The answer is also in the form of a question.

Have you any human progeny?

The answer would be one less than they.

Your question is in a form designed to spread disinformation and confuse persons not as smart as you are into thinking you really understand evolution and have 'disproved it' when you know you are just bearing false witness!

As an atheist and scientist of this community, I feel the need to explain to those you plan to brag to about a possible lack of refuting posts that I will not contend fairly with you as you have presented a dishonest challenge. You are a traitor to the both Science you vaguely fathom and the commandments of the God you claim to follow. Therefore I cannot believe you desire and honest and forthright discourse.

My choice to jump straight to the insult portion of tonight's entertainment is in the interest of freeing up time.

I wanna watch tv.

You are mistaken. It's not that we think God did it, because we can't explain it. It is simply that our current understanding says that it's impossible. There is a difference. Can you explain how proteins can exist without DNA? The information required for proteins is encoded in DNA. DNA requires the error checking and correction abilities of proteins in order to exist. This is what's known as a catch 22. One cannot exist without the other. This is the reality of things. The only way they could possibly exist is if they were created at the same time, along with all of the thousands of other amazing micro-machines that exist in every cell. There is no conceivable way that all the different parts of a cell can evolve separately, since they require each other in order to function. And if one is missing, none of the others can do their jobs. Do some research on how cells function. You'll see what I mean. It is a complex dance, with thousands of components, each doing a specific task. Look at how many different proteins there are. Each one is a sequence of amino acids that is folded in three dimensions. If just one fold is incorrect, it does not function. And did you know that there are protein chaperons that help proteins fold properly and correct any mistakes? That's another catch 22. Proteins cannot fold properly without the chaperons. The chaperons, in turn, are also proteins. How is it that the chaperons could exist without proteins? And the proteins cannot exist without the chaperons. For that matter, how do the chaperons know how to do their job in the first place? How can you look at the miracle that is life, and not see a Creator? You can't look at a computer and believe that it is not made by a person. So how can you look at something as complex as the inner workings of a cell and believe that it is the result of chance?

I'm not a biologist nor a geneticist. Are you? The fact that I can't explain something means nothing nor does my inability to explain something well out of my field mean that god must have done it!!

Here is a reasoned argument for you, though still a fallacy--all that is needed for life to exist in it's current form is a planet, a moon, a sun, and a god to supply everything else. This according to the logic that we are zapped from nothing by a loving god. The rest of the universe serves zero purpose and 99.99999% of it lethal to life itself--save for the fact that every element that makes up our bodies is the product of supernova--not a supernatural god. Now think about that, every element in our bodies is the product of stars. Do you see no conflicts here? According to you we have a god that supposedly creates life and than according to reality we have a universe where EVERY element that makes up life is produced by stars. Is god simply being redundant or are we a product of the natural events of nature? If you were to put down your bible and simply used your mind could you tell me? Without your bible why would you conclude that anything other than the universe is responsible for life? What evidence would you use--a fallacy that you can't explain? If we are going to play with fallacies than we should at least we should play with the ones that make the most sense.

Myself, I'm tired of your little game. You've blocked me from your threads and that's fine with me. Go play with those who will only agree with you and leave the rest of us alone.

I'm not a biologist nor a geneticist. Are you? The fact that I can't explain something means nothing nor does my inability to explain something well out of my field mean that god must have done it!!

Here is a reasoned argument for you, though still a fallacy--all that is needed for life to exist in it's current form is a planet, a moon, a sun, and a god to supply everything else. This according to the logic that we are zapped from nothing by a loving god. The rest of the universe serves zero purpose and 99.99999% of it lethal to life itself--save for the fact that every element that makes up our bodies is the product of supernova--not a supernatural god. Now think about that, every element in our bodies is the product of stars. Do you see no conflicts here? According to you we have a god that supposedly creates life and than according to reality we have a universe where EVERY element that makes up life is produced by stars. Is god simply being redundant or are we a product of the natural events of nature? If you were to put down your bible and simply used your mind could you tell me? Without your bible why would you conclude that anything other than the universe is responsible for life? What evidence would you use--a fallacy that you can't explain? If we are going to play with fallacies than we should at least we should play with the ones that make the most sense.

Myself, I'm tired of your little game. You've blocked me from your threads and that's fine with me. Go play with those who will only agree with you and leave the rest of us alone.

No, I believe in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. It makes the most sense as a multiverse would be infinite while all the individual universes it produces are finite.

Here is something to think about--at least theoretically, man is capable of creating a universe and one day may do so. If that is the case does that make man a god to any life that might develop in that universe?

I do see ways that a 'creator' can exist. I simply do not see the ability for it, or them, to interact with any life that is created.

I'm not a biologist nor a geneticist. Are you? The fact that I can't explain something means nothing nor does my inability to explain something well out of my field mean that god must have done it!!

Here is a reasoned argument for you, though still a fallacy--all that is needed for life to exist in it's current form is a planet, a moon, a sun, and a god to supply everything else. This according to the logic that we are zapped from nothing by a loving god. The rest of the universe serves zero purpose and 99.99999% of it lethal to life itself--save for the fact that every element that makes up our bodies is the product of supernova--not a supernatural god. Now think about that, every element in our bodies is the product of stars. Do you see no conflicts here? According to you we have a god that supposedly creates life and than according to reality we have a universe where EVERY element that makes up life is produced by stars. Is god simply being redundant or are we a product of the natural events of nature? If you were to put down your bible and simply used your mind could you tell me? Without your bible why would you conclude that anything other than the universe is responsible for life? What evidence would you use--a fallacy that you can't explain? If we are going to play with fallacies than we should at least we should play with the ones that make the most sense.

Myself, I'm tired of your little game. You've blocked me from your threads and that's fine with me. Go play with those who will only agree with you and leave the rest of us alone.

No, I believe in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. It makes the most sense as a multiverse would be infinite while all the individual universes it produces are finite.

Here is something to think about--at least theoretically, man is capable of creating a universe and one day may do so. If that is the case does that make man a god to any life that might develop in that universe?

I do see ways that a 'creator' can exist. I simply do not see the ability for it, or them, to interact with any life that is created.