satrekker writes:
While being overly simplistic, reading about the assertion that taking 200 steps backward (negative result of a mutation/Devolution) and one step forward (some perceived "beneficial" mutation/evolution) has resulted in intelligent life from a primordial soup is outright comical, except for the fact that it has so many proselytes.
This isn't just overly simplistic, it's inaccurate. Evolutionary theory doesn't predict that harmful mutations would accumulate, as your phrase "200 steps backward" implies. Any change that reduces reproductive fitness is weeded out fairly quickly; an individual who has gone even one step backward (to use your analogy) probably wouldn't stand much of a chance against those who have remained the same, or have gone forwards.
Furthermore, your analogy of forward and backward steps, and your use of the term devolution, is misleading. There's only change, which may or may not add to complexity or be beneficial for reproductive fitness. You seem to imply that evolution is progressing towards some specified goal, and that devolution represents a retreat from it. But no such goal exists.
But what really concerns me is the main point of your post:
satrekker writes:
It really is a God issue.
You seem to hold the position that any discussion on the origin of life and its diversity should be made in the context of faith and religion, rather than science. This raises many objections, the most obvious one being that, if we tried to answer ANY questions about the natural world in this way, we wouldn't get anywhere. If we treated this as a "God issue", the only thing that would arise is a massive, never-ending intercultural argument on "Which God?".
™ Version 4.2