Why would a fish like ancestor of man, a fish man not yet with eyes or with any concept of what it would feel like to experience 'seeing', then set out on the journey of evolving eyes which would not until the passing of many millions of more generations, eventually, and through nothing other than mere trial and error, produce offspring with 'eyes that do see'?
If I desire something I don't possess then the desire can be the spark that drives me to seek it's possession, but if I don't have any idea of what it is I don't have then from where is the spark going to come from to ignite the desire in me to possess it? Is it that the desire arrives into the psyche BEFORE the concept of what would satisfy that desire? Does the 'spiritual development' of the psyche determine the sort of environment a particular species of life is to experience together with the nature of the physical senses that species will have?
Is the purpose of 'evolution' fundamentally to try to produce longevity in a species? Methinks not. In leaving the waters to become mammals we during that process lost the ability to breathe under water. Now we drown! Why would Mr.Evolution abandon one physical ability enabling a species to have a life of longevity in exchange for a different form of that ability? - Why not keep both? It seems to me that with each evolutionary stride each and every species gives up physical abilities learned as a form of payment for the evolutionary replacement coming in. Each one an upgrade on the previous.
A boy eats the same food as the elderly man and yet the lad grows stronger developing his muscles while the old man only prolongs for a while the arrival of his final breath. One could interpret that as being indicative of some further sloughing of spiritual skin in preparation for the arrival of another of those 'spiritual upgrades'.
As for an 'All-Creator' God - does not the idea to create the universe have to precede the act of creating that universe? 'Time' though would of course also be part of that creation! It has been said that we as human beings don't create anything. What we do is to refashion things from existing ingredients already there with matter being in essence energy. But are we missing the point? Might it be that nothing exists IN THE WAY that we've come to think of things 'existing in reality?' Instead of the +1 origin of existence used by 'Big Bang' advocates what if the more accurate way to describe existing reality is to apply the '0'. That nothing has ever existed in the way we've been defining that word to ourselves. That the 'reality' is that things exist as a 'spiritually imaginative' outpouring. The universe, even if one places God as the creative source, logically still has the Idea (The 'Idea of God') as occurring at least simultaneously with the 'spacetime' product. Is that not the same as saying 'in the nature of imagination?' If so then that brings me very close to describing all existence as being 'of God's MIND', in turn making us all describable as being 'of the stuff of God'. I don't see how an All-Creator God could have created a universe that would then exist in addition to Himself! If it originates as 'His Idea' then any belief on either His or our part that anything exists OUTSIDE from His, or from OUR minds is....... well, it's truly a figment of imagination!
Meanwhile, Tommy Twinkle has quit smoking!