Why are there still plenty of unicellular organisms, but also organisms of increasing complexity?
The advantage of varied and non-saturated environments. More, and different, organisms survive - the successful ones flourish.
Any modification of the single cell, in a context of mitosis/meiosis as the means of reproduction, should have yielded nothing, or more single celled organisms.
No limit on context. Some split, some double, some absorb, a few mutate. Winners do it again.
How do we get to complex organisms?
How long have you got? Life took about 4,500,000,000 years. Incremental advantage usually works - and we're only seeing the 0.01% of survivors, not the 99.99% that failed (or even the 99.9999% that didn't last long enough to be recorded...).
I can post a superb rebuttal of the blind watchmaker, if you wish, but I don't feel you need to be patronised thus - you're just being ingenuous.
As a basic analogy, observe how Windows XP has grown from DOS. Now take the DOS away, observe how it fails, and hence conclude it can only have been by design... oh, but there's no DOS in XP. LOL.
Alternatively, be amazed at how 5 separate genii (minimum) have evolved a functioning wing, impossible though flight may seem.
<edit> and arguing from 'design', explain why designed intellectual omnivorous bipeds have short sight, recurved spines, MS, diabetes, flat feet and an appendix. |
