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

Hey 3DSOC. This is called an argument from incredulity. It's also a striking example of what we call a "strawman" and you'd be better served to argue based on facts and reality instead of flimsy hypothetical situations.In a hypothetical time in your imaginary evolution of what you are assuming early forms may have taken, an assumed blind brute (it follows from your argument that only Species B enjoys the ability to see, yes?) *poof!* evolves from an earlier form at the same time as a hypothetical *poof!* primitive-eye weakling-pansy organism. Am I setting up your strawman with the correct amount of lean, height, etc. here?In your scenario, this blind-brute fish-like organism (you're surely not assuming the hypothetical blind-brute and primitive-eye weakling-pansy were hominids, correct?) maintains a selective brutish advantage over a more frail squid-like occupant of the same area, even though (stop me if I'm running amok with this) the weakling-pansy would most likely have the ability to see the blind-brute coming, and turn tail. Now, say a mobile food source is prolific in this area, and that food source's mobility allowed it to outmaneuver the (previously all blind) ancestors of our current organisms. Well, now the primitive-eye weakling-pansy comes along *poof!* with her proto-eyes and absolutely GORGES, soon becoming many primitive-eye pansies, which all run from the blind brutes, which starve and are therefore "selected out".My point here, 3DSOC, is that anyone can come up with an infinite number of unlikely scenarios under all sorts of strawman assumptions, which in one's mind could be seen as refuting natural selection and evolution in some way. As you can see, with just a little thought I provided a scenario (also using some of these self-same types of assumptions) which nicely invalidates your hypothetical situation. Trouble is, because I used all the same silly assumptions, another may assume differently and my silly story is invalidated as well. e.g. "For the sake of argument, now let's assume the blind-brute had IR or echo-location..." And so on, and so on, and so on ad infinitum.You can have your opinions; hell, be as incredulous as you want. These, however, affect the TOE (and reality) not at all.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey Dr. J.Exactly the point I was trying to make. You can change the rules of this hypothetical exercise however you want in order to make the outcome conform to your own worldview. Of course a weak organism would be selected out in lieu of a stronger specimen, all other things equal (including sight/blindness). The thing is, 3DSOC's example assumed that things were not equal. It seems likely to me that an organism with even rudimentary sight would enjoy a selective advantage over any sightless organism.3DSOC presents an unfair scenario, IMO.Have a good one.

Hi 3DSOC.Indeed, in this scenario I can accept the outcome you propose. And you are correct that this particular forum employs a bit more leeway with regard to evidence, etc. Didn't mean to jump all over you there. However, I still think you're pigeonholing things. Like I said in my last post (while you were posting your latest reply), any number of variables can be introduced to change the proposed outcome. As such, the argument becomes a thought experiment in which any result is possible, if you just tweak the conditions.Your hypothetical scenario is quite possible, when you set it up as you do. The thing is, my (or anyone else's) hypothetical scenario is just as plausible. That doesn't mean they're not hypothetical.Have a good one.

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?

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