I have trouble grasping why evolution has chosen one of the most random events known to humankind as its mechanism. The chances of it succeeding are so astronomical. First you must have some force that evolves into mutation. Then an element must find how to use mutation to become a one celled organism. It must then have a perfectly positive mutation. If it does not it will die. So another element would have to go through this same process.
Supposing it is succesful it must then become aquainted with its new form. It must learn how to reproduce and all other vital systems. If it reproduces wrong then it will die. As it is a cell it must learn how to reproduce by division. Once it dies, another cell must then try this process. As evolution took place over millions of years the chances of two cells evolving at the same time are virtually nil. Assuming one cell over comes all boundaries and becomes a multi-celled organism it must then learn how to feed,breath,reproduce,and basically survive.
I would like someone to explain this problem to me, because I do have more questions.
You don't need some other force to evolve into mutation. Mutations happened from the beginning, as a result of imperfect reproduction. When something mutates, however, it usually doesn't affect the organism so much that it must figure out a radically new way to reproduce. If the change is so great that it prevents the new organism from reproducing, then it will not be passed on to any offspring.
As an analogy, consider the ways in which languages change over time. English has changed greatly over the centuries. At no time in history, however, did anyone suddenly start speaking the English of 400 years in the future. Rather, the small changes built up over time, until certain dialects became so divergent from one another as to be nearly incomprehensible. Similarly, life can evolve, splitting up into new populations, and each population mutates in a different way, until you have radically different forms of life that descended from a common ancestor.
I mean more along the lines of how does a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually change into a creature that reproduces sexually. According to evolution we all started as single-celled organisms,but now we reproduce sexually. Also, no change is neccesarily slight. All have massive impacts on everything around them. If it changes into a vulnerable herbivore it will be added to other creatures diets. If it becomes carnivorus, it must compete with territorial carnivors. But if it dies would that mean another billion years to get to thid point?
If one mutant dies, it may very well be a billion years before another similar mutation occurs. However, the rest of the population in which the mutant lives might not die. For example, if there is a population of black mice, and a mutation arises, causing the birth of a white mouse, the white mouse may stand out and be eaten by a predator. Likewise, the white mouse might blend in better with snow, and so it won't get eaten while most of the other mice do. In the second case, the white mouse might pass on its special new allele, providing it can find a mate that wasn't eaten after the snowstorm. The mate doesn't neccessarily have to have white hair, that is, it doesn't have to have the exact same mutation.
In plants, however, sometimes hybridization can result in a new species that can't reproduce with either of its parent species. The population consists of a lone individual. In this case, the new plant may be able to breed with itself, reproducing asexually, as many plants do. Then it might reproduce sexually with its offspring, producing a bigger population. Long ago, when sex was first arising, it is likely that the first sexual organisms, some sort of single celled critters, were also able to reproduce both sexually and asexually. There might not have been a specified male or female either, in much the same way that there are hermaphroditic species today. Modern bacteria, including E. coli, are capable of a process called conjugation, in which genetic material is exchanged through cell-to-cell contact. Sexual reproduction may have had its origins with a similar process.
The evolution of sex is not fully understood at this time. There is still a lot to figure out, and it is an area of study that is still growing. Sexual reproduction is thought to confer an advantage, however, so we have an idea about why it stayed around once it came into being. Sexual species are able to adapt to changing conditions faster, especially in their ability to evolve resistance to parasites or poisonous chemicals.
I have trouble grasping why evolution has chosen one of the most random events known to humankind as its mechanism.
Other than the fact that evolution chose nothing since it isn't a sentient being, you have an interesting point. Let me help you develop your understanding a little.
The primary mechanism isn't 'mutation'. It is actually a duel mechanism. Mutation, couple with a selection method. It has been demonstrated that an appropriate selection method can increase information over time. Check this out
Now some people don't think that natural selection is a powerful enough selection method to do this. That is a debate for another thread.
First you must have some force that evolves into mutation.
Mutations are just an easy way of saying 'copying error'. When DNA is copied to another cell (for example during asexual reproduction), it is almost inevitable that the copying process will be not be 100% accurate. These mistakes are mutations. Most of the time they make no difference to the organism, sometimes they harm it, sometimes they convey some advantage. For example, one famous Japanese bacterium has relatively recently had a 'frame shift' mutation that has led to it being able to 'eat' nylon. Read about it here
It must learn how to reproduce and all other vital systems.
This very basic life form is really just a bunch of self replicating chemicals. It doesn't have to learn to reproduce, that's what it does, by definition.
If the above is true, the rest of your position doesn't make sense. So let's work on the above first before getting to what follows. Do you have any more questions?
Evolution can only occur so often though. It must occur in multiple organisms at once and its chances for succeeding become smaller everytime.1 cell to copy 1:1 probability of success. 2 celled organism to copy 1:2 chance of success,so on and so forth. You yourself just said this is just a bunch of chemicals and only self-replicates. Eventually it will reach where it needs to breathe and eat. When it does, it will have no prior info about these things. It needs to learn how to eat, what to eat, how to breathe, etc. Seeing as how single-celled organisms crawled out of the sea we do not yet have to worry about dehydration. If you can explain this then we can move to my ohter questions.
Evolution isn't an event that happens. Think of it as a continuously operating process.
It must occur in multiple organisms at once and its chances for succeeding become smaller everytime
Not at all. The mutation happens once, and is passed on its offspring, which pass it on to theirs, so that there is a group of organisms with the mutation.
1 cell to copy 1:1 probability of success. 2 celled organism to copy 1:2 chance of success,so on and so forth.
I really don't understand. Why does reproductive success lower each generation? Cell 1 divides into 2. 2 and 3 divide into 4, they divide into 8, then 16, then 32.
You yourself just said this is just a bunch of chemicals and only self-replicates. Eventually it will reach where it needs to breathe and eat. When it does, it will have no prior info about these things.
In order to replicate the cell needs energy. This energy harnessing is a close analogy to 'eating and breathing'. New energy harnessing systems evolve from this. This may include photosynthesis (harnessing energy from the sun) or eating (harnessing the energy that the photosynthesising organisms harness).
Seeing as how single-celled organisms crawled out of the sea we do not yet have to worry about dehydration.
OK. This might be a misunderstanding here, but I won't argue the point with you just yet.
If you can explain this then we can move to my ohter questions.
About the probability, you must have mutation in all cells.
No, just the reproductive ones. In sexual reproduction, the two cells join together and the DNA is combined. The mutation need only occur at this time. In asexual reproduction, when the cell splits it copies its DNA over - the mutation occurs with this copying procedure.
So, that is the probability of a successful mutation as stated in Scientific Creatinism.
No, I think that refers to the fact that most mutations have no effect on an organisms reproductive success. Others are harmful, only a small amount are benefitial. Thus: the chances that any given mutation will convey an advantage is very small.
About the probability, you must have mutation in all cells. All must be a positive mutation. So, that is the probability of a successful mutation as stated in Scientific Creatinism.
Well the mutation happens in the DNA, which is what builds the cells. Think of it like a recipe. If I add chocolate to a cake, I have 1 cake with chocolate. If I add chocolate to the recipe for a cake, every cake will have chocolate. It's the same here.
The DNA creates the cells. Every cell in your body contains the same DNA, but not all of the DNA is used to create every cell.