Here we go again: My questions: If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?

I've replied to this once, I see no reason why you posted it twice or why I need to answer it twice. See my other answer below my original comment.

And you couldn't answer even all the questions. Where there's an error in the thinking of evolution,which was highlighting one important flaw (origins), there is an error with the whole thinking of its philosophy.

Your reasoning is sound on the mechanical watch coming together in such a way. Thing is, that is not how evolution works.

I'm sorry, I usually apply that to the big bang theory, which almost all evolutionists will argue is how the universe began. There is some difference, but the basic principle remains.

Ah, I see the analogy now. The issue is that your watch metaphor does not take into account the way that the elements interact. But that makes more sense now.

You know what I don't get? Evolution. It has no explanation as to its own origin. Stop. Repeat: It has no explanation as to its own origin. Your queue: Provide evidence.

Depends on what you define as origin. Origin of the universe? Of life? Of the mechanisms of evolution? There are plenty of places that could be the 'origin'.

Sure, pick any one of those. Your queue: Provide evidence.

Alright, well, give me some time then. I want to get the facts right, so I'm gonna look for sources and such. That'll also help back up my claims. I'm going to start from the Big Bang, and what information we have on it, then I'll go from there.

Okay.

Sorry for the confusion. Have a nice day sir

And you as well! :D

At least we were civilized about this difference of opinion. Much less for some other people around here >.> <.<

Correction: improbable, but possible.

That actually didn't need correction. Good try though.

You say there is a chance. A small chance, but it's there. No chance, however small, should ever be considered impossible.