Quote Originally Posted by sport_122 View Post
Even in our biology, it only takes one change in an amino acid to kill you. Or producing one less chemical in your body and you will be ill or be more vulnerable to certain diseases. One less protein and your immune system fails. There is a very specific balance to all of biology. I think this demonstrates efficiency in biological processes. Why would loose the ability to live under water if we still go there? Why would we lose the ability to excavate oxygen for water if we have always been water loving creatures. Why when it is obvious that some creatures can do both.
This is a logical fallacy to look at the outcome and therefore assume the cause. If there is a 1 in 1 billion chance that this universe exists in its current form but there are 1 billion universes created then the odds are very good that this universe would exists the way it does (obviously the number 1 billion is arbitrary, make it whatever number you like)


Quote Originally Posted by sport_122 View Post
these questions seem pretty lame when you read them but think about them in the process of selection. Why did we lose the ability to do something that we have always done. This is why Dawkins tries to add a psuedo- consciousness to evolution, because these things cannot be explained in natural terms. But in adding a consciousness then you have to be willing to note that there is something else to be accounted for.
I'm not aware of this psuedo-conscousness you are talking about but I've never seen reference to anything of the sort in Dawkins. But as far as losing an "ability". Don't forget these abilities aren't free. Every ability/feature has upsides and downsides. I bet if you got a deadly gill infection right now you wouldn't think it was so great to have gills.