This is a concept creationists have a lot of trouble with for some reason. I will try to break it down. Mutations (the random element here) gives rise to many diverse phenotypes. The selection of those phenotypes (by nature - competition for mates, resources etc.) is NOT random. Successful genes will exapnd and further be improved upon by many,many many millions of rounds of selection. No mysterious intelligent guide required...only survival.
Well I have quite a few problems with natural selection being true. For one there are still a lot of fools in this world. For another even the simplest species are still around and totally in contradiction to natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc., etc. they are the most successful species around! But there is a bigger problem which is the one I was pointing at. You seem to think that natural selection can be the cause for increased complexity and that it would solve the problems involved in creating such increased complexity. Natural selection only kills the unfit. It is not a cause of anything, specifically it is not a cause for the creation of new genes, etc. which would be required to get life from a single celled organism to humans. Further, when species, such as single celled bacteria can survive for billions of years and continue to be the most prolific species on earth, there is clearly no need for increased complexity, the kind required by evolution, for species to survive. So what I was really asking you was to substantiate, in view of the above, your statement on post#1158 that:
Complexity which arises from a far simpler set of rules (or beginnings) is a rapidly emerging scientific paradigm.
I doubt very much that there is any substance to the above except the wishful thinking of materialist scientists.