated each time. That is, it's incremental. > And compared to an organism, 'war and peace' wouldn't even account to a single cell's worth of DNA which is insanely complex with so many parts that must exist simultaneously with others for the cell to survive. This is an argument from ignorance. At what level is something 'too complex' to have evolved? Depends on who you ask. Behe, Dembski, et al, attempted to answer this with "irreducible complexity", but it is flawed, and not accepted by any credible scientific community. It ignores exaptation by definition, and then is promoted as proof of intelligent design. But even still, the bacterial flagellum, eye, and other previous examples of "irreducible complexity" have been shown to have evolutionary paths--from existing organisms. So now, all of a sudden they aren't irreducibly complex. So it seems irreducible complexity depends on our knowledge ("This part seems like it can't function alone, since I can't find any examples to the contrary"), not any objective property of the organism itself. That's not how science is done.