Also, I don't know much about theories. But the way you described that cosmic one doesn't sound as good to me as it does to you. I know you probably didn't describe it well. But it sounds like someone asks, 'How is is possible that we're here?' and it answers, 'Well, it was possible, out of everything that was possible at the time, so that's why it's possible.' It also doesn't make sense to me because the rules for all the possibilities had to be formed first, in order to make it possible, didn't they?
It was explained like this: imagine the Multiverse as a neverending strip of bubble wrap. Each bubble is a Universe. There are multiple different Universes, all different from each other. We exist as one of those Universes - we exist the way we do not because of the will of a creator, but because we are a permutation of what a Universe could be. The reason everything is good and suitable for us is because it is possible - it is likely that many of the Universes would not even contain human life. I only know the basic details of the theory as a whole. It as detailed on that Morgan Freeman show about the Universe. The theory actually could work with or without some sort of creator - there are explanations of it that work with or without one. It's fairly interesting.
MGW keeps on about beneficial random mutations in a single species,
Doesn't matter what he's saying or what you think he's saying - beneficial mutations do occur, but because survival requires them.
It's all about the evolutionist's idea of randomly generating new species
Any 'evolutionist' who thinks new species are randomly generated needs to know what they stand behind. Speciation occurs because of continued adaptation, not random generation.
Each animal has its own system to produce young, and you can't really be altering that system randomly without killing them off.
First of all, all of the animals in the environment would be changing, so reproduction wouldn't be a problem. Also, evolution itself is driven by killing off the inadequate - the unfit die and the fit reproduce and create more fit organisms.
the oldest living fossil is archebacteria that has 500,000 DNA in length. The human DNA is 6 billion in length. That means, according to evolutionism, that over 4 billion years random mutations added more than 1 DNA per year all making sense to generate humans
They weren't random mutations - the bacteria would replicate continuously, being fueled by all the energy coming in from the Sun, allowing them to grow more complex. Eventually, one of those evolutionary branches comes out with humans.
There is proof that humans evolved from another creature, at least one other creature. The genes that control what and how many body parts you get are called controller genes. Controller genes are never cut out of DNA, in case the creature needs them again. Basically, the DNa of all creatures alive today serves as a genealogy of what they evolved from - what creatures in their lineage had. Chickens have deactivated controller genes for reptilian scales and teeth, showing that they evolved from dinosaurs or other reptiles. Humans have deactivated controller genes for
vestigial tails. Sometimes, harmful mutations result in a creature being born with one of the deactivated controller genes flipped on - this is very rare in humans. I'm pretty sure only a handful of people have ever been born with a vestigial tail. Thing is, it's impossible to have controller genes for something unless your species used to have them but were then edited out due to natural selection.
I don't think all that happened randomly, and that's a big difference between creationism and evolutionism.
Once again, randomness does not drive evolutionary changes, environment does. I understand believing something was intentional, but that's sort of a preference because there's nothing positively suggesting it was intentional.
