Is unreasonable to look at the human intellect and assume that it occured by random chance. If you believe that then you are not capable of a reasonable discussion on the matter.
I'd have to disagree. The evidence that God exists, especially in the standard theistic, revelation-based, interventionist God, is very weak. I have to disagree with you.
Then please take me up on my challenge, provide me with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to prove the existence of god? Or at least use your theory to make specific predictions that are independently verifiable. Surely, that can't be regarded as an unreasonable request?
Based on my experience with genetic algorithms, I don't possibly see how anyone could say it is unreasonable that human intellect could arise through these mechanisms. In fact, I would be utterly shocked if artificial intellect vastly superior to human intellect was not developed in the next half century using these same mechanisms.
Truth be told, human intellect really isn't all that impressive.
I find your faith in progress touching.
Without a definition of 'intellect', this discussion is not going to go anywhere. Take something like the language faculty. It seems pretty clear that acquiring language involves something quite different from all-purpose learning (see e.g. Steven Pinker's Language Instinct). Is it part of the intellect, or is it something else? Also, given the fact that the language faculty is only indirectly apparent to us, e.g. in the way children acquire language, and that we still haven't defined the boundaries of the language faculty by a long shot, we are certainly not in a position to say how it evolved. In order to come up with an account for how the language faculty might have evolved, we have to know its parts inside-out: e.g. our thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the elephant's trunk at least allows us to come up with a detailed account for how the trunk may have evolved. Pinker thinks that an evolutionary account for the language faculty is straightforward, but it's clear to see this is the weakest part of his book. We don't even know how the language faculty relates to other mental faculties, other than a few broad correlations, such as the roles of Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain, facts that have been known for over a hundred years now. For all we know, the language faculty may just be an epiphenomenon of deeper mental faculties. We certainly can't say that there is some anatomical organ or precisely defined part of the brain that is 'language', which is really what we would like. And we don't know what genes determine the language faculty.
Ask any computer scientist involved in natural language processing about how easy it is to program an imitation of human language. Grammar just doesn't work like binary code.