What was God’s plan behind Creation and why does he need one?

Thanks for the welcome!I have not found any estimates for how long it took any species to develop sight. Of the estimates I have seen, 400,000 years was the least amount of time scientist believe it took for primitive eyes to develop into complex eyes. Based on that figure, using 100 generations seemed pretty fair to me.I am learning quite quickly that some members are really strict in terms of presenting only facts. To understand a topic, IMO, a person doesn't simply memorize the facts. I do not understand how senses such as sight are explained by evolution. I was presenting what I thought was a very reasonable scenario highlighting one problem I find in the theory.

I'm sorry, 3DSOC, I don't mean to pick, but setting aside the 400ky figure for now, how in the world did you come up with 100 generations? How long are the generations for these hypothetical organisms?

Point well taken, we could come up with countless hypothetical scenarios that are plausible. I was trying to present a scenario that was closer to probable - a larger species would probably dominate a smaller species. Weed out the plausible, review the probable and see what you can conclude. If a larger species would probably dominate a smaller species (all things being equal), why would the smaller species survive? That's where I'm at.There are so many components to all of this, it isn't easy for me to pare down my thoughts/questions/concerns to exactly one issue. Like another member posted somewhere on here "iron sharpens iron" - with less than a week on this site, I'm definitely not iron yet.

Apothecus, I do apologize for being so 'messy' with my posts and thanks for taking the time to wade through them!100 was just a nice round number easily divisible by 2. It also seemed that 100 was very generous in terms of rapidly developing eyesight. The actual number would probably be much higher if we use 400k years as our time span.The point I was trying to make, was that at some point during the evolution of these two species, one species would still be blind while the other, although blind as well, is much larger/stronger/faster/etc. and so therefore would have a distinct advantage.Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

You see, we strive for facts, rather than guesses, because the science minded people come here to learn. We don't want things to get muddied up with random ass guesses which are being touted as facts. When you make such assumptions based on nothing, led by a lack of knowledge, you are doing more harm than good.Since we ARE in the faith and beleif section, you can espouse you beleifs to your hearts content. But when you start dabbling in science: facts and evidences become a neccessity. You don't get to start saying this crap without any knowledge or evidence. It's even in the rules: found hereNote that "I pulled a number out of my ass" is neither evidence, nor a reasoned argumentation.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Indeed. Thank you for that caveat. I'm right there with ya. Have a good one.

Cause dominate is not the same as eliminate.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

You're changing the scenario again. Your position back in message 128 was: There are points between blind and not blind. A small creature with the ability to detect light, or movement could have an advantage over a large creature stumbling around in the dark.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Sorry for the confusion DrJones, unfortunately I didn't articulate my scenario clearly in my earlier posts. I was not comparing a large, blind creature with a small creature that can see.

Then what is your scenario? If it is: Then I repeat my position. Vision isn't an on/off condition, there are multiple steps between blind and sighted. A small creature with the ability to detect changes in light, and therefore movement could have an advantage over a large creature that is 100% blind,

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

The subtitle of the site is "Understanding through Discussion".I am trying to understand evolution through this discussion. I presented a realistic scenario based on my understanding. Several members have posted replies with various reasons as to why my scenario is incorrect/inaccurate/muddled and/or why they disagree.I don't think demeaning/insulting and/or making assumptions about what knowledge fellow members possess is doing any good nor is it based in facts.Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

I'm hung up mostly on the 'why?' and as a result, its muddling up most of my posts.It seems to me that a species would devote a lot of energy over a multitude of generations to develop organs capable of detecting light - while competing species may be growing larger over the same period of time. This seems to place the first species at a disadvantage to the second and would therefore be at risk of extinction.Why aren't we all sharks?!

It seems to me that a species would devote a lot of energy over a multitude of generations to grow larger - while competing species may be developing organs capable of detecting light. This seems to place the first species at a disadvantage to the second and would therefore be at risk of extinction. Cause we don't all live in the ocean.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

You're assuming that being strong is a matter of degree, whereas being sighted is an on/off condition.But the latter assumption is definitely not true. And if it was, then your further assumption that the two species are in direct competition would be unnecessary to your argument --- if it took 100 steps to produce sight, and the first 99 were useless on their own, then natural selection wouldn't favor the first 99 and it wouldn't happen.But looking at the eyes of living organisms shows that there's a whole range of conditions from mere ability to detect light (which is indeed useful to the organisms that possess it) up to sophisticated eyes such as our own.

Do you also suppose that the phrase "gravitational attraction" implies that planets have the hots for each other? That "electrical resistance" implies some sort of armed struggle? That the "laws" of thermodynamics are enforced by the thermodynamics police? That the "mass" of a proton involves a Catholic priest?Here, let Darwin explain it himself, he coined the term, after all: On the other hand, it can't see. I for one would not allow myself to be blinded if, as a compensation, I would gain the ability to bench-press my own weight.---Amongst your other unwarranted assumptions, you seem to be supposing that an species can only evolve one desirable quality at a time. If natural selection favors large size in species B as well as in species A, then what in the world is going to prevent species B from getting bigger?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.