The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

I've never said that the features of the eye occurred as a result of one go. What I have argued is the that the total number of beneficial mutations required to evolve, is too high to be possible, especially when the majority of mutations harm, not help. It makes no difference if you spread evolution out over millions of years, you would still have to have an impossibly high number of mutations to get anywhere.

First of all, you're either lying or just straight up wrong about most mutations being harmful: as I've already established days ago, with links, the human body comes prepackaged with about sixty unique mutations from birth, the majority of them neutral, and gains more as it develops. The majority of mutations are so small as to be neither good nor bad, just... there. Secondly, I don't know how to argue against such a bare assertion as "the number of mutations is too high to be possible," as you absolutely don't have the data set to be making that statement: you don't even know how many organisms, over how long a span of time, were involved. You cant possibly know that, and aside from recourse to proteins and probabilities (an argument roundly shown to be bunk) you have made no argument as to why that might actually be.

You've just... said it.

Given the cambrian period lasted 65 million years, that doesn't give much time at all to go from single cell organisms to most of the different animal phyla in existence. Even David Attenborough calls the explosion of life in this period a miracle. So what we have in the Cambrian explosion is positive mutation on a vast scale. How many different species magically popped up in this period, all from single cells? And how much genetic code was added to these single cells in order to achieve it? The answer is mind-numbing.

Already dealt with that, too: we aren't talking single-celled life forms in the Precambrian era. If you actually look, you'll see a fossil record from that time that, while not huge, contains good chunks of multicellular life: you can find Trilobites in Precambrian strata, for example, and the common ancestor between gastropods and arthropods. Not single cells at all.

Besides, your characterization is a little wrong too, since we're not talking about an explosion of positive mutations, but rather a diversification of physiological characteristics at a time when hard-bodied organisms became more common. As hard-bodied creatures lend themselves way better to fossilization than the alternative, this represents the first big opportunity for an effusive fossil record in history, but to say that this is one big "Pop!" moment from single celled amoebas to complex multicellular life betrays a massive lack of understanding of what the fossil record before and during that period: just pumping "Precambrian fossil" into google will show you a bunch of neat precambrian complex life.

You've made a reasonable argument that the giraffe and the Samotherium are related.

Props to you for being one of a select few theists on this board willing to concede a point. Seriously.