>>14128102>why are you looking for "guidance"?Because the argument is evolution is not random. If it's not random then it needs guidance. I'm proving the only guidance is from natural selection.... and I'm arguing that natural selection ultimately stems from random environmental factors... so evolution is ultimately based off randomness.
>a population of animals can become larger purely by genetic drift.A meaningless tweak even if it were true. It's not true because natural selection universally promotes or restricts size changes in animals depending on which was more beneficial. You'd need no predators and unlimited resources for genetic drift to randomly make a species bigger or smaller for no benefit (if there was benefit then it categorically falls under natural selection). As a species becomes larger it automatically becomes a natural selection pressure for males to become larger because they must compete with other males for mates and if they are bigger then the smaller are at a disadvantage, so there is always an benefit for males to get slightly larger.
The incomprehensible complexity of life we see cannot arise by useless random variations you allege happen from genetic drift(it can't happen from the random variations that happen from the guidance by natural selection either but that is my other argument). No evolutionist claims that genetic drift is technically enough to create the insane complexity we see in life in the supposed 3.5 billion year timeframe, they claim that guidance from natural selection is required. If we have infinite time and every organism was just kept in a lab and fed until it reproduced with no guidance from selection pressures then genetic drift technically could create something as complex as human life by pure random chance after an incomprehensible amount of time.
>>14128109>the machinery that causes mutations also evolved, it was/is also under selection.I explained why it wouldn't in the greentext you quoted.
