Creation (Pro) versus Evolution (Con)

Here is exactly how one cell branched off to create more. Lets call this multicellularity. Multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many centuries.[1] Multicellularity could have been achieved numerous times based on the premise that selection acts on phenotypes and how well certain combinations of traits work.[2] In other words, even if cells adhere together using different mechanisms, or via different developmental pathways, if the results are cooperative aggregations of cells that function well and thus are able to survive better and, critically, produce more offspring than their unicellular counterparts, then these various evolutionary pathways could all be possible.[1] Some examples of multicellularity are crayfish, duckweed, and eels.[3] First of all, I am not claiming "because we are related according to this family and we evolved, we evolved from apes in this related family." We did not evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor.[4] "Not enough mud on the sea floor." Considering humans have only explored less than 5% of the oceanss. [5] I don"t consider this fact to be relevant. "Mitochondrial DNA analysis of a Neandertal skeleton found that the sequence differed from modern humans in 22 to 36 places, while the differences among modern humans are from 1 to 24 places." This partially helps my case as it proves how DNA has evolved and changed over time. There are a lot of other great arguments but I feel as if I cannot respond because they don"t have sources. Evolution: That the fossil record in general suggests evolution is certainly an important piece of evidence, but it becomes even more telling when it is combined with other evidence for evolution. For example, the fossil record is consistent in the terms of biogeography" and if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics. In fact, some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent. You would expect not just that the fossil record would show a succession of organisms as described above, but that the succession seen in the record would be compatible with that derived by looking at currently living creatures. For example, when examining the anatomy and biochemistry of living species, it appears that the general order of development for the major types of vertebrate animals was fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals. If current species developed as a result of common descent then the fossil record should show the same order of development. [5] In fact, the fossil record does show the same order of development. In general, the fossil record is consistent with the developmental order suggested by looking at the characteristics of living species. As such it represents another independent piece of evidence for common descent, and a very significant one since the fossil record is a window to the past. Metal accumulation in the ocean looks at the length of time certain metals have been present in the ocean. The time spans range from 100 years (aluminum) to 260,000,000 years (sodium).[6] (the thing I said earlier about only exploring five percent of the oceans does not contradict this fact, these metal have been taken from the five percent we have explored.) [1] http://www.eurekalert.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://wiki.answers.com... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] http://atheism.about.com... [6] http://www.ehow.com...