If the random chance component of natural, biological creation is impossible, then must a creator exist?

Question

Macro evolution (new functions and species) = random chance + natural selection.

If with unrealistically favorable assumptions, one finds that the random chance component is impossibly improbable, then macro evolution must be soley due to a natural force (natural selection is not a biological force, it must be caused first, then selected) that creates biological change.

In this case, it seems that a creator must exist.

For example, how did the brain get programmed for eyesight. To accept 2 images, combine them, to provide near instant assessment and response, millions of lines of unbelievably brilliant genetic code, how did that happen? We could put 1000 genius's to work on this for 10 years, and they would not be able to figure out how to do this. Not only is there no randomness, there is unimaginably brilliant creation involved. Millions of changes over billions of years cannot account for this.

I am skeptical about a solely natural, biological cause for life.

JP: The proof is simple.

100 changes, 1 chance in 10 that they happen, all 100 have to line up to make the function work. That probability is 1 chance in a googol. There are 10 to the 70th power particles in the universe. You would need Billions and Billion of more universes to have these number of particles.

If you now look at 3 Billion changes, and more than 1 chance in 10 for each change to happen, well, that is a mind numbing thought.

zatscu: That was strictly a sound bite. Light years exist. In the cambrian era, there was an explosion of new life form that most scientists agree, seems to have skipped the micro evolution step.

Maybe more people would survive rear end crashes if they had a 3rd eye. Where are those 3rd eye people so they might be selected?

There are other maybe better possibilities. They just are not happening, for some reason.

salient2:

In the words of Francis Crick, once he understood dna, he stated in could only occur due to a miracle.

Take the test, make the most ridiculous assumptions in your favor and calculate the probability of random chance. It is impossibly improbable. Thus, I am a skeptic.

Answer 1

Taking biology and the way in which our anatomy alone works, never mind the bodies of all other organisms, It is all too well organised to have happened per chance. How can a blob with the body shape of an amoeba "evolve" into an intricate organism per chance? Only by intervention by The Creator is it possible.

When studying any of the body systems, it is plain to see that there are just too many factors and systems that have far too much complexity for it all to be a matter of improbability. It just
could not possibly have happened.

Answer 2

I'm skeptical about your logic...

First, there is considerable proof that macro evolution is NOT improbable. But even if it were, that would not be any proof that a creator must exist -- it would simply be proof that macro evolution is improbable.

To jump from one "cause" being incorrect to another being correct, there must be affirmative proof of the validity of the second. Proving one thing wrong does not prove another thing (for which there is no affirmative evidence) right. So if macro evolution is wrong, all that means is that macro evolution is wrong. Nothing else. Before you can decide what the "cause" for the observed results seen that were attributed to macro evolution, you need to posit a theory as to what the cause might be, then by observation and experimentation prove that the cause properly explains the observed results. Since there can be no proof of a "creator" unless the creator steps in front of us, tells us he is the creator, shows us video tape of how and when he did it (and we can verify the video tape is real)...it's impossibly improbable that the existence of a creator can ever be proven.

Your "eyesight" comment is the same old ID junk, which is completely meritless. You may not know how we evolved the ability to see the way we do, but the fact that you do not know how it happened does not prove that there was a creator behind it -- it just proves you don't know (see above). Oh, and by the way, there is considerable biological evidence that shows us how eyesight evolved, and it didn't even take millions of changes. You should educate yourself on the current evidence before making ridiculous claims :)

Answer 3

Great, be skeptical!! There is hope for you if you can question things.

You are guilty of the fallacy of personal incredulity however. Which is to say, YOU can't think of a way it could happen, therefore it couldn't possibly happen. This ignores the possibilty that someone else may have an explanation.

You are also guilty of the fallacy of false dichotomy, which is to say, if natural selection didn't do it, it must have been god, as if there were no 3rd or more alternative explanations.

Also educate yourself about those questions.

All of your concerns have been dealt with ad nauseum in this forum, but also much more eloquently and in greater detail by evolutionary writers such as Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestors Tale deal with both of your concerns)

If you can't be bothered to read up on this, try asking this in the Biology forum, where people are prepared to give longer explanations. We give up here, because usually religious types don't really want to hear the answer anyway.

EDIT:
Your responses to the questions are even more incoherent than your original question. How dare you ask questions when you don't know the first thing about evolution or even basic math or science!

Answer 4

The random chance component has been documented extensivley. No only have we directly observed numerous mutations in labs and in nature, we even understand many of the mechanisms.

Eyes have evolved independently in several different organisms on earth, and even today, there are organisms with what we would consider partially formed eyes. Evolution takes advantage of anything you already have. It's straightforward enough to see how the ability to detect food from trace chemicals could evolve into smell. It's easy enough to envision how smell could evolve into taste. It's easy enough to envision how taste could evolve into touch, and how that could evolve into hearing and eyesight.

Each of the steps along the way is small, but they provide a reproductive benefit of some kind in each case.

If you can't envision how you can get to a million by adding 1 over and over again, you'll probably never be able to comprehend evolution either. Think about it. If there was only 1 useful mutation per 100 years for a given species, there has still been enough time for about 35 million succesively useful mutations in the time that life has existed on earth. The rate of 1 mutation per 100 years isn't even close to the real rate of useful mutations. Useful mutations in bacteria happen constantly, and we spent most of our evolutionary history as bacteria.

Answer 5

Fortunately the Universe is not dependent upon your understanding it. Mutations happen randomly but selection selects those which are beneficial. Eyes and other organs are the combination of many beneficial mutations that have been selected for. Look at a neural network which is trained to play a game. The individual moves are selected by chance but they are selected according to their likelihood of success. Its exactly the same idea. Your inability to understand this trivial concept is not an argument for anything. Arguments from ignorance are useless. They only tend to prove ignorance. Nature does not depend on your ignorance.

Answer 6

brains weren't "programmed" to accept eyesight, they evolved naturally so "programmed" is enitrely the wrong word. And compared with the coplexity of all living things eyesight hardly matters. However, at the same time there is no way to "prove" evolution that way because it would take billions of years. the eyesight thing is a bit lenghty of an explantation so ill just give a link

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

another place explaining how single cell celled organisms have "eyes"

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/primitive.html

I hope this helps


I hope this helps you

Answer 7

Believing in micro evolution but not believing in macro evolution is like believing in millimeters but not light years.

EDIT:
Just because natural selection is a kludge does not mean it doesn't exist. You should try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He is a Zoologist at Oxford university and goes step by step how and why micro and macro evolution works and how it is not only statistically probable but also likely.

Answer 8

First, you need to prove that it's impossible. Then you can bring back the deific hypothesis.

-------------------

You're assuming that all possible combinations have to occur. That's false.

Answer 9

nothing is impossible, just improbable, and strange things do happen.

Answer 10

improbable and impossible are two completely different beasts...