Natural Selection, as you said, selects genes that exist in an organism. Natural Selection never makes new information, but mutations do. Any bad mutations are removed since they do not help the probability of survival, might even hurt it's probability. Mutations that benefit the organisms are selected and passed on to the next generation. Mutations with Natural Selection adds new information, not just natural selection alone.
Mutations do not create new genotypes. They can duplicate and play with them, but they still don't add new elements to it. And even if we use the data contained in the article mentioned in a previous post, these duplications that are assumed to add genotypes only happen a few times every million years, and that's including the ones that get killed off. Even with five thousand sets of a million years, there's still no way that single cells can find enough beneficial mutations to reach human status.
Well, think of it this way, some of those systems were not needed to survive in our primative past. For example, even today some single celled organisms do not use many of the systems we do. Some organisms have a couple have a couple of the systems we do, but since we evolved in a particular environment that does need all of them, only those with all the requirements can survive in that environment while some environments don't require of those systems.
That doesn't work either. Either the environment requires the system, or it doesn't. If it does, then how could the system evolve there? Nothing would live long enough to reproduce. If it doesn't, then at best the organism could evolve a system that's beneficial to it, but why would it evolve one that's required, as they all are now? It doesn't make sense for a sytem to begin as simply beneficial, and then become essential. And that doesn't even begin to answer the problem of meiosis.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life once life emerged. Scientists have created many of the early earth conditions and have made many compounds to the origin of life. Scientists have not yet done so since abiogenesis took a very long time so they are trying to find a way to speed up the process so we can observe that event in our lifetime.
If that's really the case, then what does explain the origin of life? I guess this point only applies to those evolutionists who believe in the natural origin of life. Then the rest of that paragraph seems to promote this idea, so I guess this applies to you too. If abiogenesis takes so long, I would have to believe that there couldn't have been too many "attempts" at sustaining a cell's life in the early earth. How many of them would evolve the process of reproduction in one generation? No matter how many early cells came to be, I can't assume they were similar in complexity to today's. So how did reproduction evolve... without reproduction?
Humans did not come from Bacteria. Bacteria and Humans shared a common ancestor that resembled more like bacteria than human but both organisms have evolved and specified to their environment. No scientist believes we evolved from current bacteria.
Okay. Then replace the word "bacteria" with "bacteria-like organisms". The essential difference between the two views is still the same.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " ~John 14:6 (NKJV)
