If both can develope simultaneously in utero, then there's nothing preventing them from evolving together over millions of years from primitive forms to modern forms across thousands of intermediary species and hundreds of thousands of individual mutations. Q.E.D.
The human race, distinct from other hominids, evolved to complete maturity (i.e. modernity) over a few hundred thousand years.
No, but a primitive multi-cellular organism with light sensitive spots on its top part can survive and thrive in its environment to evolve into more complex organisms, up through and including human beings, each stage along the way developing incrementally more complex eyes without needing to rely on a divine spoken word for its eyeballs and optic nerves to remain real.
How? They're both examples of an organism developing from a single cell to a complete individual with all of the complex structures at maturity intact. The fetus is an example of a single individual. With hoosierdoc, I'm also discussing the developement of a modern race through thousands of intermediate species. Same basic biologic processes are at play, just sped up to light speed in the fetal example. Take the fetal level of developement, slow it down, and make each stage a mature species of its own. It's not saying a fetus is able to survive on its own. It's saying there once was a species whose ocular developement topped out at the same level as the fetus's at day X. That species had its day, mutated into a new species whose ocular developement advanced to that of the fetus at day X+1. Proceed from there.
Except that those "random" mutations that result in individuals who are not as well adapted to their environment get their individuals killed off early, whether in the egg phase, in utero, as infants, or otherwise prior to sexual maturity, or whatever passes for reproductive potential in the species at hand. Only those mutations which at the very least do not hinder maturity survive. Also, keep in mind, that the Earth was not a bio lab running a single experimental line on a government contract. It was conducting these experiments, and still is, on an on-going basis all over the planet. Eyes evolved along multiple genetic lines in parallel, some experiments dying off, others being started. I'm sure some amino acids were used for different purposes by different species at different times, or even simultaneously. What matters is not the specific amino acids that were coded for. What matters is how the individuals were able to use those amino acids for photosensitive detection of food, mates, and predators.
I agree, but that's not what I said. Clearly we are talking past one another at this point.
Sounds like you want some kind of answer to the age old question "What is the purpose of life?" At the deepest levels, the purpose of life is to live. Simple as that. Beyond that, you have to find your own purpose for your own life.
So, you're telling me that for a primitive multi-cellular organism to randomly mutate a cell, adjacent to the nerve complex that represented its primitive brain, that was slightly photosensitive, it took a million specific mutations that had to be geared (apparently guided by the hand of god) toward eye production? BS. You're almost ready to start contradicting yourself. The primitive multi-cellular species is constantly mutating randomly. Those those mutations are not neutral to positive die off. Those whose mutations are beneficial to neutral survive. The ones that learn to use the photosensitivity trick that that one cell managed to get, starts reinforcing that evolutionary pathway. The evolutionary pathways that would hinder eye production do not get a chance to actually hinder eye production, because they die off. If an organism has the genes for the photosensitivity trick, but fails to use it, it dies off and whatever genetic bug failed to cause it to use the photosensitivity trick is selected against in the next generation. All of this is happening on a massively parallel scale on the primitive Earth.
Life as a chemical process is explicitly using energy collected from the environment to decrease the entropy of the organism itself, and thereby of the organism's species and all species descended from that organism. This is not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If you could find a giant rock floating in deep space with no source of energy, no radioactive element decay, no solar radiation, just a solid mass of elemental matter, and yet, life evolved in its outer crust to wiggle and squirm across its surface, then I would grant you something that looks exactly like a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will have occurred.
When the pronoun "it" is used as the subject of a sentence, the actual noun to which "it" is referring is likely to be found as the subject, direct, or indirect object of the immediately preceding sentence in decreasing order of probability.
