So, in other words, the idea of complexity is mostly one of opinion. What appears complex to you may not appear complex to another. You might get away with a claim of complexity, but you then have to prove that nature cannot produce complexity -- which is nonsense.<quoted text>
1. I don't know the mathematical definition of complexity. Do you? Are you suggesting that complexity doesn't exist?
Now, if by some miracle (pun intended) you prove both complexity AND that nature cannot form anything complex, you have to come up with another explanation beside your religious ones -- because in order for them to work, you have to work on proving the existance of God.
Now, if by some incredible fluke you manage all that, YOU still have to prove that God had anything to do with the formation of life.
You better get started, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
Analogies are always inaccurate, which is why they are analogies. They illustrate concepts, they are not designed to be replacements. Your claim that evolution is the equivalent to the monkey typing Shakespeare is an incredibly poor analogy for many reasons, I highlighted one of them.2. I don't think it's possible to provide an accurate analogy as to how natural selection could assist a monkey in typing Shakespeare. This is because a book is language, and language cannot be altered one keystroke at a time without an end goal. The question remains... Do you agree that DNA has language type functionality? The Darwinian paradigm of nucleotides being inherited one or two at a time is absurd, because you cannot change the meaning of a genetic code one or two nucleotides at a time any more than a book can be written by contemplating each keystroke. Perhaps the demand for a Shakespearean play is unfair, given the fact that many endpoints are possible. How about imagining that a monkey could type ANYTHING MEANINGFUL?
Biologists have shown over and over again that evolution is not a random process. One of the mechanisms that make it a non-random process is Natural Selection. Without at least that, what you have is an analogy of randomness -- and since evolution is not a random process, your analogy doesn't even come close. If you can come up with a better analogy for natural selection, be my guest. But repeating a common Creationist canard simply means you are just a creationist and apparently a poorly educated one at that.
You are so close, yet you cannot even see it. Think about it, does the monkey know if it produced anything meaningful?
Does a gene know if the transcription error is something that will be naturally selected for?
Come on, put '2' and '2' together and come up with '4' for a change.