Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

You're thinking about this completely ass backwards. Mutation is not 'looking' for any specific genetic code, it is simply the alteration of what is already present.First, we are not talking about the evolution of the donkey.Second, mutations, being random, most often cause a loss of information or an alteration thereof. They would not serve as the basis for some type of biological change necessitated by the environment.Incorrect.Anything that exists or can exist in gradients cannot be irreducibly complex.None of the examples could have developed in the manner required by evolution. I believe that it has been explained quite clearly at this point. If an organism possessed limbs, and if there was no requirement for a change thereof, the limbs would not be altered. It is also because the development (occurring in phases as mandated by evolution) would not produce useful structures at every instance, even of the first one was.So human intelligence, thought and social behavior had nothing to do with our dominance of the planet?As evolutionary theory posits that each feature that develops requires phases, we could assume that the first humans would not have acquired such mental function as modern humans have. However, we have observed the usefulness of primitive mechanisms of communication among other organisms, including vocalizations meant to convey rather specific messages. As such, there would be no biological requirement for anything more advanced in the early humans, yet we are still clearly aware of the nature of human advancement.Your statement is irrelevant. It fails to take into account the factors enumerated above.That's precisely why it didn't have that trait at that time. It only acquired that trait AFTER there was a necessity for it.One would find that many biological necessities are driven by urgent environmental requirements. In many instances, the organism in question would be destroyed prior to adapting properly.Yes it does.You fail to take into account the fact that it is random. By the definition of that word, a mutation of that variety would not be a result in the solution to the problem."If there wasn't a need for _______ to happen, then ______ wouldn't have happened."If we are to assume that evolution in this scenario is caused by adaptations to environmental requirements, the lack of a such a requirement would not produce adaptations, as there would be no compulsion to adapt._____________________________________________ You will also find that evolution is incompatible with information theory. This is easily illustrated by the origins of life on Earth. If we are to assume that cells formed, it is necessary to have the genetic information to create the organelles. However, that requires the ability to read that information. However, the ability to read such information suggests that compatible DNA has already developed. However, we will see that there is a paradox. The information would be useless without the any way by which to translate it, and the ability to perform actions is prevented by the inability to read said data.Also, these cells would not have formed simply because they require multiple structures to operate. Unless we are to assume that they arose simultaneously (which is incompatible with the theory), there is no solution to that problem from an evolutionary standpoint.