According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Syriusly]

That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.

On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.

Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

 

[Syriusly]

We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins.

You are embarrassing yourself. Evolution only speaks to how the diversity of species arose from the first life. It does not speak to how the first life arose..

Yeah that is a regular straw man when it comes to the Evolution deniers.

Evolution describes how life changes- it doesn't describe where the first life began.

My only quibble about the "Tree of Life" is that there are those who object to the metaphor.

 

[Syriusly]

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

Dear Votto
I think deanrd said it best.
It's not so much being created
but being developed. And it's whenever
humans "label" or "identify" something as a separate
species, then it takes that on.

As for mating, horses and donkeys mate to create "mules"
is that really a different species? Or a "cross" between a horse and a donkey?

Isn't it just because humans created our own criteria for labeling things that we determine what is close enough to be called the same species, and when we decide they are two different species?

Nowadays, those criteria can get blurred for social cultural or even political reasons.

We only had 2 genders, and now people are arguing for 58.
Did we really evolve or are we just changing how we define
what constitutes a different gender?

When forests are threatened with mass destruction,
suddenly more species pop up that depend on that ecosystem
to survive. Weren't those there all along, but we just didn't discover them until we disturbed their homes and did research to assess the damage and impact of further manmade intervention?

Who knows what all species live in the deepest wilderness or under the depths of the oceans? And which come from creation, evolution, mating or mutation?

Aren't we just labeling species for our own reference anyway.
If the system changes as much as gender has, isn't really only fixed based on where we AGREE to draw the lines?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

 

[bripat9643]

Science is for retards. Obviously God created two people. Then there was this talking snake. Some other shit happened. It was this whole mess.

I don't agree with creationism, but your an imbecile.

 

[bripat9643]

Well?
I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

Mutations are not required. What you need is isolation. If a mountain rises and splits a population into two, over time natural variations will change the two populations in different ways. Given enough time the two populations will not interbreed, even if the mountain is removed. Bingo, two species.

Yes, mutations are required. "natural variation" is the result of mutations.

 

[aaronleland]

Science is for retards. Obviously God created two people. Then there was this talking snake. Some other shit happened. It was this whole mess.

I don't agree with creationism, but your an imbecile.

Am not.

 

[james bond]

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

 

[bripat9643]

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

 

[james bond]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

 

[Selivan]

A lot of chatter and no conclusions.
Typical "Americans"

 

[harmonica]

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

 

[james bond]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about. There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.

 

[james bond]

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land

Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell. It's impossible.

 

[harmonica]

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land

Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell. It's impossible.

are you trolling?
so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!

 

[james bond]

By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

Which you can't demonstrate because you do not have the cred.

 

[james bond]

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land

Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell. It's impossible.

are you trolling?
so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!

You don't make much sense. I said a protein cannot be created OUTSIDE a cell. Do you know what a protein is? I just explained it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about. There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.

There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.

Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.