Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Yes, and "Lottery tickets can never provide a winner because they are random". Except that we know that they do all the time. In fact I've already given an example of such a case which you have already conceded.You are saying that random mutations would provide the solution to the organism's requirements. Given the fact that they are random, they would not provide the solution to whatever problem may be present. You also assume that mutations occur in a sequence that compliments each preceding phase, which eliminates the notion of any randomness. In addition, a single mutation in the DNA cannot cause a change in phenotype, given the number of genes that generate the features associated with the phenotype.You will find that there are corrective mechanisms in place to eliminate the problems associated with mutations.The example of the lottery is ineffective because it is a somewhat guided process compared to evolution.You like nearly all other creationists ignore the fact that such traits don't have to have the same function, just as long as it has a function.If it does not have a function that exists properly with the system in question than it could indeed be harmful or at least a useless expenditure of resources.For example, a semi-formed wing even if it cannot provide flight it can still be beneficial for gliding.That is assuming that the wing could form partially. You also ignore the utterly critical fact that not every stage of development would have a use. Furthermore, that does not incorporate the crucial fact that such an organism requires much more than a wing to engage in flight or, indeed, utilize its wings. It requires the metabolism to ensure that it receives the proper level of nutrition to sustain flight, in addition to a musculoskeletal system and vascular system that provide it with the locomotive capabilities to use wings. Thus, one would find that many stages in the development of the wing would produce structures that would be useless."Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"-Charles Darwin, 1859 An eye which sees in black and white is better than no eye at all. A light sensitive cell is better than one that isn't. et cetera.Once again, that ignores the crucial steps that would necessarily have to occur in between each stage of ocular development, as such an assembly is quite intricate.Should I just take your word for it? You need to provide something substantial to support this opinion. You just stated that there wouldn't be a reason, you never said why.I have iterated the explanation earlier, but will provide additional detail. Also, you should provide support for your perspective, not repeat statements with no proper description.The human personality and mental development is quite advanced, much more so than any other organisms on Earth. That is indisputable, as neuroscience proves. As we are aware that other life forms have established forms of communication, it would be reasonable to suggest that the early humans would have as well. In fact, that is a belief held by the evolutionary community. As such, having developed a reasonable form of communication and development, why would there be any need to develop beyond that? You have yet to provide an effective response to this argument.Emotions communicate to other members of the same species. Fear for example may communicate to other members that there is a potential danger nearby. Anger may indicate a conflict within a group, that needs to be rectified.You will find that numerous organisms have established forms of communication. As they are capable of recognizing all of these problems, why would there be any need to develop emotions, which can actually hinder effective reactions to issues?Every extinct species ever discovered.This is false. There is no evidence that demonstrates the sizeable number of organisms that must have (according to evolutionary theory) experienced random, useless mutations which were genetically rectified in subsequent generations.I am telling you that this is not how DNA works. There is no ciphering or processing organelle in cells, nor would there be a need for them. The same reason why raindrops don't need to calculate trajectory before falling to the earth, the molecules are simply responding to what is there (namely gravity).I am not suggesting that the mechanism that you describe above is what actually exists. However, there are enzymes that conduct the processes that occur in gene expression. As such information theory conspires against evolution.In addition, irreducible complexity is observed in the development of first cells. They could not have developed in stages, given that many of the features would have required other structures to sustain them.