my observation was about after the creation of life,which supposedly only took 1 billion years.So the event to spark life ill give you is a giant first step,but i was talking about after single cell organisms had already formed and already learned how to replicate itself.It only took 1 billion for life to begin,but 2.6 billion to go from 1 cell to the first basic multi celled and then only 1 billion to go from a basic multi celled to the human beings.Since this is all left too chance and where not talking about the spark of life but the progression of more complicated life.
Is not the advancement from a basic multi celled creature to humans a much more giant leap in complexity than from a 1 cell creatures to the first multi celled?
also keep in mind the number of times for chance to create humans is diminished by first 1/3 of the time span it took and diminished by the length in between the creation of offspring which leads to change,going from minutes to years,therefore going by your model because there can be no intelligent design but only chance,the transition from a single cell to the first multi celled vs the transition from a basic multi celled to humans just doesnt seem to correlate logically in the time difference each supposedly took
1st: "By chance" isn't the right way to look at things after reproductive life took hold. Certainly the individual mutations at the genetic level were random, but the feedback mechanisms and the rapid development of more adaptive generations make the random walk more of a ratchet that can't go backward. The only randomness on a generational level is how fast the organism makes innovative leaps.
2nd: Look at an exponential curve, or a logarithmic curve. If the vertical axis measures "complexity" or maybe (more scientifically) "local anti-entropy", and the horizontal measures time, then at the start there's a LONG, SLOW development period, where new advances take place at a rate that's not fathomable by our mortal minds. Then, seemingly all of a sudden, there's a rapid growth. Things have built a cumulative base that allows for more and more growth at a rate proportionate to the current level of complexity.
In real life you'd see this curve taper off after a while, once the organism has neared the "peak" of efficiency based on it's current systemic makeup. After another long time of mutation, adaption, and environmental changes, there'd be another boom, then another plateau, then another boom.
3rd: your measure of "complex" is the wrong thing to look at. Look at the difficulty of the steps. It was much more difficult to rely on random fluid dynamics to get the ingredients together to make the first cells. It was still very difficult for cells to nucleate their genetic molecules to allow for specialization (each cell only using a part of the code), and for pairs or groups of cells to start to work together using the same base genetics but doing different things to sustain a new "multi-cellular organism". Then it was less hard to develop a group of cells devoted to metabolism, a group for locomotion, and a group for stability/strength (skeletal structures). Then it was less hard to develop bilateral symmetry, cells for observation, cells for analyzing the observations, and cells for sexual reproduction with other organisms. Then it was less hard for these cells to develop the best fins, the best stomachs, the best eyes and noses. Then it was less hard for these cells to adapt to walking on land than swimming, to breathing air instead of filtering water. Then it was less hard for super runners to evolve, for throwers, for thinkers, for flyers, for each new "complex" to adapt quickly and uniquely to give the genetic line the best chance to survive against co-evolving predators and prey.
Your reckoning of time and of how "chance" works are failing to account for how much time really passed and how likely things really are. Further, your measure of current biological organisms doesn't really align with how "evolution" could be measured. I hope I've given you a good basis to think about these problems further, and I appreciate your continued involvement in the discussion. Note also that I've never ruled out some supernatural force - I've only outlined how the standard story can work without one being actively designing each next step, or each type of organism.
