Generally, would this not speak against eveloution?

Question

Detioration and decay bring dis-order to order.
Accidental (as they, by definition, cannot be purposeful) patterns from caos are minimal, and not repetitious.

When looking at our know experimental (we can manipulate and examine it) world, the animal world in particular, we find the usual division of gender.

One, necessary answer would be that the random orders MUST be repeated, with only the gender variation extant.
This same diffences must also, randomly happen, countless times, within very short time frames (or else the genders would not be alive together for mating).
These same random occurrences MUST also happen within the same general location (one continent difference and no continuation of the species)
As matter and enery cannot be created, All of the elemental material ALWAYS existed, in some state (I am, of course using the no God position for this arguement!), and we have devised LAWS to explain these actualities, order breeds caos, not the inverse.

how can evolution be?

Of course, I know that there are animals that utilize asexual reproduction, as well as plants.
I eliminated these, purposely, as they further expand the calculations of 'possiblity and probability' (even if this is not the term use choose to use possible is either a singular choice of yes or no and then after this determination probability might answer the question of if it did happen or will)
Also the chances are equal, if we take into account missing links or not as either way, it is a fact that we now exist, and we exist in the state we are currently in. common ancestral heritage between species is meaningless, mathmatically, as the caos of the past would include that very past and if we came from a 'lesser' life form or we were formed completely, wholly as modern man, they are mathmatically the same chance in the multitude of chances, each being 1 chance.
On earth, we think we have identified ALL known extant elements, hence our periodic chart.
Is this so?
unknowable!

Math breaks down at this point as we have the unknown mass of the universe and hence the unknown mass of all elements, and the unknown number of existing elements today versus the unknown number of existing elements in all time past (as the enormous amount of enerygy released by both fission and fusion of said elements at the very beginning, which may have cause the creation of elements that did not originally exist and the elimination of certain original elements theoretically).
To further muddy the mathmatical waters, it is unknown if the whole mass of universally existing matter was ever together, or if some was and some was separate and what ratios that separate mass(es) would be)
Did one mass explode and the other not, or was there a collision with one or both moving, etc.
the eavrage human of 70Kg has app'x
7*10-27 th power atoms in it
it would take two nearly identical random patterns (again gender differences)
to accidentally happen, same time, same place
continued

AFTER this planet had been stabilized in a suitable orbit around a suitable star, with suitable atmosphere, vegetation, water, etc

The problems are too numerous to calculate (and no mathmatician is up to the task, sorry to einstein, fermi, hawkins, etc...).
One cannot even calculate the odds of even selecting the correct number of variables, nor the value of the variables, to take a stab at it!

Further, assumptions MUST be made, and they complicate the situation even more!
did all the mass receive the same energy? Probably not, as the universe, as far as we know, is not semetrical.
4*10-79th power of atoms estimated in the estimated universe*the assumed mass*the assumed dispursement pattern*the assumed disbursment rate*2 (the known genders of our species)* the average amount of atoms in the human body (babies can be assumed to not be survivable as they need external care)* mass of our solar system* the calculation of our solar system's chance arrangement=?
continued

Please do not forget to backtrack and pinpoint the origin of the original unknown ma(es) to give the timeframe (based on our solar system's velocity, it can be considered constant for this, just to make it easier) that these random things happened.

Now when it is all said and done, map the universe, compare constellation velocities and backtrack again to see if they came from the same origin so you will know if this equation is accurate and can be used to estimate if there is life there as well.
If they do not have the same timeframe/location origin as our constalation, then our original equation is false (or could be, in any rate it needs to be redone with this new variable - mass, - unknown elemental mix, etc)

you will find the answer, given small values to all unknowns is still an impossibility that we exist as even a sngle life form.
now calculate again for the known life-forms on earth (both animal and plant).

ALL ESTIMATES OF TIME FROM THE BEGINNING FALL SHORT OF THE ANSWER !

SORRY ABOUT THE TYPOS, BATTERIES GOING IN KEYBOARD AND MY HEAD! LOL

Answer 1

Personally, I have no problem with spelling errors as this tells me that this is your own question, and not something you just copied from some Creationist web site. You're exposition is a little difficult to follow, (and I'm sorry but your Additional Details just really lose me) but I think I understand your original question.

First, a side point: "accidental" is not the opposite of "purposeful". Things arise all the time in nature that are neither accidental nor purposeful. The fact that a river flows downstream is no accident, but a byproduct of gravity, and yet we would not say that the river is being "purposeful" by flowing downstream. (Do a Google search on the word "teleology" for lots of discussions on this topic.)

Second, (another aside) patterns arise from chaos all the time. That is precisely the point of Chaos Theory. E.g., a snowflake is a heavily patterned outcome of the chaotic process of water crystalization. The exact pattern that emerges is almost completely unpredictable ... but the fact that some pattern will emerge in the snowflake *is* predictable, as is the replication of that same pattern throughout the snowflake.

Third, (and this is getting more to the crux of your question), yes you are correct that random changes MUST be repeated, but that is the wonder of DNA/RNA replication ... a random change gets replicated (repeated), so that it no longer has to occur randomly again. If it has some advantage, no matter how slight, the change gets repeated more in future generations. And that part is *not* random, any more than a flow of a river downhill, or the growth of a water crystal into a snowflake, are random. Just as a river may take many different paths but it always goes downhill (because of the force of gravity never lets up), evolution can take many different paths, but it always flows towards better survival (because of the pressure of natural selection never lets up).

Now, I'm not sure what your point is w.r.t. genders. It is of course *not* true that both genders must have a certain genetic difference in order for that difference to be propagated into offspring. Only one of the two need have have the genetic difference. The genetic difference can propagate for hundreds of generations in very few individuals with no expression, and thus no effect (advantage or disadvantage), whatsoever. Or it may be expressed (e.g. the code for green eyes) but have no advantage or disadvantage. But some transcription event may happen one day that causes a long-dormant (unexpressed) gene to suddenly get expressed, or some environmental event may confer some advantage to some long-neutral gene ... those individuals that have a certain gene (e.g. darker skin, or hairier fur), and then that gene will start to become more predominant.

So it is *not* true that "This same diffences must also, randomly happen, countless times, within very short time frames." A genetic difference only has to happen once ... but if it confers some advantage, no matter how slight, to offspring that have it ... i.e. if offspring that have the gene survive just a *tiny* bit more frequently and each make a *few* more offspring of their own that carry the same gene ... then that gene will propagate slowly into the population ... the percentage of individuals that have it will slowly go up. This can take a *long* time (hundreds of generations), but it does not have to happen rapidly, and its random occurence does not have to happen simultaneously in more than one individual ... the first occurrence is random, but its *inheritance* into offspring is not random, and thus neither is the propagation into the population upon the application of selective pressure.

So as in my example of the snowflake, chaos can indeed sometimes breed order.

And *that* is how evolution can be.

Answer 2

I don't think it so much argues *against* evolution as it argues *for* Intelligent Design or Divine Intervention or whatever. God has all the tools on the universe at his disposal, who's to say He didn't use evolution as one of them? And just keep things from falling apart before they could progress?

Answer 3

Your convoluted explanation does not help the discussion. Evolution is a great idea because of the preponderance of scientific evidence for it. If it was fully understood, we could explain your dilemma. It does nothing to help the discussion. And no, ID is not a valid science alternative to evolution.

Answer 4

Evolution by natural selection preserves order in the face of chaos and copying error. Most mutations are eliminated by natural selection.

Natural selection is NON-random.

Answer 5

Maybe if you try using the "yes God" position, it will clear itself right up?

Answer 6

It would speak better if you spelled it right.

ex: intelligent creation.

See? I can do it.

You believe your theory, and I will believe mine, just don't cross bridges built without math and only prayer.
Okay?