When I say random evolution, I really should have said random mutations. Natural selection has an ultimate goal, mutation is just random, both are requisites of evolution so I suppose I was focusing on mutations without elaborating.

Its not that I don't believe the eye couldn't have evolved step by step, but I'm saying is that the chances of it happening randomly, step by step, 40+ times is astronomical. When you really add up all the different probabilities of evolution, it really becomes unthinkable. That's ignoring the fact that mutations can't lead to true evolution.

Quote:

---

Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?

---

That fossils prove evolution is a matter of opinion. We say that animals have similar structures has to prove evolution, I say that its a reflection of a similar creator. How do we prove each other wrong? I don't know, so I don't really care about the fossil record. The fact is that the fossil record details a long series of well-formed creatures. Not to mention that the whole thing is highly subjective. Like I said, if all the different variations of dog were suddenly fossilized, we could look back and say, "Oh, this is evolution in action, look how similar they are such a wide variety of creatures must have all evolved from the same form." When in fact they're just genetic degenerates of the wolf and in fact are all the same species. I won't get started on the dating methods, I really don't want to get off on a tangent like that right now. Besides, its unimportant to the overall picture. Whether the fossils were buried over millions of years or within 6000 years, evolution is still untrue so the fossil record bears no relevance for me.