The one criticism of evolution by creationists that seems to make sense is they come up with examples where there would be no survival advantage if only part of it was present. For example, they may point out a mechanism in a cell where 10 different elements are needed for a certain function, and if only one of them is missing the other 9 elements absolutely do not function and do not even give a very slight survival advantage, just a a car without a carburator doesn't even function a little bit better than a car with no engine at all. Then they point out that this can't be explained by incremental random mutations, as the likelihood that a mutation happens that causes all these 10 things at once is just as unlikely as all molecules in a room moving to one corner. Does anybody have a link to a good article dealing with this criticism? I am familiar with the argument that an eye can start just very simply as a single light detecting cell which gives a very slight survival advantage, where a bunch of those tiny increments eventually lead to an eye. But I haven't seen an argument dealing with cases where there is absolutely no survival advantage unless a bunch of elements arise at the same time.

Henry Sturman