A very primitive cel that came out of amino acids.
LOL! And you can prove that scientifically? Boy, the stuff people promote in the name of "science."
What do mathematics have to do with this?
Why isn't it obvious to you that mathematical (statistical) odds and probabilities have a lot to do with whether complex machines will arrive through chance?
YOU CLAIMED otherwise, YOU claimed that the animals just randomly appeared.
I said that animals SUDDENLY appeared (geologically-speaking, of course).
This is evolution. Maybe you don't understand evolution is well as you think...
If you think that applying a filter to a population is evolution, then we will just have to agree to disagree on what evolution is.
I to the contrary told you exactly how information came into being
LOL. You never explained how information comes into being without a mind.
I told you how that was, namely DNA evolved. "better" DNA was passed on while bad DNA died out.
LOL. This is your "explaination" for how information comes into being? Your "explanation" is tantamount to saying "it just does" LOL.
And yes we begin with randomly chosen DNA(note here: very primitive DNA, DNA evolved like animals and was very prmitive in the beginning).
One of your many problems is that this is simply all conjecture. None of it is science. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Alas, so few "scientists" do....
Because I just googled fossil record and I found a nice tree of life.
LOL, I guess I can't help you then. If you are hell-bent on finding pop-science references to support your iconic "tree of life" - something that Darwin himself said didn't exist in the fossil record (he was hopeful that it would eventually be uncovered), more power to you.
WHEN DID THESE SPECIES SUDDENLY APPEAR?
We don't disagree over the date. What's the latest accepted date? 1.5-2 billion years ago? Whatever you say the date is, I agree with you. I never said otherwise.
Nowhere is there a fossil record to be found that says species just instantly appeared. Any creditable sources that is.
Then we will just agree to disagree.
And you know what? I googled this Stephen J. Gould... twice, and guess what.
This is an accepted theory....You're are totally misreading this to suit your own needs.
LOL. I *TOLD* you it was an accepted theory. You are the one who had to google the man to find out what he said, not me.
I'd love to know what I'm misreading. I own the man's books. I've read them. I've also read his papers and his letters. He is adamant, over and over again, throughout his career, that there is no tree of life in the fossil record. This is why he came up with punctuated equilibrium - to try to explain why you can't see a tree of life. His theory is that life remains "steady state" and unchanging for millions of years (that's the "equilibrium" part of his theory), but from time to time this equilibrium is "punctuated" by fast, rapid evolution THAT OCCURS SO FAST IT IS NEVER DETECTED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That's his theory.
The problem with his theory is that it is just yet another attempt to make it so that evolution doesn't have to be proven. It is an attempt to get around the fact that, by his own admission, there isn't a tree of life in the fossil record.
What I just stated to you is not controversial. Charles Darwin himself was aware of the problem, and even wrote about it. Where?
LOL. See above statement. BACK YOUR CLAIMS.
LOL, I BACKED UP MY FUCKING CLAIMS, I SAID THAT DARWIN SAID IT! Now, if you are too misinformed on the subject to know that Darwin said it, and too lazy to go to a library and read what Darwin said, that isn't my problem!
No. It means that the fossil records aren't flawless since they can be destroyed by natural procceses easily.
Right. So when evidence doesn't support evolution, you make an excuse why it "doesn't count." This isn't science, this is dogma. Pure and simple.