Theory of creation? They haven’t even formulated a proper hypothesis yet.
Yes they are, and (as I’m sure you must already know - you’re not new here) evolution is not ‘just random chance’.
Start here and then there’s all this too! Irreducible complexity is barely a hypothesis.
(And IIRC evolution.berkeley.edu is one of the go to places for all of your evolution needs.)
Oh, and no, it’s NOT JUST RANDOM CHANCE!!! :smack:
CMC fnord!
Urbanredneck, would it change your mind at all if we could point to examples previously touted as things “too complex to have possibly evolved”, and then demonstrate a bevy of intermediate forms, showing a gradual shift towards the more complex organism? Because this is something that keeps happening. Creationists point to something they think is “too complex” to have evolved, and biologists then proceed to find the evolutionary pathway of how it evolved. It happened with the eye, it happened with the bacterial flagellum, and it happened with bacterial chemotaxis. It was never easy to find these pathways, and took time and dedicated research, but the pattern is fairly clear - if we look, we tend to find. Question is, at what point does the argument, “I can’t understand how this could have evolved,” stop being convincing to you? Do we have to map out the evolutionary pathway of every biological system?
Well of course it’s not *feasible *feasible. But there’s nothing to prevent it from being theoretically feasible if you follow my meaning. All you need is perfect frame-by-frame information and instantaneous computation, no big deal. It’s just physics, and not the weird mess-with-your-brain quantum kind of physics either 
- it’s pendulums and balls rolling down inclines type stuff.
Of course, there’s a simpler way to know the outcome. Just throw the frickin’ ball, see where that goes and live with it :D.
Well the human eye is a bit of a mish-mash, rife with bad “design” choices. For elegance and efficiency you could look at at one of the other, separate, evolutionary threads for visual sensory equipment. I’m assuming that god realised he needed multiple tries to get it right.
As for all the organs? Don’t think of them as being “engineered” and “built” in their current form from the ground up because that didn’t happen. Look back to the simplest creatures in the fossil records and see the trillions and trillions of small-scale opportunities for trialling slightly better solutions for oxygen transport or waste excretion or vibration perception or calcium structures etc. etc. Of course even using the word “trialing” suggests some degree of conscious intervention and that is not needed. We know that small mutations to existing structures happen, by pure chance all the time. The “trialing” of these mutations and selection for fitness is then carried out by a wholly unthinking and non-sentient environment.
Whatever adaptation conferred an advantage stood a chance of being passed on and perhaps further modified. The large and complex mammalian structures you see now are pretty much just “more of the same”
If you accept things started simple (it did) that mutations happen (they do) such mutations can be either neutral or helpful (yay!) or harmful (boo!) and can be passed on to offspring depending on their utility(they can) and that we have had a full planet of complex chemical and conditions (we do) and hundreds of millions of years in which to work (we have)…then a fairly clever ape with a pretty good brain, opposable thumb but moderate eyes, nose and hearing is not really that much of a surprise.
Even less of a surprise if we look beyond our pretty nondescript planet. There are a thousand billion galaxies, each with a thousand billion stars, with who knows how many planets (clue: lots) and it could well be that this is the thousand-billionth iteration of the universe. Given all those opportunities, life arising at all seems to be far less of a miraculous event and in less need of any supernatural explanation.
In another thread the OP actually referenced Ken Ham, whom he (or she) appears to find credible. This is what we are dealing with here.
And even if it isn’t, the point remains: the universe is not constrained by our ability to comprehend it.
I’ve liked “Beyond the Wormhole” explanation of how evolution makes statistical sense. Watch the video at the 12 minute mark.
I don’t think the OP is coming back-maybe because we strayed off script?
Oh, sorry, were we supposed to gnash our teeth or something?
Those parts aren’t small–we are large. For the majority of the history of life on Earth, every living thing has been a single cell. Gluing a large number of cells together to cooperate in making a gigantic composite organism is the innovation.
Single-celled organisms do a majority of the same things that multicellular organisms do–for instance, they have light-sensitive proteins in their cell membranes to sense the presence or direction of light, it is just that multicellular organisms, instead of having those proteins on the surface of every cell, have the genes for their production switched on in only some of them–and those cells are refined in shape by natural selection to best pick up the light (and cells near those cells specialize to better support those light-sensitive cells.) The same can be said about digestion–single-celled organisms have to be able to digest food particles, but in multicellular organisms, there is the opportunity to have cells along the stomach and intestines do the digesting, while other cell types don’t have to bother producing the necessary enzymes. Detoxification can be limited to liver cells, removal of waste products can be limited to kidney cells, and so on. Being multicellular means having a chance for individual cells to do less, but to become optimized for doing that subset of cellular activities.
Something similar goes for the inner ear bones–they are “small” because they stopped growing while other organs continued to grow, but we all start off as a single cell.
Also, the inner ear bones are a good study of evolution, given that we have a fairly complete record of their migration/transformation from jaw bones. They tell a story, all by themselves.
Yep, one of the best documented fossil transitions there is. You can also see the evidence in embryology and genetics.