[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But... my point is that there was only one path chosen. As such the evolution of each useable sub part (or function, if you will) is an order of magnitude greater than the one it is a part of, since it is necessary for both to exist in order for both to to work.

Now, I'm not much up on probability theory, but I believe that what I'm indicating is that for a given, known and provable path (of which we have many examples), the odds are overwhelmingly against random chance. One of the problems inherent in assuming (practically) infinite paths is that they are not testable. Also, from a practical aspect, each useable function has an extremely limited set of paths.

Part of the problem of assuming a huge amount of available paths for a given function is that the function has, arguably, only followed one of the paths. Therefore, assuming the possibility of multiple paths for a given function which has only one is a little strange.

When using theoretical probabilities, perhaps it would be better to assume theoretical functions. When talking of actual parts, the odds are anything but theoretical

[js1138]

...but I believe that what I'm indicating is that for a given, known and provable path (of which we have many examples), the odds are overwhelmingly against random chance.

That is true of any path, before it happens. One cannot predict the weather, nor could anyone a century ago, have predicted the events leading up to your birth and upbringing.

It's rather foolish, however, to calculate the odds against a complex phenomenon after it has happened.

The basic error in using probability against evolution is assuming that certain things have to happen a certain way, or that complex structures are specified in advance.

If evolution calculated structures and traits in advance of need, species would never go extinct.