OK, here's why your "improbability barrier" issue is stupid;<quoted text>If. You accept their theory that complex traits are uncovered by mutations of regulatory genes, you're left with several serious problems:
1. How did the genes coding for the core processes evolve?
2. Even if 25% of the genome has regulatory functions, you're still left with millions of possible sites for mutation
In a 6 billion nucleotide genome. Regardless of how simple you might imagine DNA to be, you are still left with a level of complexity that cannot logically be positively changed by random mutations.
The fundamental problem with Darwinism is in my view the utter refusal of biologists to squarely confront improbability issues.
In any given sex act 300,000,000 sperm are released. Only ONE can fertilize the egg. The odds that YOUR's is the sperm that gets through is 1 in 300,000,000.
This is a sufficiently high improbability barrier that it is nigh impossible that you exist.
See how stupid that is? Bet not!