Are you serious? You have to "assume" that reproduction happened?
I think it's more advantageous to learn how life came into being rather than just making guesses about how it changed....but that is just the way my logic works.
Creation answers both questions for us....with no ambiguity. Evolutionists run away from abiogenesis....."nothing to do with us, so don't ask"...!
"
Volvox diverged from unicellular ancestors approximately
200 million years ago."
The algae told you this, did they? The next obvious question is, where did the "unicellular ancestors" come from? They just came out of nowhere......
......for no apparent reason. Mr Nobody strikes again!
Perhaps the thing volvox have in common with amoebas is their Creator?
Since he is the Creator...why would he need to use evolution? You seem to assume that it is the better method......why? The Creator has already programmed adaptation into his creatures. Would it suit your worldview better if he did use evolution?
Based on the actual evidence, I don't see why he would.
He is a creator who has expressed his creativity in many ways......human creators like to use their own hands and imagination to create, don't they? We are made to reflect the Creator's qualities, so it looks to me as though he likes to make things directly himself. Why wouldn't he? I am an artist, so I understand how that works. If you are creative, you
have to create....
You think the one who created the universe would find it difficult to tweak or fine tune his creation? Don't we see fine tuning in the universe? Why not fine tuning in everything else?
"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[9] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[10]
The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter, the cosmological constant, for gravitation. However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia
Sounds reasonable to me.....
I love the fact that you classify yourselves as the "reasonable" people when we do not find your theory even remotely resonable. It lacks everything a scientific theory needs......solid evidence, proven and repeatable by experimentation....not inference and assumption skewed towards a pet idea that someone started to mull over not even two centuries ago because he saw some creatures that were different, in a different environment.
You are seeing my position as black and white......it isn't. Adaptation can explain similarities but only within a species. Varieties within those species can be seen in the Galapagos iguanas and finches.
But recent research into the iguanas is interesting, especially for those who believe in evolution.......
Here is what one researcher said....
"Marine iguanas clearly offer important insights into evolutionary processes, but environmental changes mean that their long-term survival could be in jeopardy. Genetic studies have shown us that marine iguana populations on different islands are distinct from one another. Work is underway into their taxonomic situation, and in the future, these populations may well be recognised as distinct subspecies or species. At the same time, we know that some of these populations are already extremely small and face significant threats from marine pollution and predation by introduced species. The situation is of great concern because marine iguanas occur on the Galápagos archipelago and nowhere else on earth – they have never been successfully kept outside of the islands. It is therefore vital that we monitor and manage these populations, because if they disappear from Galapagos, they are lost forever.”
by Lisa Wheeler
The Evolutionary History of the Galapagos Marine Iguana - Galapagos Conservation Trust Blog
Perhaps the marine species is a distinctly different creation?...specially designed for marine life? They are all iguanas after all.....but like the big cats, all are creatively different from one another in different areas of the world. We would see that more as special creation, not necessarily adaptation then.....but you would find a way to interpret things from your viewpoint.
In any case, we each have our own way of ajudicating the "evidence"......it just depends on which lens one is peering through.
