Tom,
I am not a scientist but even I can see the fallacies in your post...
my understanding is that there are 2 forms of evolution - one is natural selection - one is actually changing form or "producing" from nothing and from what we don't know-something that we need -for example- if we didn't know what voice boxes were - why did we want one - animals communicate perfectly with eachother-why did we need voice boxes?
There is only one "form" of evolution. Natural selection working on random mutations to change a population over time. Random mutations do not "know what we need". A mutation happens that makes the individual with the mutation better able to survive and reproduce than individuals without the mutation. Chances are that the individuals with the better chance at survival will leave more offspring than others less able to survive. Many of these offspring will inherit the mutation and be able to pass it on to their offspring. All these individuals with the mutation are better adapted to their invironment, better able to survive to reproduce.
There was no one individual who sat down one day and thought, "gee, I'd like to be able to walk upright so I am better able to see danger coming." But...the ones who had mutations that enabled them to walk in a more upright posture were better able to survive because they could see danger coming faster than their neighbors who didn't have these mutations. Now, in this population, filled with individuals who had the mutations AND individuals who didn't have the mutations...which ones do you think will be better able to survive? If more individuals without the mutations are getting caught as dinner for a preditor than are individuals with the mutation....which group do you think will have more offspring?
Evolution does not have a specific end product in mind, but an end product will occur...one that is just good enough to survive better than a previous one.
also - if we so wanted to do so many things that we can't in our natural state- why did we not just evolve them-such as wings to fly, gills to stay under water longer.
why was it that we only invented contraptions to do these things within the last century or 2?!
IF a mutation occurred that inabled us to stay underwater longer than others...and IF there was a benefit to us to do so (for example, we were subject to a preditor that couldn't swim but could easily catch us on land) More of us with the mutation would survive then those of us without it (the ones who couldn't stay underwater as long would be the first ones eaten by this preditor) Those of us WITH the mutation would survive to pass on our genes (including the mutations)
In our (humans) past there was no survival benefit to being able to fly (or no mutations happened that would enable it in the first place), so we did not evolve into a flying creature. We DID evolve larger more intelligent brains, this is our survival adaptation...we use this adaptation to invent things to help us do things like fly or stay underwater longer.
Have you ever played a game of Yahtzee? The dice fall in a random order (random mutations) and you (natural selection) chose which ones are kept for the next generation (roll of the dice). Before you ever roll the dice, you don't say that I am going to get all sixes...you take what is rolled and keep the dice that enable you to get "something" that is helpful, whether it is three fours, or a straight or whatever you are able to get with the dice that you throw.
Hopefully one of the more scientific types can correct any mistakes I have made here. I am just attempting to explain it in the simplist way possible.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
™ Version 4.2
