[mikezobe (OP)]

Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.

The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.

Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.

The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.

[Bored chemist]

You would be better placed to answer your own question if you had take the trouble to find out what evolution really is, rather than judging it on the basis of a parody.

However, to cut to the chase, Yes, evolution is science.
Criticising it without understanding it is intellectual dishonesty.

[mikezobe (OP)]

Your response is the exact same response you get from every evolutionist: "you don't understand evolution" and "go look it up" or "go study it." But none of you, with all the knowledge you claim to have about evolution, are ever able to actually respond to the disproofs being presented. Maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board and reconsider what you believe you know.

[chiralSPO]

Perhaps part of the misunderstanding here is that genetic mutation does not lead to a completely random mishmash of genetic information. It is not at all like throwing bricks off a building. For the most part mutations are very minor, leading to some small degree of diversity (for instance slightly differently shaped teeth). This mutation may be helpful or harmful to the organism's viability, but the effect is likely to be small. In most cases, substantial effects are realized only over many generations.

By looking at the fossil record it is apparent that the life on Earth has been different at different times. Creatures that had never previously existed dominate the landscape for some period of time, and then no longer exist (not all species have become extinct yet, but eventually they all will...) If we trust the information of the fossil record, then clearly there is some process by which new species arise.

Unfortunately the fossil record is not very helpful when trying to understand processes. We only get limited information on only a small number of organisms. But more recent scientific advances allow us to look at the historical record contained within DNA. By comparing shared genetic material it is possible to determine how closely related different species are, and at what point distant cousins diverged.

We can also see evolution today. Not with large organisms like elephants, which evolve slowly because each generation takes a long time (20+ years), but with very small organisms like bacteria and insects. For instance, many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century. And yet, over the last decade or two, there are suddenly many strains of bacteria resistant to those chemicals. There is a wonderful time-lapse video that was recently published, which shows the evolution of bacterial colonies over a matter of weeks:

[Bored chemist]

Your response is the exact same response you get from every evolutionist: "you don't understand evolution" and "go look it up" or "go study it." But none of you, with all the knowledge you claim to have about evolution, are ever able to actually respond to the disproofs being presented. Maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board and reconsider what you believe you know.

There's a very simple reason why you always get the same response. It's because it is the correct response.
Now, since your original post isn't about evolution it's about some strange made up idea you have, how can I show if it is right, wrong or indifferent?

Essentially I can't disprove your nonsense, and there's no reason why I should try.

Why would I bother?
So, once again, go away and find out what evolution is before (intellectually dishonestly) attacking it.

Here's a starting point for you; you don't look exactly like your next door neighbour. The difference between you and him is genetics- a set of many mutations over generations.
There are differences and there are similarities- the same with the fossils.
It's very rare for a mutation to have a major effect and, if it does the individual generally dies. One individual in a population isn't likely to make it into the fossil record.

So, once you get some understanding of how evolution works, it's obvious that your "argument" isn't right or wrong, it's irrelevant.

Go and study.

[alancalverd]

Look in the mirror. Do you look exactly like both of your parents? If so, you have very strange parents. If not, you have evolved from them. That's all it means.

There are indeed some living things that seem to be unevolved exact replicas of their parents. Potatoes, leyland cypress trees, dolly the sheep (and a few others)  and most bananas, are clones, but most living things from flu virus to humans are genetically distinct from previous generations.

Sadly, some people seem unable to comprehend the notion that a combination of evolution and ecology can lead, over hundreds or millions of years to the surviving descendants being sufficiently different that we label them as different species.   

[Janus]

Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.

Genes, chromosomes etc. are not bricks.  They don't just take on any random configuration and can only combine in certain ways.  They also are more analogous to the blueprints of the house rather than the building materials.  Mutations are small alterations to those blueprints.   Of course, you might instead be referring instead to the original formation of life, abiogenesis instead here.  But even abiogenesis is not just a random throwing together of chemicals, as those chemical themselves have rules that govern how they can join up.  Besides, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things and are not related to each other, even though some people try to lump them together into a single argument. (now that's intellectual dishonesty) 

The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.

Mutations are not the random remixing of genetic material. they are small changes to one part of the blueprint.  Some mutations are benign (the Siamese breed of cat is a result of a mutation that altered its pigmentation.),  Some will be harmful, and some will turn out to be beneficial. (if not immediately then at some later point.  If the mutation is harmful or produces a malformed individual, that individual will either not survive or won't reproduce, and the mutation never gets into the gene pool. (If it hadn't been for the fact that people found the unique pigmentation of the Siamese cat desirable, they would have bred it out instead of for it and you wouldn't see that breed of cat today)   Mutations effect individuals, while evolution effects populations.   Only those mutations that do not hinder the individuals reproduction will be passed on to later generations and spread out into the population as a whole. 
The mutation rate also is fairly low in any given population. (if it goes too high, you risk not producing enough viable offspring to maintain the population.) As a result, the number of undesirable mutations resulting is malformed individuals is going to be vert low compared to the population at large (And the majority of these won't survive infancy).  The fossil record is sparse when compared to the number of creatures that have lived in the past.  The conditions which produces a fossil happens rarely and the vat majority of the time a deceased animal leaves no lasting record.  Pure common sense tells us that if if the fossil record is only represents a tiny fraction of past animal life and that malformed individuals would only be expected to be a small fraction of that, that you would not expect to find "billions" of fossils of malformed individuals. To suggest otherwise is again to be intellectually dishonest.

Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.

Evolution is the combination of small random mutations to the individual coupled with natural selection on the population level. Those mutations that do not hinder the individual's reproduction, are passed on, those that do, are not.  That's evolution; the slow alteration of a population over many generations.

The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.

"Unfit" is a relative term.  A creature that is unfit under one circumstance, is the fittest under another.    Let's take the  giraffe for example.  You start with an animal that grazes on low shrubs.  In a population you are going to have a certain genetic variation in terms of neck length. This will vary over a certain range, with necks too long or too short selected against.  But now the climate begins to slowly change and the low shrubbery is going away in favor of trees. Those animals with longer necks find themselves having a slight advantage over those with shorter necks. The shorter necked individuals can't compete as well, produce fewer and fewer offspring and this trait is selected against. A new "norm" has been established for neck length.  This also means that mutations that produce even a longer neck will be selected for, when earlier, it would have been selected against (the too long neck being more of a hindrance for a low level browser.)   So a really long neck is "unfit" under certain conditions, but more fit under others.  "unfit" doesn't equate to non-viable, but just not a good fit for the circumstances.  "Survival of the fittest", just means that those individuals that have a genetic trait that gives them a competitive edge, is going to be more successful, and be more likely to produce offspring and pass that trait onto later generations. 

All your arguments themselves have been a type of intellectual dishonesty known as the "strawman fallacy".   You have erected a "strawman" version of evolution and knocked it down rather than actually arguing against the theory itself. This is why people keep telling you that you need to learn about evolution and what it actually says. Otherwise you are arguing against some imaginary version of it that is of your own making. (And ending up looking foolish in the process.)

[Tim the Plumber]

Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.

The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.

Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.

The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.

As has alredy been pointed out to you you are attacking something that is not the theory of evolution.

That is dishonest.

To use your starting point of deformaties resulting in bad things almost always; yes spot on.

The reason the fossil record is full of well made plants and animals rather than the mistakes of evolution is that the mistakes did not get to breed whilst the very lucky ones that had a deformaty which improved them out bred all the others. There DNA spread and multiplied.

[mikezobe (OP)]

You people are seriously failing to understand the original post.

There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction. Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. So to say that the ones that were not capable of reproduction never passed on their genes is totally meaningless. The massive deformities should have happened way before any reproduction was even possible. Where are they? Nature got every species right the first time? Not a chance!

Re: how genetics work. You people are so entrenched with how genes work today you fail to understand we're talking about a time when genes themselves were evolving. We all know how genes work today. But that's immaterial. Genes today are stable and have specific functions. But before genetic stability kicked in every mutation had to be completely random, with not even a genetic repair mechanism in place to correct mistakes. How did any organism ever come to a functional state? It could not!

Furthermore, how did the first four-legged animal, for example, come into being? Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. Creatures of many configurations would first have to be spawned (from whatever species they allegedly evolved from) before nature could weed out the unfit. There should have been billions of these challenged creatures before the first viable four legged animal (as an example, but applying to all "firsts") became stable enough to survive and pass down its genes. Where are all these mistakes? They don't exist! Evolution obviously never happened!

The issue here is not how evolution works. The issue is how does nature work? You can make up all the rules you want about the mechanisms of evolution, but if it's not verified by evidence it's like talking about Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- it's all fiction. Having fantasies is great, but don't call it science. So stop blabbering about how evolution works and start showing the evidence. The evidence says it doesn't work.

Evolutionists are, ironically, the strongest believers in Creation. With all the "great" evolution-scientists, the best they can come up with is some process that magically produces life? Isn't that religion? All they've done is eliminate God from the picture and labelled it science.

[Bored chemist]

"There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction."
There were;
They were not even bacteria,
How did you imagine that they would fossilise?
Also, don't you understand that the tiny fraction that did learn to reproduce will have copied themselves so many times that they will have outnumbered the failures?

" Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. "
And they did;
those trials and errors were also life and, as has been pointed out to you, looked very much like the successes.

"Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. "
No version of evolution says that it could.

You really need to learn how evolution works.
Criticising it without understanding it is intellectually dishonest

"The issue here is not how evolution works."
Yes it is, because what you are writing about isn't evolution; you are writing about a pastiche of evolution and you are doing so because you are prepared to lie to try to make a point.

", but if it's not verified by evidence "
It is verified by evidence: stop lying about it

" The evidence says it doesn't work. "
You are entitled to your own opinion,but not to your own facts.
In reality the evidence shows that it does work.

"Isn't that religion?"
The traditional reply is "will convert for evidence"

[evan_au]

The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest.

If a particular creature survived in sufficient numbers for sufficient time to beat incredible odds and make it as a recognizable fossil into the geological record, then it is an amazingly fit species.

Evolution is not about the frequent appearance of non-functional forms (although this happens too), but about the change from one functional form into a more-functional form in the context of a continuously-changing environment and ecosystem.

many strains of bacteria today are evolving resistance to antibiotic drugs--chemicals that they would never need to have worried about until the last century.

The majority of our antibiotics are chemicals derived from nature, that have been used in battles between microbes since time immemorial. Antibiotic resistance genes have existed in nature almost as long as these antibiotic genes have existed in nature.

What we see is that antibiotic genes can transfer from bacteria in the environment into bacteria that normally live on humans, via horizontal gene transfer. (But the appearance of antibiotic resistance in the tuberculosis bacterium is apparently a bit of a mystery, since it appears isolated from the outside world for much of its life-cycle...)

Apparently, bacteria cultured permafrost soil samples, and dated as thousands of years old have shown the presence of antibiotic resistance genes. This predates human mass manufacture of antibiotics.

[Tim the Plumber]

You people are seriously failing to understand the original post.

There should have been billions and billions of deformed organisms before you even get to reproduction. Every new life form should have gone through billions of trials and errors before one stable life form capable of reproduction came along. So to say that the ones that were not capable of reproduction never passed on their genes is totally meaningless. The massive deformities should have happened way before any reproduction was even possible. Where are they? Nature got every species right the first time? Not a chance!

Re: how genetics work. You people are so entrenched with how genes work today you fail to understand we're talking about a time when genes themselves were evolving. We all know how genes work today. But that's immaterial. Genes today are stable and have specific functions. But before genetic stability kicked in every mutation had to be completely random, with not even a genetic repair mechanism in place to correct mistakes. How did any organism ever come to a functional state? It could not!

Furthermore, how did the first four-legged animal, for example, come into being? Genetics alone cannot determine that a one-legged cow, for example, cannot survive. Creatures of many configurations would first have to be spawned (from whatever species they allegedly evolved from) before nature could weed out the unfit. There should have been billions of these challenged creatures before the first viable four legged animal (as an example, but applying to all "firsts") became stable enough to survive and pass down its genes. Where are all these mistakes? They don't exist! Evolution obviously never happened!

The issue here is not how evolution works. The issue is how does nature work? You can make up all the rules you want about the mechanisms of evolution, but if it's not verified by evidence it's like talking about Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- it's all fiction. Having fantasies is great, but don't call it science. So stop blabbering about how evolution works and start showing the evidence. The evidence says it doesn't work.

Evolutionists are, ironically, the strongest believers in Creation. With all the "great" evolution-scientists, the best they can come up with is some process that magically produces life? Isn't that religion? All they've done is eliminate God from the picture and labelled it science.

Please watch this video. It is one of the best I have seen.

https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life

The point of it is that very simple carbon chemistry looks like life very quickly.

All the did not work chemicals in the early oceans did not reproduce. The few that did spread all over the world and eventually after many many failures the better ones replaced them.

If you look at a population that is evolving, that would be any at all, then almost all of them are not deformed.

[puppypower]

Evolution is incomplete, which is why the erroneous random assumptions are still around. When you need something to happen, the current model depends on magic; random poof!

In the current theory, evolution begins with random changes on the DNA. Natural selection then picks among this and other alternatives, based on potentials in the environment. The theory is a blend of random up front, and then a more logical selection process at the other end. If it is a cold environment, one can infer the best selections, since these will be connected to building and conserving body heat. The upfront random does not allow us to know what or when this is going to happen. We only know after the fact; after the magic poof.

If you asked what is the future evolution of humans, we don;t know the poof in advance to be able to decide if this poof will be better optimized and therefore be the direction of evolution. We need the poof, then we can infer.

There is a way to fix this. The way you fix is by extrapolating the theory of evolution to the nanoscale. Natural selection at the nanoscale occurs within an environment based on water. Water is the nanoscale environment that decides natural selection at the chemical level. This is why if you remove the water fro any level of life, nothing works, and if you add a new solvent, still nothing works. The water environment, like the Arctic cold, defines the parameters from which natural selection will optimize the animal (chemicals). If we change the environment, such as placing the polar bear at the equator, he will not be selected, since so many of his body systems are not optimized to the heat. If we change solvents the chemicals of life are not optimize to this environment.

Changes on the DNA, needed for macro scale evolution, are part of the natural chemical selection process within the water environment. Water is very unique and has many properties that can set the chemical environment needed to select the chemicals of life.

When the DNA is duplicated, errors will appear. There are proofreader enzymes that go along the DNA and do a spell check. Improper base pairing can be seen by the proofreaders, because these will be at higher energy than proper base pairing. After the proofreaders do their job, errors that remain are mutations. The question is, is it possible to fool the proofreaders, by altering the potential of an error, so it is overlooked? For example, if we were proofreading a story, the words herd or heard, both sound the same, but each creates a different meaning. If the story is about a cowboy who is running cattle to market, a fast read may make either word seem, possible. The energy difference; contextual arousal, is small. This can be done by making the local hydrogen bonded water pick up the energy slack; selection. 

[Kryptid]

Look at populations of organisms that exist today. The vast majority of them are not physically deformed because (1) most mutations are either neutral or have a tiny effect on an organism, (2) organisms have repair mechanisms that limit just how many mutations they receive, (3) also consider that many mutations do not cause the kind of changes that would be preserved by fossils (i.e. many are metabolic or soft tissue changes), (4) those organisms that had debilitating skeletal mutations that could have been preserved by the fossil record were far more likely to be killed and consumed by predators, and (5) those organisms with such mutations would have been far less likely to spread their mutations by reproducing, thus greatly limiting their numbers relative to undeformed organisms.Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that most fossils should be deformed if evolution is true. You'd expect the opposite to be true for the same reasons that living populations are mostly undeformed.

[the5thforce]

Time is the evolution of space, to say otherwise would only be a misunderstanding of time

[zx16]

How could this forum have evolved by "Natural Selection"?

[Kryptid]

How could this forum have evolved by "Natural Selection"?

Who ever said that it did?

[puppypower]

Look at populations of organisms that exist today. The vast majority of them are not physically deformed because (1) most mutations are either neutral or have a tiny effect on an organism, (2) organisms have repair mechanisms that limit just how many mutations they receive, (3) also consider that many mutations do not cause the kind of changes that would be preserved by fossils (i.e. many are metabolic or soft tissue changes), (4) those organisms that had debilitating skeletal mutations that could have been preserved by the fossil record were far more likely to be killed and consumed by predators, and (5) those organisms with such mutations would have been far less likely to spread their mutations by reproducing, thus greatly limiting their numbers relative to undeformed organisms.Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that most fossils should be deformed if evolution is true. You'd expect the opposite to be true for the same reasons that living populations are mostly undeformed.

The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.

The main conceptual difference between the two, is connected to the mechanism for change. Life is an integrated entity, where all the parts work like a team. This is why it takes so long to get new medications through the screening process. There are always side effects, because the body is integrated and life does not exist as a collection of isolated packets for each new medication. Rather the medication can have an unintended global impact.

The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages. If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.


Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects. There are more ways to undermine an integration that there is to advance it, using a random change mechanism. We can come up with a medicine to improve the kidney function of someone with a genetic defect. This medicine may work perfectly on them, but it may create side affects and others problems in the next generation, due to merged genes from two parents which forms a new integration. Then we need a new medicine. Random is  money pit, while nature is very frugal.

This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.

An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.

Creationist assumes a more logical approach, albeit, its premises may not agree with science discovery. However, the logical approach is more consistent with the needs of a mechanism of change, where life wins and death finishes second; load the dice and card counting. Life, in general, tends to persist, even under extreme conditions of change, albeit, not all life will change for the better. But the latter does not make it, due to external variables which do not allow the DNA to logically change fast enough to neutralize the new integration. Simple life can keep the pace.


A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.

[Kryptid]

The theory of natural selection makes logical sense and can be observed in nature. Even if you are a religious person and assume life began via a Creationist's mechanism. After the first life appears, natural selection, thereafter, is consistent with the divine plan. The strongest lion controls the land and rules the pride. While the fastest and evasive prey, lives to breed another day, etc., Even with humans, strong empires dominate the weaker ones and persist; selection. After Genesis,forward, natural selection is consistent and not contradictory to religion.

The main conceptual difference between the two, is connected to the mechanism for change. Life is an integrated entity, where all the parts work like a team. This is why it takes so long to get new medications through the screening process. There are always side effects, because the body is integrated and life does not exist as a collection of isolated packets for each new medication. Rather the medication can have an unintended global impact.

The theory of random change on the DNA, does not make sense, since a random change mechanism, over time, will lead to more problems and side affects than to global advantages. If we randomly made medicines, not only will the ordinal intent rarely work, but the side affects would be all over the board. We need to use logic to target the medicine, which even after that can still cause side affects.


Very few changes will advance one isolated pocket, while ignoring the integration of pieces, to create no side affects. There are more ways to undermine an integration that there is to advance it, using a random change mechanism. We can come up with a medicine to improve the kidney function of someone with a genetic defect. This medicine may work perfectly on them, but it may create side affects and others problems in the next generation, due to merged genes from two parents which forms a new integration. Then we need a new medicine. Random is  money pit, while nature is very frugal.

This is where Creation and Evolution start to separate. Creationism assumes a more ordered mechanism for change. They call it this mechanism God's will. One may not agree with this premise, but it is not based on a random approach, but rather depends on logical extrapolation from foundation premises. Even of you assume God does it, he does it at the chemical level.

An interesting way to look at the random assumption, is to consider two basic working examples of this mechanism in action, that are often used in education; cards and dice. Both cards and dice and not natural, but are manmade games. The dynamics behind these games, follow random principles. Bu these games are not found in nature but were placed there by man. What appears to have happened is applied science; the mathematical dynamics behind the manmade games of dice and cards, have been defined as natural and not manmade. This assumption, became transposed onto evolution, even though such a mechanism will cause more problems due to side affects; house of death wins over time.

Creationist assumes a more logical approach, albeit, its premises may not agree with science discovery. However, the logical approach is more consistent with the needs of a mechanism of change, where life wins and death finishes second; load the dice and card counting. Life, in general, tends to persist, even under extreme conditions of change, albeit, not all life will change for the better. But the latter does not make it, due to external variables which do not allow the DNA to logically change fast enough to neutralize the new integration. Simple life can keep the pace.


A logical mechanism involves a partnership between organics and water, with water the integrating variable of life and organics the differentiation variable. The current approach does not have water playing the role of the integrating variable, but it only uses the organics as a differentiation variable. Ransom is used in place of water's integration, with the mechanics of water hidden in a black box.

Mutations aren't completely random: some parts of DNA are more likely to mutate than others while some types of mutations are more likely to occur than others. Natural selection cuts out much of the remaining randomness (except for genetic drift). You most certainly could design medicines using evolutionary principles if you wanted to (it certainly has worked for other fields of research, such as antennae and aircraft wing design), but it would take much longer and be much less efficient than designing them through intelligent study.

[CliffordK]

Keep in mind that viability of organisms starts very early.  The hardiest of the Sperm make it to the egg.  Non viable blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are aborted.  Infant mortality rate is high in all species.  Some aquatic species lay thousands of eggs, hoping one, or a pair make it through the life cycle to start the process again.

Natural selection isn't entirely random either.  In humans, choosing a "mate" can be complex.  But, in the animal world, some birds have complex mating rituals...  which may help with selection of positive traits for the species.  In
other species, the strongest may mate more frequently than the weakest.

Even with plants, many rely on animals and insects for reproduction and spreading, and those that are more appealing to their "vector" reproduce better.

And evolution isn't something that just happened with fossils. 

Virtually every food species that humans use have undergone selective breeding.  Ok, so one has a farmer choosing to amplify certain traits.  But, many of those traits randomly occur, and someone selects something they like.  Larger, sweeter, tarter, disease resistant, etc.  There are huge debates about accelerating the natural evolutionary process by gene splicing in our plants.

Dogs are distinctly different from wolves.  For example, dogs tolerate human foods better than wolves.  It isn't that someone sat down and said..  let's add some carbohydrate genes into our breeding program.  Rather, likely dogs were fed table scraps since they were first domesticated, and those that thrived on the table scraps were healthier, hardier, and endured.

This is good reading about the peppered moth in  London, and changes based on industrial evolution coal burning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution