On the other hand, you have just 10e43 resources to scan through this space which means that evolution is physically impossible.
There is one obvious flaw in your reasoning, even assuming the numbers are correctly calculated.
On the one hand, you are trying to count the total number of possible arrangements of molecules.
On the other hand, you are trying to calculate the total number of ways this arrangement could be changed. However, the number you actually present is supposed to be the number of possible mutations which could have happened.
Mutation is obviously not the only way in which the arrangement of these molecules can be changed. Environmental changes will also affect this, and the number of possible environmental effects is incalculably large. Your 10^43 should be many, many, many orders of magnitude larger.
No, what I really mean is "Can an evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for a gradual development of complex systems without presupposing something that is contradicted by direct empirical science. If system like eyes evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps then why does the step by step removal or deformation of eye components results in blindness and not in some simpler mode of vision? Presupposing that eyes evolved gradually without even considering this empirical question is what makes the evolution theory pseudoscience.
This would only be the case if changes consisted solely in adding new things on top; while everything that was already there remains the same.
If you turned off the internet then the company I work for would stop working. Everything that we do, every work process we have in place, every system that we use is reliant on a functional internet.
It would be silly from this to conclude that we always had the internet. Our company predates the internet, and there are people old enough to remember that. Since the internet became available, however, various organisational and technological changes have happened in our company; and they have all happened in an internet-capable environment. Therefore we've built a whole structure which is reliant on the internet, and which ceases to function without it.
Given the discussion on this thread one interesting question arises: why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution?
The bigger question is why, every time herebedragons has pointed out the specific flaws in the examples you cite, you ignore it and accuse everyone else of arguing in generalities instead of specifics.
"Splicing of introns from mRNA precursors is a two-step reaction performed by the spliceosome, an immense cellular machine consisting of over 200 different proteins and five small RNAs (snRNAs)."
That's the first sentence of the paper. You should have kept reading, as the bulk of it seems to be about an experimental demonstration that splicing may be possible without using any of these proteins. If I understand it right, what the writers were trying to acheive was to understand what sort of simpler structure this spliceosome could have evolved from.
This is where your whole probability calculations are going wrong. There isn't only one way to acheive a result; and you rarely need perfection on the first attempt. The processes acheived with such efficiency by complicated protein machinery which is the product of thousands of millions of years of cumulative evolution can be acheived with less efficiency by simpler systems.
If the vast majority of lottery tickets are losers, if someone would told me that he has the winning ticket I would not believe it until I see verification. Since we don't have the verification that the jump was random, I prefer to believe what is more probable.
Your analogy is flawed. We already know the ticket is a winning ticket - since winning the lottery is supposed to be analogous to a mutation being beneficial. Since most mutations are not beneficial; one that is cannot be a random mutation - it was 'pre-programmed'.
What you're actually saying is that if somebody showed you the winning lottery ticket, you would chose to believe that the lottery was rigged, since this is more likely than someone winning it by chance.