Sorry for the delay ikester - I'm involved in a number of discussions here (to my regret), and they're often scattered between other users discussions - so it get's confusing. I'm sure you understand it too - for example, there are a few posts that I have responded to you in which I have yet to get a reply. No pressure - just pointing it out
I have yet to see "any" evolutionist prove that everything forms through random chance. The math of odds don't even support this. So do we ignore the math to prove evolution? If the math does not even support it, then what does that tell you?
Randomness is not what evolution is solely based on. The only thing random about it is the mutations - that's what supplies natural selection with the variety and diversity we see today. There is no "correct" way for a species to go and there is no guarantee that a particular beneficial mutation (in accordance with the environment) will occur - if it does, it gets passed on - if it doesn't, the species may simply not go in that particular direction and ends up going in different one, or else it simply isn't able to compete as well and dies out.
Evolution does not say that molecules jumble together and somehow arranges into a human being, and that seems to be what you're implying. If that was what evolution predicted - I doubt anyone would support it.
The most important part of evolution is natural selection - it is a nonrandom, unconscious and inadvertent filtration system - separating the deleterious mutations from the beneficial ones simply via survival and death. It is not an active or conscious process - it is just the word we give to explain observed phenomena - eg, a culture of bacteria becoming immune to a certain type of anitibiotics. The bacteria that are not immune die because of the antibiotics, and a select few (if none generated it, they all would die. Because of bacteria being asexual - you only need one with the resistance to be able to repopulate) that had a mutation that offered them an advantage, ie resistance, survived and were able to proliferate until the entire culture was now resistant to the antibiotics.
That is why natural selection is nonrandom.
When you ignore the problems, as you are constantly doing, you are implying absolutes and also show that the problems of evolution cannot be addressed. Otherwise you would address them instead of blaming everyone else when your science cannot help you.
What problems am I ignoring? Other than the "maths" problem you said above - because that is not an actual problem, as I explained above. Evolution works via tiny gradual steps and accumulative change. There are no drastic reconfigurations that would require huge improbabilities.
Ignoring problems to make everything conform to what you want to be true is not science. It's religion because it requires faith. Religion says you need faith, so faith is required. Science does not.Ã‚Â Science says you need empirical evidence. I have yet to see "any" empirical evidence that proves random chance forms everything. If you have it, list it and we will test it according to the definition of what empirical means.
Randomness does not form everything. Random mutations is what supplies the variety - it is not the only part of evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a good "empirical" example of random mutations generating a beneficial trait which later spreads throughout the population via natural selection (those that didn't have it, died, those that did, survived).
No life does not always adapt to it's environment. Plankton changes it's environment to survive by making clouds.
In this situation, what is the plankton adapting to? And why would it be called adapting when the plankton are not changing?
The plankton adapted to its environment to be able to make clouds. That "trait" is a result of adaptation. To quote the article you gave me:"The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants."
That proves that the plankton were under selection pressures to adopt a defensive mechanism. That is not to say that they decided to evolve that trait - it was obviously inadvertent - a random mutation must have occured that bettered the planktons method of defense in some small way and this increased its survival and reproduction chances. Via accumulative change and time, the compound used could have formed.
However - I do agree with your first statement ("life does not always adapt to it's environment"
), but not in the way you meant it. Adaptation isn't guaranteed and the life that doesn't adapt dies, unsurprisingly.
You can ignore the problems of evolution all you want, it does not make new realities or new truth. But it does show that the problems that do exist cannot be addressed. And all the posturing in the world is not going to change that. So when you came in here with an know it all attitude, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Because skipping questions you don't like is starting to make you look like all smoke and mirrors on the smugness that you project with every post.
I don't ignore the problems. I also don't skip questions. I have answered everything that was asked of me. The only post that I have yet to reply to is one by Eocene and I probably won't have the time to reply again today. However, I will obviously not ignore it and will address it as soon as possible, as I intended to.
Also, I didn't realise my posts appeared smug. Could you point out an example?