Some very interesting observations you make here, edsheppa. A diverse mix of the accepted, the somewhat accepted, and the “kinda out there,” all in one post.
Of course, when it comes to cosmology, “kinda out there” is about as good as it gets in some areas, so no complaints here.
As for the last one, about species acheiving suitability through random processes... Well, it just doesn’t make much sense. Yes, I know the arguments, and I’ve seen the evidence, but it just doesn’t wash. It’s interesting, especially the nylon-eating bacteria, but this is on a very small scale, and shouldn’t really be used as a universal solution to a very difficult problem. Also, this begs the question of how the organism knows how to make changes in it’s own genes. I know I don’t know how to make changes in mine, so it must be either random, which, well let’s face it, the odds against some random mutation serendipitously making bacteria eat nylon, just when they really need to, are so much against it as to make it a practical impossibility.
So, what makes these changes? Is it guided? Is it the organism doing it to itself? Are gene-splicing viruses zipping around, looking for organisms in trouble? Do all organisms have these serendipitous genes already, just waiting for some nylon episode to confront them?
And if you, or more aptly science, don’t have an answer to these questions, then shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that there is a guiding hand behind all life? It not only answers these questions, but it seems to be the only logical answer possible.
I didn't claim it was a universal solution, merely an example of how mutation can make an organism more adapted to its environment. That was precisely your question which I'll recap for definiteness.
Is it really possible for a species to become suited to its environment through a random process of mutation?I think my example addressed every single point.
I hope I didn't give the impression that this is the only way organism can adapt aided by random changes, there are many others like sex and cross over and lateral transfer to name a few.
Also, this begs the question of how the organism knows how to make changes in it’s own genes.
It didn't beg that question at all, you just added it on. In any case, there is no such mechanism known although some folks speculate about ideas like evolved evolvability. And there's some evidence that organisms can become more likely to change when the environment "stresses" them. Who knows, maybe some such thing will become an accepted part of the theory like endosymbiosis has.
the odds against some random mutation serendipitously making bacteria eat nylon, just when they really need to, are so much against it as to make it a practical impossibility.
This is a standard creationist ignorance about probabality and you should rid yourelf of it. It is only reasonable to be impressed by probabilities in a prior sense on the total situation.
then shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that there is a guiding hand behind all life?
I'd say no. Historically that kind of reasoning has proved very unreliable. Naturalistic reasoning, on the other hand, has. As a conservative, I will stick with the historical lessons.
Gotta go. Bye.