Well I seemed to have been involved in two arguments. One is evolution doesn't exist at all. The second one is what we think of as evolution is really a designer making changes over time. Am I phrasing these properly? If so... then I have been arguing against both.
should one insist that all life descended from a single cell?
Well...is that so hard to believe given we all individually start out conceived as a single cell when a sperm and egg meet?
Nobody is arguing that. It's just a question as to how much it explains.
should one insist that all life descended from a single cell? . . . Well...is that so hard to believe given we all individually start out conceived as a single cell when a sperm and egg meet?
It's not a matter of it being hard to believe, it is a matter of it being reasonable. The human zygote starts with 3 billion chemical base pairs making up its DNA. It's protected in the perfect environment for 9 months, then for many years before it can reproduce.
Now, why would you believe that a single cell can acquire the DNA to produce all life, survive for the appropriate amount of time in the appropriate environment, then solely through natural selection and mutation/recombination evolve into all known life?