Complex Molecules and Organs 3

b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s
‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy
errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye;
besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function
that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There
is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”
Grassé, p. 104.

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on
one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain
sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be
improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the
ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so
forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been
unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by
substantial evidence.”  Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of
Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.

Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he
acknowledges that:

“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of
chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human
intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells
of our ancestors.” Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for
Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873