Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

Your argument is at its heart special pleading. God's special. He must be there, because he is.

If I ask you if there is a walrus beneath the surface of titan, you will find that notion ridiculous. There's no reason to think that there's a walrus beneath the surface of titan because there's no evidence for one.

But wait... the walrus needs evidence, but god doesn't?

My bias is not inherently against god, but against claims that lack evidence. I am just as against your goddunnit as another person's walrusdunnit. Obviously the goddunnit person and the walrusdunnit person can't both be right. Historically, both of them have been wrong with every claim we can currently test.

Don't be silly,

The walrus was Paul.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove to me that any scientific inquiry is valid without resorting to at least one metaphysical claim. Quicknote: objective existence is a metaphysical claim. As is the notion of good, justice, truth, and sanity.

Wonderful thing about science really, it operates on the basis of the rather modest metaphysical assumption that there is an objective reality, and that it is possible to learn something about it. However, it is not dependent upon that claim.

This is because science works equally well in hypothetical realities where this is the case, as well as those where it merely appears to be the case. As this reality is, undeniably, one in which it at least appears to be the case, we can say that science works without having to prove a metaphysical model.

However, to say that "good" is beyond comment without making a metaphysical statement seems, on the face of it absurd (to say nothing of these others.) Good is clearly subjective and relative, a notion of good could exist in any metaphysical model.. Likewise "justice" is reducible to balance or various evolutionary algorithms governing social interactions.

And I dare say that metaphysics cannot coherently address sanity, truth, justice, or good either. So I wonder what you think your point is?

The modesty of the claim does not make it less so a claim. You've failed to avoid a metaphysical claim, which is my sole point.

But more importantly, God too is not wholly addressed in metaphysics, nor is anything else that I discussed, except my one original claim, "the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause" and my solution to that is "God".

If you have no reasonable answer in place of God, then it is acceptable to turn the burden of proof to you. I submit God, my evidence is based on the need of a prime mover, and the burdensome complexity of all model that supposes His none existence.

I cannot prove that God is needed, I can only demonstrate that it is most logical to assume He was.

[CVT Temp]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

Wittgenstein was right. There really is no such thing as a "metaphysical claim." A claims are either claims about the structure of reality or claims resulting from confusing yourself with language.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

You really shouldn't talk about fields of science you don't understand. Multiple "universes" is not the only possible explanation, and even it can be demonstrated as valid, given that the kind of multiverse predicted by eternal inflation would produce subtle deviations in the Gaussinity of the CMBR. More detailed maps of the CMBR are going to be produced with the new generations of satellites, and they will make or break various inflationary schemes.

Science is not biased "against" god. We reject the notions of god presented thus far because they are either demonstrably false, trivial, or vacuous. Present a god hypothesis which doesn't fit into one of these categories and valid science would accept it.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

1. Any possible universe is "objective," in that any possible universe must be a certain way and not some other way. No matter the structure, it must always be some structure. That we find a universe which is "objective" is not a fact in need of explaining. Instead, it's purely a tautology.

2. In order to show that something didn't come about through chance, it is not sufficient to show that something is unlikely. To show that something is incredibly unlikely to happen by chance is irrelevant, because the thing happened, and therefore the probability that it happened is now 100%, regardless of how unlikely it was a priori.

To show that something didn't come about through chance, you must show that there is an alternative explanation which is more likely than pure chance. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is for something to happen by chance alone, if all the alternatives are even more unlikely, then pure chance is still extremely likely to be the correct explanation. Once the event happens, only relative probabilities matter. Absolute probability is made irrelevant by the event having already taken place.

3. I take it you can offer some evidence, some reason that shows we bear signs of being designed?

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

Care to show that modern scientific explanations defy reason and evidence?

[CVT Temp]

The modesty of the claim does not make it less so a claim. You've failed to avoid a metaphysical claim, which is my sole point.

But more importantly, God too is not wholly addressed in metaphysics, nor is anything else that I discussed, except my one original claim, "the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause" and my solution to that is "God".

If you have no reasonable answer in place of God, then it is acceptable to turn the burden of proof to you. I submit God, my evidence is based on the need of a prime mover, and the burdensome complexity of all model that supposes His none existence.

I cannot prove that God is needed, I can only demonstrate that it is most logical to assume He was.

1. The idea that everything which happens requires a cause is, I'm afraid, false, at least for classical definitions of cause. Uncaused events transpire constantly in the relativistic quantum vacuum. And this is no mere speculation. These very uncaused events are demonstrable in the form of the Casimir effect.

2. It is a logical fallacy to claim "You have no alternative, therefore my proposal is correct and if you disagree you must prove me wrong." This is not a valid argument.

3. Define "complexity." The only form of "complexity" which the principle of parsimony discusses is in terms of the number statistically independent postulates that must be put forward in the absence of evidence in order for an explanation to work. Postulates which have been verified and postulates which are not statistically independent from other postulates do not count toward the Occam complexity of a proposal.

Occam's razor is not an aesthetic principle, nor is it an arbitrary idea, nor is it something which conforms to anyone's particular notions about what's "complex" and what isn't. It's purely a statement about probability. That's it.

[CVT Temp]

Wonderful thing about science really, it operates on the basis of the rather modest metaphysical assumption that there is an objective reality, and that it is possible to learn something about it. However, it is not dependent upon that claim.

It's not even an assumption, really. Properly understood, it's more like a tautology.

[Xathranaar]

Wonderful thing about science really, it operates on the basis of the rather modest metaphysical assumption that there is an objective reality, and that it is possible to learn something about it. However, it is not dependent upon that claim.

This is because science works equally well in hypothetical realities where this is the case, as well as those where it merely appears to be the case. As this reality is, undeniably, one in which it at least appears to be the case, we can say that science works without having to prove a metaphysical model.

However, to say that "good" is beyond comment without making a metaphysical statement seems, on the face of it absurd (to say nothing of these others.) Good is clearly subjective and relative, a notion of good could exist in any metaphysical model.. Likewise "justice" is reducible to balance or various evolutionary algorithms governing social interactions.

And I dare say that metaphysics cannot coherently address sanity, truth, justice, or good either. So I wonder what you think your point is?

The modesty of the claim does not make it less so a claim. You've failed to avoid a metaphysical claim, which is my sole point.

I take it you just stopped reading then after the first sentence. Well, I guess it doesn't matter since there is far more that is wrong with the below anyway.

But more importantly, God too is not wholly addressed in metaphysics, nor is anything else that I discussed, except my one original claim, "the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause" and my solution to that is "God".

A. To say that the universe has a beginning is to imply that there was a time in which the universe did not exist. As time is an emergent property of the universe, indeed a dimension of space, this is something we know is not true.
B. God is not a solution. Well it is, but it explains everything by explaining nothing. It is a solution in the same way that "by magic" is a solution.

If you have no reasonable answer in place of God, then it is acceptable to turn the burden of proof to you. I submit God, my evidence is based on the need of a prime mover, and the burdensome complexity of all model that supposes His none existence.

I would direct you to Lawrence Krauss. There are very good reasons to believe that universes do not require creation, that they can occur spontaneously. Given that the universe has zero total energy.

I cannot prove that God is needed, I can only demonstrate that it is most logical to assume He was.

This is at best an argument for deism, and in no way relevant to a discussion of evolution. Your claim was that evolution was guided, but a god who interferes in evolution does not follow from the prime mover claim.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

Your argument is at its heart special pleading. God's special. He must be there, because he is.

If I ask you if there is a walrus beneath the surface of titan, you will find that notion ridiculous. There's no reason to think that there's a walrus beneath the surface of titan because there's no evidence for one.

But wait... the walrus needs evidence, but god doesn't?

My bias is not inherently against god, but against claims that lack evidence. I am just as against your goddunnit as another person's walrusdunnit. Obviously the goddunnit person and the walrusdunnit person can't both be right. Historically, both of them have been wrong with every claim we can currently test.

False comparison, the walrus under the moon titan (grace and milkshakes be upon him) has not been submitted as the answer to the primary question of cause and design.

If he had, then we would run into several issues which disqualify the great walrus but not God. For instance, the walrus under the moon titan could not be the prime mover, Titan was created after the universe, we know this. To save some time let's cut the chase. As we strip the fluff from the claim it may be reduced to "God has taken the form of a walrus who lives in the moon titan."

I accept that God exists, but do not agree that he is a walrus in the moon titan.

This is, to compare; attempting to discredit my theory that a man stabbed to death has been murdered and therefore there is a murderer, by stating that the indentity of said murderer could be a unicorn who delivers mail. And because the notion of a unicorn maikman is absurd, so too must be the idea of a murder.

I see your special pleading and raise you a red herring fallacy.

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course not, the earth was created in seven literal days, I tell ya! I mean sure you can buy into the pseudo-atheist-socialist mention that the Bible wasn't originally in English when it was written/orally passed down or that maybe it's explaining God's love for man rather than offering a scientific explanation, but why would you?

It's as my pappy always said: If it was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me.

[The Merchant Republics]

I'm not exactly certain why disproving causality would favour atheism... If events can occur without naturalistic explanation, then I'm all the more willing to submit God as an existant figure. With the basis for pointing out that uncaused events of energy so to can we come to regard them as enacted by God.

Something must cause what appears uncaused by natural progression.

But I will read more about the theories of this gentleman on the zero-energy sum universe, I believe I am already familiar with the theory, though. Perhaps, I have been provided with inadequate elucidation of it.

To the relatively meta response of the universe not having a beginning on the basis of time being an element derived from the universe. I've heard this one before, it's a reversed arrow paradox, and no less false. Though there was no time before the universe, there was still a point in which time and the universe simultaneously began, if there is an arrow in the air, it must have been fired, even if we could infintely regress to that point, it fails to be eternity in a true sense. Motion, energy and matter have a beginning.

Time also is an observed not intrinsic element of the universe, it is relative to the observer. And thus to a potential being outside the universe, time can exist before the universe could.

[Bordiniana]

No, i believe my relatives fell out of the sky many many years ago.
YES I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
between you and me, i dont believe in god, my father is dead, my Best friend is in prison, and my brother lives in a hammock in the woods.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

Wittgenstein was right. There really is no such thing as a "metaphysical claim." A claims are either claims about the structure of reality or claims resulting from confusing yourself with language.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

You really shouldn't talk about fields of science you don't understand. Multiple "universes" is not the only possible explanation, and even it can be demonstrated as valid, given that the kind of multiverse predicted by eternal inflation would produce subtle deviations in the Gaussinity of the CMBR. More detailed maps of the CMBR are going to be produced with the new generations of satellites, and they will make or break various inflationary schemes.

Science is not biased "against" god. We reject the notions of god presented thus far because they are either demonstrably false, trivial, or vacuous. Present a god hypothesis which doesn't fit into one of these categories and valid science would accept it.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

1. Any possible universe is "objective," in that any possible universe must be a certain way and not some other way. No matter the structure, it must always be some structure. That we find a universe which is "objective" is not a fact in need of explaining. Instead, it's purely a tautology.

2. In order to show that something didn't come about through chance, it is not sufficient to show that something is unlikely. To show that something is incredibly unlikely to happen by chance is irrelevant, because the thing happened, and therefore the probability that it happened is now 100%, regardless of how unlikely it was a priori.

To show that something didn't come about through chance, you must show that there is an alternative explanation which is more likely than pure chance. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is for something to happen by chance alone, if all the alternatives are even more unlikely, then pure chance is still extremely likely to be the correct explanation. Once the event happens, only relative probabilities matter. Absolute probability is made irrelevant by the event having already taken place.

3. I take it you can offer some evidence, some reason that shows we bear signs of being designed?

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

Care to show that modern scientific explanations defy reason and evidence?

You shouldn't make assumptions of people. I did not state multiple universe was the only atheist explanation.

Science is not biased against God, and I never made that claim, skeptics are, but science as a great multitude of scientists and experts on the relevant fields will attest is quite neutral to the idea of God, atheism is a more common view aming scientists, but it is not the dominant view.

Any claim to that effect, is both false, and relatively telling of the bias I am referring to. A bias within society to hold God in contempt, to presuppose his none existance and demand first we prove our God exists before we can fight about if A god exists... It's impossible, A god can be suggested with success and from their Our God.

[Norstal]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

That's not a good reason for doubting natural selection as the sole engine of evolution.

I was hoping you say something along the line of artificial selection. Shame.

[Ostroeuropa]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

That's not a good reason for doubting natural selection as the sole engine of evolution.

I was hoping you say something along the line of artificial selection. Shame.

Or punctuated equilibrium.

[Tsuntion]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

Of course natural selection isn't the sole engine of evolution. I mean, there's also sexual selection, which is why we have, say, peacocks with those massive tail feathers -- those don't help it survive (much, perhaps), but the females base their selection of a mate upon things like his tail.

Evolution isn't an explanation for how life came to be, as far as I'm aware. It is more about how life has adapted and become complex after existing on a small level. Therefore, the idea of intelligent creation (with that being billions of years ago, of course) isn't relevant. If a god "guides" evolution, it may not be the observable logical process that it is.

[Renegade Island]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

Of course natural selection isn't the sole engine of evolution. I mean, there's also sexual selection, which is why we have, say, peacocks with those massive tail feathers -- those don't help it survive (much, perhaps), but the females base their selection of a mate upon things like his tail.

Evolution isn't an explanation for how life came to be, as far as I'm aware. It is more about how life has adapted and become complex after existing on a small level. Therefore, the idea of intelligent creation (with that being billions of years ago, of course) isn't relevant. If a god "guides" evolution, it may not be the observable logical process that it is.

sex = natural
=> sexual selection = natural selection

[Greater Mackonia]

Of course I do.

[Xanixi]

Evolution is a phenomenon. It does not require my belief. It exists whether or not I, or anyone else, for that matter, wants it to.

[Dyakovo]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution?¹ Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence?² Are people that desperate to deny God exists?³ Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.⁴

1: Because of the tons of evidence that supports it.
2: Funny, I thought you said that you had read the links provided...
3: Accepting evolution has nothing to do with denying 'God'.
4: There is literally nothing about this sentence which is factual.

---

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

There's no such thing as "evolutionists".

[Tsuntion]

Of course natural selection isn't the sole engine of evolution. I mean, there's also sexual selection, which is why we have, say, peacocks with those massive tail feathers -- those don't help it survive (much, perhaps), but the females base their selection of a mate upon things like his tail.

Evolution isn't an explanation for how life came to be, as far as I'm aware. It is more about how life has adapted and become complex after existing on a small level. Therefore, the idea of intelligent creation (with that being billions of years ago, of course) isn't relevant. If a god "guides" evolution, it may not be the observable logical process that it is.

sex = natural
=> sexual selection = natural selection

I know some people who would disagree that sex is natural.

True, sorry; I don't often think of it as an umbrella term and instead consider it to only refer to viability selection, even though this isn't the case.

[Renegade Island]

sex = natural
=> sexual selection = natural selection

I know some people who would disagree that sex is natural.

True, sorry; I don't often think of it as an umbrella term and instead consider it to only refer to viability selection, even though this isn't the case.

Really? When you ask them how they came to exist, what do they tell you?

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

(...)"the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause" and my solution to that is "God".

No. Your solution to "God" is "the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause".

Who says the beginning of something needs to have a cause in the first place? That's just a presumption of yours, and won't do as an argument. Sorry - but no. And even if it did have a cause, what do we need God for? You're just assuming that a cause needs a cause and that that cause for some reason happens to be God - which is obviously complete and utter nonsense, flawed logic and random guesswork at best. Pretty much all religious claims are like that; a whole lot of assuming things.

If you have no reasonable answer in place of God, then it is acceptable to turn the burden of proof to you.

Alright, I'll replace 'God' with... 'Bunny'. Back to square one.
Why is he required to replace an unreasonable answer with a reasonable one? If you're just throwing out something random with no base in logic and reality, we can too. You can't shift the burden of proof simply by making up an ''answer'', and then expect a real, factual answer in return.

In other words; you're claiming a cause needs a cause and that that cause has to be God - burden of proof is on you. Go.

I submit God, my evidence is based on the need of a prime mover

The need of a prime mover is, as I said, something you're assuming. You have no idea what evidence actually is, do you? It's not evidence just because it comes out of your mouth. It's true, look i up.
And again, even if it was, I just submitted 'Bunny', which is a just as well-founded guess as yours.

[Ifreann]

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

Pfft, "evolutionist". Accepting evolution isn't an ideology or something.

[Immoren]

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

Pfft, "evolutionist". Accepting evolution isn't an ideology or something.

Or is it?
Dun. Dun! DUN!

[Somali Caliphate]

Evolution as a theory won't exist in the next 3 decades. People are waking up to the biggest fraud in the history of science. I mean if it was true, why do Evolutionists argue amongst themselves and have like 50 different versions. The truth is only one and doesn't need to be revised. Whereas a lie like Evolution needs constant revision. How many people here reject Evolution? I mean who in their right mind would accept that their great ancestor is an ape. Besides there's a ridiculously easy argument against Evolution. Three in fact. First of all, a living organism can only come from a living thing, not a non living organism. Second, lets assume that an animal evolved and had its genes mutated so that it was no longer the same organism, in order to reproduce and exist, it would need another organism that was similar enough to breed with to reproduce fertile offspring. Third, if Evolution is indeed real, why have we never observed it now or at other times in the past.

[Ovisterra]

Evolution as a theory won't exist in the next 3 decades.

Yes it will.

People are waking up to the biggest fraud in the history of science.

Yep. S'called creationism.

I mean if it was true, why do Evolutionists argue amongst themselves and have like 50 different versions.

Because that's how science works.

The truth is only one and doesn't need to be revised.

The truth does not need to be revised, no. But our understanding of it does, as we discover more.

Whereas a lie like Evolution needs constant revision.

It's not a lie.

How many people here reject Evolution?

Few.

I mean who in their right mind would accept that their great ancestor is an ape.

Most people.

And you are an ape. So am I. Humans are apes.

Besides there's a ridiculously easy argument against Evolution. Two in fact.

Easy =/= Good

First of all, a living organism can only come from a living thing, not a non living organism.

Incorrect. Shit's gotta start somewhere.

Second, lets assume that an animal evolved and had its genes mutated so that it was no longer the same organism, in order to reproduce and exist, it would need another organism that was similar enough to breed with to reproduce fertile offspring.

Species interbreed. Hence mules.