[orionblamblam]

> So assumes the evolutionist.

It's not an assumption, but a deduction based on the evidence.

> It could also be that the genetic lines were separate at their creation, that we did not evolve from some singular, original life form.

Yes, yes, we're all living in The Matrix. God built the planet old for some reason.

> Entropy would suggest that, given the variables and chances, life would have devolved from that original life form, rather than having evolved.

Incorrect. For this to have any semblence of accuracy, you would have to believe that Earths biosphere is a closed system. It is not.

[ColoCdn]

BTW, do you believe that the law of entropy applies to the cosmos, or just to the portions of it that favor evolution.

Isn't the 2nd Law supposed to be a Law, not an opinion?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"Yes, yes, we're all living in The Matrix. God built the planet old for some reason."

Yes, yes, it's all just one big accident. Life and all its myriad variations and permutations is all just one big freak accident. We all evolved from just one original spark of life that spontaneously came into existence.

And we all know that every type of life has one basic requirement: that it consume organic matter in order to survive. That means, all living things must consume what was one living. The theory of evolution handily ignores this huge fact when it talks about the first living thing that all life evolved from. What did that first living thing consume? Was it the only form of life that did not neat to consume organic matter? Would it really be 'evolving' to become dependent on organic matter? Think how much easier it would be if we could all live off of a handful of sand every day.

Yet it's all just one big freak accident. Isn't it incredible?

Yes. It is incredible.

But before we go on and on with this ad nauseum, let's just acknowledge that you look at certain bits of information you allude to but do not present as evidence of evolution and that I believe that the evidence is largely interpretive and not concrete and not empirical.

You're not going to sway me and I'm not going to sway you. So why continue this aporia?