[image]
I-It's just a c-coincidence! Pure Chance!
No.
If you mean photosynthesis and aerobic respiration, to make a (hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years) long story short, when oxygenic photosynthesis, which is considerably more productive than other forms of autotrophy, evolved, the by-product oxygen, which previously did not exist in free form, was toxic to virtually all life. At first, it was bound by oxygenating substances in solution in the sea, such as iron (resulting in banded iron formations), but eventually, those ran out and it went into the atmosphere until eventually, the air and the oceans were filled with plenty of oxygen (and virtually no carbon dioxide, leading to Snowball Earth). Due to this, all the lifeforms that could not tolerate oxygen went extinct or were confined to environments that still remained anoxic. For organisms that happened to be able to metabolise oxygen, that offered considerable opportunity, as aerobic respiration is much more efficient than anaerobic respiration, so nowadays, a high portion of life, including all macroscropic life-forms, are aerobic - indeed, eucaryotes evolved after this so-called Great Oxidation Event and indeed are only possible energetically due to aerobic respiration.
Furthermore, plants do not breathe carbondioxide in and oxygen out. In fact, plants are aerobic just like us, using mitochondria to produce the ATP to power their metabolic processes. What photosynthesis does is fixing carbon and store energy from sunlight in a secondary metabolic cycle. The oxygen, on the other hand, is a product of the primary cycle, in which protons are won from water molecules.
If we are talking about bronchioles and tree branches looking similar, those are pure functional similarities. It may be noted that in both cases, they are not the organs where the process itself takes place, just the structures the organs where the gas exchange takes place (alveoli/leaves) - heck, the branches are far more analogous to blood vessels, transporting the products of the gas exchange organs to the wider body, and even that is very flawed because, among other things, respiration happens at the end of the supply chain, not the alveoli, whereas the leaves are the place where both reactions of photosynthesis take place.
So tell me, what is the most elemental underlying force driving the selection and evolution?
Self-replication.
Atheists always short circuit at this question and cop out with a "we just don't know yet bro!" even though the ancients figured out that it was god literally thousands of years ago.
You take it as a given that there must be an ultimate higher purpose or intention at the fundament of everything, that the universe could not simply something that happens to exist for no particular reason. I do not accept this assumption. And that’s leaving aside how all gods of all human religions clearly spring of human imagination, a projection of ourselves into nature to feel special and to give a false sense of control over the forces of nature by making them something that can be placated and even won favour with.
So how does it know to do that? You atheists never answer that question. And if you give an answer why does that know to do that?
Ah yes, the seeminly simple question that actually requires a very long answer that is feasible, and even if it is answered, you will just move the goalposts anyways. Sigh.
show me the proof of failed evolutions
It’s called “extinction”.
show me the birds with 3 heads, snakes with 6 tails or gorilla with 7 arms
[…]
not random enough you monkeys
we need birds with the head of lizards, bears with a dick of snakes etc. etc if evolution is random that would happen
Creationist fails to understand randomness, part 2346432678653145912380643679013481ß2735123970437102934790349129.
No, such “randomness” would not be compatible with our understanding of evolution and biology in general. Mutations modify, duplicate and/or remove existing genes - which code not for blueprints of fully-developed macroscopic structures, but for proteins and triggers -, and as such are actually strongly constrained by biology.
