Also, way to respond to part of my comment and ignore the rest of it. Whatever the origin of the chemicals described, I still find it logically sound that given a few millennia, they’ll recombine in every possible way — including one producing a self-replicating molecule.

What’s your evidence for a humanlike intelligence creating everything, apart from ancient Middle Eastern mythology (written, I might add, by humans)?

I don’t think you have yet grasped the point that there is no distinction between speciation and the emergence of new phyla. New phyla are simply examples of speciation that occurred so long ago that the modern descendents of the daughter species (two daughter species per speciation event) have now diversified so much as to be unrecognisable through simple observation, requiring more in depth techniques such as comparative anatomy or phylogenetics to establish relatedness.

Simple example, the closest living relative to baleen whales (possibly toothed whales too, but I’d need to check) is the hippo. There are snakes with legs, and there are legless lizards. Fairly substantial mophological changes take a good deal of time of course, but are certainly possible in the order of a few million years.

The notion of Kinds is somewhat specious unless you define it, so please do.

@Skimble
What leads you to say that the events were in the wrong order? All of your concerns are clearly addressed here: http://www.whyevolution.com/Accuracy%20in%20Genesis.pdf (see page 5 – 11). I am busy going through the links you sent me because I know my knowledge is limited. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt and do the same Genesis is plausible & confirmed by current understanding of astronomy etc, the other creation myths are not – at least all those that I have read (pls let me know if you’ve found a reasonable one)

It’s exactly as credible as any other creation myth.

Self-replicating molecules are a rare and unlikely occurrence, but given an unimaginable stretch of time, all possible combinations of amino acids will eventually occur, the self-replicating molecule among them.

Personally, I find the concept of an intelligent, humanlike creator far more outlandish than that of spontaneous recombination of chemicals.

On the DNA issue, there is a slightly simpler mechanism of course, RNA, although the viruses that use RNA as a primary information carrier are not technically alive. In any case, experiments have shown that running an electrical current through a mix of chemicals that resembles the seas on the early Earth does produce amino acids. the building blocks from which RNA and DNA are formed.

I don’t find it that inconceivable that given enough time (and this is on a scale of billions of years), eventually a random reaction between amino acids resulted in a self-replicating molecule, which was then refined by natural selection.

(cont. below)

As to why I believe the biblical account: It offers a reasonable and rational explanation that is not contradicted by observable science. Historical deductive science is obviously open to subjective interpretation of the facts. If the bible told me that the earth rested on the back of an elephant, then I would also dismiss it as twaddle, but curiously for those who’ve read it, it doesn’t. Likewise Norse mythology etc doesn’t offer a remotely satisfying answer…

There is a lot written on the subject and I won’t pretend to be an expert or have all the answers. Take a look at this: http://www.whyevolution.com/Accuracy%20in%20Genesis.pdf (don’t agree with everything, but it’s a good effort)

The fact is that the evidence shows all modern species DID arise from an original ancestor. Evolution is just the name we’ve given to the series of events that best explains this, and other, observations. Expecting to see phylum branch points in a population of slow-breeding animal within the course of human history is unrealistic; on that basis it’s no wonder we have not directly observed such an event.

As to the bible providing the whys? Well, it’s certainly AN answer, among myriad religions and philosophies, with no evidence to back it up. Why should I treat the answers in the bible any more seriously than the ‘answers’ given in Norse mythology?

I’d rather stick with objectively determinable facts, thanks.