I think you can rule out the chance argument of evolution (though clearly evolution has occured) when you understand how DNA actually works. To be clear I am not arguing for the existence of (a)god or godlike principle – although that is of course one of the many possibilities. However, I am convinced that on the available evidence, you can demonstrate that the “random evolution” hypothesis is in fact a mathematical impossibility.

A bold claim, but here’s how you can show it’s theoretically impossible. Let’s take an average length section of DNA that codes for a protein – they are mostly between 100 and 250 codons in length: where each codon of 3 letters codes for one amino acid. That average length would have say 150 codons and they would therefore code for 150 amino acids. There are only 20 amino acids used in living things, and the 64 possible codons code for all of them (in varying proportions) apart from the 3 stop codons: this is surprising in and of itself. So the number of possible permutations is 20×20×20…. 150 times. That shakes down to 10 to the power 190 or 10^190 in correct notation. But there are only 10^82 atoms in the known universe!!!!! (https://www.livescience.com/how-many-atoms-in-universe.html#:~:text=This%20gives%20us%2010%5E82,number%20of%20approximations%20and%20assumptions.) But if you understand maths, you will know that 10^190 is a number (almost) unimaginably larger than 10^82!

So the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution as currently accepted relies on the notion of unintentional & essentially random changes in the DNA. These are either transcription errors, cosmic-ray induced changes & environmental damage changes to DNA being improperly error corrected – all ultimately causing changes to the genetic code. These are presumed in some cases to result in beneficial changes to the organism resulting in greater survivability for the organism, and therefore propagation of the said trait. There are a number of things that are casually skipped over in the overall narrative, such as where and how did such an elegant base 4 code arise – notably a code capable of coding for all life as we know it. How did the first self-propagating cell arise – also no mean feat, etc, But we don’t even need to consider all that to show that it’s all imossible as expounded by the Neo-Darwinists.

There are are a number of serious insurmountable problems with the evolutionary viewpoint or perspective as espoused. First any such mutation would have to occur in the gametes (egg and sperm creation/storage areas) to be propagated to future generations. (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Gamete#:~:text=A%20gamete%20is%20a%20reproductive,form%20a%20new%20diploid%20organism.) Then the change would have to be beneficial. To do that it would have to code for a protein which would lead to some significant or at least appreciable difference in the organism simply via the production or expression of this different protein. That protein in and of itself being available – would need to alter the organism sufficiently to make a difference to its survival prospects. It would also need to be a dominant gene or they would need to seek out and mate with another holder of the same recessive gene. Further it would need to be expressed in a part of the organism that actually produced a discernible or material change that was beneficial to the organisms chances of survival: a highly questionable assumption/requirement.

However the number of actually useful proteins is very small when compared to the total number of possible permutations which is 10^190. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1672022916301875#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20proteins%20in,9113)%20(Table%201).) This is because most of the permutations do not produce foldable and therefore useful proteins. Evidence of this has been produced by deliberately causing DNA damage to fruit flies using gamma rays. It was found that the offspring mostly just died because the genetic mutations as introduced by the gamma ray damage, produced changes in the proteins being produced which resulted in the death of the organisms offspring. In effect you can say that the number of useful proteins is effectively 0 when compared to the total number of possible proteins that could be coded for in a 150 codeon length piece of messenger RNA. This is only considering mRNA codon lengths of 150 but there are many more codon lengths between 100 and 250 – so that makes the number of potential proteins that could be coded for even larger. So mathematically you can show that the chances of a beneficial protein change occuring, and then leading to a beneficial expression of a trait that would enhance survivability is almost non-existent. Further when you look at the vast numbers of lifeforms, functions and morphologies it is clear that the lifesystems that abound on this planet could not have come into being by random mutations. This is because the chances of even a single mutation leading to a beneficial effect are incredibly small, yet there must have literally trillions upon trillions of sucessfull mutations occuring to produce all the different life forms that we see on the planet.

However I’m not saying that there is a god or any other particular speculation other than to rule out pure chance. But what this does mean is that something caused this incredible array of life and it would be seemingly likely that there was some sort of intelligence behind it – given the incredible elegance of the structures that we see. It is also a possibility that we are living in some kind of pre-existing matrix that has many possibilities pre-incoded into it. This is a bit like this word program I am typing on – there are an almost infinite number of possiblities that I could type here on this alleged tabula rasa – BUT – I can only type letters that have already been pre-encoded into that system as possibilities. I can’t just invent a new letter whenever I feel like it: but the posibilities are almost infinite.

The upshot is that even if you only consider it a possibility it is likely that there may be some purpose to being here – I’m not saying that there is – but I’m saying that to rule it out  is clearly nonsensical and rather short-sighted. The fact is we have been spoonfed this idea that it all came about after a big bang and then lots of random mutations over a long period of time which produced the life we see. Personally I think that is a nonsensical idea and is not borne out by the facts that we have discovered so far – particularly about DNA. On the other hand I will also rule out religion because religion is clearly based on nonsense too. But that doesn’t mean to say that there is not some other meaning to life that one could (or maybe should) attempt to divine.