Again animals and plants do not 'want' to survive. They only 'want' to pass on their genes. The reason they have become so "good" at adapting to survive is so that they may best pass on their genes to future generations. This process is guided by natural selection
'The reason this sand picture analogy doesn't work is because evolution doesn't start from scratch with every generation. Evolution builds on each previous generation to create patterns which only appear to be designed. Here is a good video
on YouTube explaining the concept."
Wonderful answers but it didn't hit on exactly what I meant. When the *first* micro-organism(s?) was(were?) created why did they keep moving? Why not just die out? When these first little organisms were created they already had a basic instinct to eat, reproduce, and grow which is the fundamental basis of evolution, as I understand it. I don't even know what the first organism was so I'm doing a little bit of guesswork here.
"Well... Is it impossible for any one piece of sand to fall the right way? No. There are certain odds that each piece of sand will fall in the exact place. You just multiply all these odds together and you get the chances it will fall the right way.
I expect it would be pretty high... Even if there was a 1 in 100 chance (probably much higher) and 10,000 grains of sand (probably a ton more) the chances would be 1/100^10000
Or is it impossible for any 1 grain of sand to fall in the right place? =p"
Also a good answer but it is only theoretically possible. Evidence supports that the grains of sand will not ever create an intricate design, like a unicorn, a turtle, a human face, etc. If you could show me an experiment in which it is proven I would be very grateful, show me a setting in which this happens. (I know I'm being a bit of a liar here because I said if you could prove it mathematically I would be happy.)
If you are referring to the physical constants of the universe, such as the speed of light, the mass of a proton, and the charge held by an electron, then you are hitting on possibly the sole respectable argument (in my opinion) for a deistic God. My answer to you is that it is currently an area of heavy research and controversial
theories (such as the multiverse
) exist which offer explanations. If you are curious about others, ask me and I can post some other theories as well.
Matter does not "want" to build things. If you are talking about why certain chemical reactions occur, then this is a restatement of your first question."
These questions have everything to do with evolution because it questions the basis of evolution. I also agree completely that matter does not want to build things yet many evolutionists would say that's exactly what matter did at the begginning of the universe.
Note that I have no problem (Except the lack of fossilized and DNA evidence.) with evolution as it occurred after the first organism and perhaps there is a different word or theory for the creation of the universe that I'm refferring to and that I'm not aware of. It's the basis of the first evolutions that makes little sense to me. Somehow, somewhere, an organism was spontaneously generated (Can this be reacreated in a lab?) and after that, Darwinian evolution takes hold as the strongest survive, who happen to have that instinct for survival, and continue to change and adapt to their environment.
**I don't see how life can be spontaneously generated.** In a nutshell, that's what this is about.
The universal constants of the universe do seem to support (an) underlying system(s). Something or things that exist outside of time (Like light) and controls or set these constants. I don't know whether that supports a god theory and I'm not about to arbitrarily state that it does.