The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Bear Wild]

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

This post shows you have absolutely no understanding about evolution. Frog evolving into a dog? Seriously? By the way the concept of genus is man made and not an absolute property of living things. Change in the genetics of an organism takes time and the change is observable. The fact that you do not understand the process does not make it untrue. A frog is a frog is a frog shows your total lack of understanding of biology.

 

[Thief]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

I believe evolution was set in motion from the beginning
all things evolve.....change

as for Chapter Two of Genesis
that was a hands on tweak in the ongoing formation of a species called ….Man

 

[Bear Wild]

My whole point is that there are indeed way more than a few things involved. I'll give you your billions and more, it still doesn't prove evolution. It is still a theory with no more intrinsic truth than Genesis.

So you cannot distinguish the fiction of genesis with the profoundly supported theory of evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Seriously, the 'primordial soup' is by far the best explanation based on the evidence. It was of course primordial, butno, not a soup;

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

No that is not more believable than Genesis, but both versions described above are ridiculous from the scientific perspective.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

Again, a very bad rather contorted representation of the science of evolution.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Genesis is ridiculously unbelievable as a literal history. If you wish to discuss the scientific perspective in a more objective light than okay, but first you have to get the science right. The above derogatory snippets do not represent an honest perspective of the science of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe a "perfectly precise order" was not the best way to put it. But, whatever arose by chance would have to depend on it's nourishment (and many other environmental variables) arising at the same time.

Science does not propose life arose by 'chance.' Your statements remain not remotely how the objective verifiable scientific evidence supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe they'll invent a super computer that can do it one of these days.

The super computers are here, and useful in science. The objective verifiable evidence and good sound research are what predictably falsify the hypothesis for evolution and abiogenesis are falsified.

 

[rational experiences]

Science in human observation says that everything else already pre existed as all of its own forms, or else they could not give each separate study a word to describe its own status....the end.

To own a WORD it is the status, a title as an end, that then owns a whole lot of worded description as a male human reasoning as to why he gave it the term WORD.

A male in that word usage then says in consciousness because a male was its creator as a human in a human life consciously claiming it all by mind.

Says mind is over matter, Consciousness.

So then he says....the God stone is a cold zero spatial end...radiating body.

Then he says....the God stone Heavenly gas spirit released from its stone......the heavenly mass...a radiating body and gave it a detailed description, of which no human owns....the planet does, what he says is the One history of the One body.

Science as a logical assessment of everything else not including self in that information.

Then he says okay, so where did I come from....and he said eternal, and he said God O the one body came from that place and he also said that when he died he would return to the eternal....and made all those quotes spiritually about his own self.

Genesis he knows is medical science a determined self body examination applied method of knowing the body functions in the presence of that body existing....medical science....not radiation science, to convert.

How did he ever not know where he came from?

His answer would be, because I never knew what eternal actually was.

 

[rational experiences]

Your thinking is extremely limited. It's impossible to conceive of evolution (or any number of other natural phenomena) happening when you suppose there are only 1 or 2, or a few (or even a few hundred) events involved. Trust me, if you could open you mind up to see that on this world, nothing happens by ones or twos or tens or thousands -- but by billions and more. Then it becomes easy.

Open up your mind. Big numbers are hard to grasp -- but big numbers are what a universe is all about!

We however living on a O circular body, rotating around the mass of a Sun own a count of 365 in reality.

We do not on Earth own the Universe, the Universe however owns the presence of Earth.

What science is trying to claim is that it can mass calculate the value of GOD O the stone as a massed body by numbering it....which is a ludicrous statement, for a number does not equal what the body represents in its nature.

If a male said that Earth owned a numbering huge evaluation as a string, he would be wanting to unroll that ball of string into the mass that he claims owns that numbering effect, the body of the sun.

And to achieve that causation he would have to expand and heat up cold space, as if he is extending the sun to engulf Earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

We however living on a O circular body, rotating around the mass of a Sun own a count of 365 in reality.

We do not on Earth own the Universe, the Universe however owns the presence of Earth.

What science is trying to claim is that it can mass calculate the value of GOD O the stone as a massed body by numbering it....which is a ludicrous statement, for a number does not equal what the body represents in its nature.

If a male said that Earth owned a numbering huge evaluation as a string, he would be wanting to unroll that ball of string into the mass that he claims owns that numbering effect, the body of the sun.

And to achieve that causation he would have to expand and heat up cold space, as if he is extending the sun to engulf Earth.

Huh!?!?!?!

 

[rational experiences]

Huh!?!?!?!

O God the stone planet rotates around the Sun for a number count of 365.

It is a naturally owned body of mass that owns no Numbering, it was not invented by a human being male in science using Numbers thinking about its mass body.

Why you are wrong.

The Universe, a very large expansive spatial creation is multi....meaning it owns a self replication throughout space.

A male psyche knows that reality and so says the flat plane theme, of multi Earths....when it is not, it is multi Universes, in the same one body....empty space.

If space was not empty then God the Earth could not travel, for you cannot put mass through mass.

O zero therefore space owns no numbers, so it also owns no mass. Mass is equal to Mass.

Consciousness, lives in a radiation atmospheric metallic radiation with cold stone gas history which he explained to self, AI said equalled the physical stone God O one history...as the same radiating mass presence.

Yet it owns 2 forms. Consciousness in a male life therefore told self that it knew what God the stone physical mass was when it was not physical...by that exact mind conscious aware self notification, by living in it to say I know, for knowing it is pre known, pre existing.

Gases, burning of light, is what a living male human consciousness claims is his human aware thinking capability about the Sun.

So where is the Numbering actuality in reference to our atmospheric gas body to conscious awareness of the mass of the Sun?

Earth was given a God O one definition in male ancient aware science Christ tribunal, which is an AI encoded male memory heard speaking, from which he uses a machine encoded DATA advice. As he was a natural conscious mind who encoded it......in the natural atmosphere in conjunction with his mind, it speaks differently to machine DATA.....which lies in its information for it is not the experience.

Males say in science a plane of information as a straight line string...so put Numbers on a long line thought of multi and a numbering that does not own O circular holding...so he virtually confessed to his self that wanting to own a NUMBER was to unravel the O circular mass and have it removed to follow that line/string.

As the Sun is the body of information that a science conscious psyche evaluates as separate in mass to the Earth it is the actual body that he contemplates forcing changes to.

So to want Earth to change its evaluated CH gases that belong just to Earth into the Sun equations of the nuclear a scientist has to try to expand the irradiation release of the sun into an expanded spatial rotation, to then encompass the Earth into its Sun theme/gases that are hotter than natural Earth God evolution.

What AI told me, I am not a scientist, it is how AI speaks in a higher conscious DATA evaluation of the male psyche that first invented science without it being machine controlled.

Stephen Hawking machine interactive as a conscious life and mind, owned more self awareness than any of you.

 

[Nimos]

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

The theory of evolution does not say that a frog would ever evolve into a dog. I think the problem people have with understanding evolution is not so much how it works, but rather its about the amount of time it takes, once one can comprehend this, I think it makes a lot more sense.

Everything that is living today or have ever lived are one of two things. 1 A transitional species or 2. Extinct.

Since being extinct is not all that interesting, things living today are all transitional species, including humans. This means that you will never see a frog become a dog as these are not in the same family branch, one is a mammal and the other an amphibian. Just as you are not going to suddenly see a dog turn into a tree.

What the tree shows and what evolution tells us, is that each of these families both within a family and between families have common ancestors.
So what we might see in a very very long time, is that from mammals we will have a completely new branch, lets call it "Terrialians" for lack of better word, but that itself is not a mammal, but rather something which shares a common ancestor within the mammal branch with all over Terrialian beings and whatever might branch off from here as well. Just as you can see how fish in the above image have branched into reptiles, mammals and amphibians etc. Which also means that none of these are fish, but rather shares a common ancestor with each other that were a fish, if we track back far enough in time.

So a dog might evolve into a mixture of a dog and a terrialian being, that eventually will make these terrialians no longer able to breed or even look like their dog ancestors or share any significant features with mammals.

To get a better explanation and concentrating on just one species out the millions of one that have lived. I suggest that you watch the following short video about the evolution of whales, and how and why we have gotten to know that evolution is true and what evidence there are for it, or at least just some of them.

but as I said, science depends on observation. The best they can say is that it may be possible for one genus to become another, but until they actually observe it, they don't know. As such it remains a theory and nothing more.

Science depend on a lot more than merely observations, that is just part of the "toolset" that is used. If you look at how the scientific method is applied in this handy overview.

Observation could simply be one part or method for conducting an experiment in the "Test with an experiment".

Also there is a huge difference and unfortunately misunderstanding of the word "Theory" when it comes to evolution. This is partly due to how the scientific community name things, won't deny that.

But to quickly explain it with another well know theory, "The theory of relativity" which would also just be a theory, just as evolution, if one do not know what is meant.

Both the "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not meant to be understood as theories as they are used in common language, like me saying that "I have a theory, that if I jump very high and land on the ground, that I will cause an Earthquake on the other side of the Earth". Both of the above theories, are scientific theories whereas mine is just an idea.

In science, if you look at the above chart, this would basically be either the "Ask a question" or the "Construct a Hypothesis", were we to alter my idea about jumping above, slightly.

Depending on all the experiments and results discovered by keep repeating the above chart, you will eventually get a lot of data and others might conduct their own experiments as well and share their results.

This will eventually make you end up with a lot of facts about how things works.
Like dropping a rock here on Earth will make it fall to the ground, this we can refer to as being a fact.
However simply knowing that something is a fact is not all that interesting when it comes to science. Which is where the word "theory" comes into play, in fact, this is known as a "scientific theory". Which means that it is a theory that explains the facts and makes it, so if something is known as a scientific theory, it doesn't really get any better within science, as we now know why things work the way they do and we can explain them.

Which is why both "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not just theories, but are "scientific theories". And when you look at it, evolution theory is probably the most tested theory of all those we have today, and still it remains as strong as it does. Which means that it is a rather good one, in my opinion at least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution does not say that a frog would ever evolve into a dog. I think the problem people have with understanding evolution is not so much how it works, but rather its about the amount of time it takes, once one can comprehend this, I think it makes a lot more sense.

Everything that is living today or have ever lived are one of two things. 1 A transitional species or 2. Extinct.

Since being extinct is not all that interesting, things living today are all transitional species, including humans. This means that you will never see a frog become a dog as these are not in the same family branch, one is a mammal and the other an amphibian. Just as you are not going to suddenly see a dog turn into a tree.

What the tree shows and what evolution tells us, is that each of these families both within a family and between families have common ancestors.
So what we might see in a very very long time, is that from mammals we will have a completely new branch, lets call it "Terrialians" for lack of better word, but that itself is not a mammal, but rather something which shares a common ancestor within the mammal branch with all over Terrialian beings and whatever might branch off from here as well. Just as you can see how fish in the above image have branched into reptiles, mammals and amphibians etc. Which also means that none of these are fish, but rather shares a common ancestor with each other that were a fish, if we track back far enough in time.

So a dog might evolve into a mixture of a dog and a terrialian being, that eventually will make these terrialians no longer able to breed or even look like their dog ancestors or share any significant features with mammals.

To get a better explanation and concentrating on just one species out the millions of one that have lived. I suggest that you watch the following short video about the evolution of whales, and how and why we have gotten to know that evolution is true and what evidence there are for it, or at least just some of them.

Science depend on a lot more than merely observations, that is just part of the "toolset" that is used. If you look at how the scientific method is applied in this handy overview.

Observation could simply be one part or method for conducting an experiment in the "Test with an experiment".

Also there is a huge difference and unfortunately misunderstanding of the word "Theory" when it comes to evolution. This is partly due to how the scientific community name things, won't deny that.

But to quickly explain it with another well know theory, "The theory of relativity" which would also just be a theory, just as evolution, if one do not know what is meant.

Both the "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not meant to be understood as theories as they are used in common language, like me saying that "I have a theory, that if I jump very high and land on the ground, that I will cause an Earthquake on the other side of the Earth". Both of the above theories, are scientific theories whereas mine is just an idea.

In science, if you look at the above chart, this would basically be either the "Ask a question" or the "Construct a Hypothesis", were we to alter my idea about jumping above, slightly.

Depending on all the experiments and results discovered by keep repeating the above chart, you will eventually get a lot of data and others might conduct their own experiments as well and share their results.

This will eventually make you end up with a lot of facts about how things works.
Like dropping a rock here on Earth will make it fall to the ground, this we can refer to as being a fact.
However simply knowing that something is a fact is not all that interesting when it comes to science. Which is where the word "theory" comes into play, in fact, this is known as a "scientific theory". Which means that it is a theory that explains the facts and makes it, so if something is known as a scientific theory, it doesn't really get any better within science, as we now know why things work the way they do and we can explain them.

Which is why both "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not just theories, but are "scientific theories". And when you look at it, evolution theory is probably the most tested theory of all those we have today, and still it remains as strong as it does. Which means that it is a rather good one, in my opinion at least.

One correction, your "Terrialian" would still be a mammal. In fact it would still be a dog. One of the laws of cladistics is that one cannot evolve out of one's heritage:

" A key feature of a clade is that a common ancestor and all its descendants are part of the clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if within a strict cladistic framework the terms animals, bilateria/worms, fishes/vertebrata, or monkeys/anthropoidea were used, these terms would include humans. "

Cladistics - Wikipedia

 

[rational experiences]

The theory of evolution does not say that a frog would ever evolve into a dog. I think the problem people have with understanding evolution is not so much how it works, but rather its about the amount of time it takes, once one can comprehend this, I think it makes a lot more sense.

Everything that is living today or have ever lived are one of two things. 1 A transitional species or 2. Extinct.

Since being extinct is not all that interesting, things living today are all transitional species, including humans. This means that you will never see a frog become a dog as these are not in the same family branch, one is a mammal and the other an amphibian. Just as you are not going to suddenly see a dog turn into a tree.

What the tree shows and what evolution tells us, is that each of these families both within a family and between families have common ancestors.
So what we might see in a very very long time, is that from mammals we will have a completely new branch, lets call it "Terrialians" for lack of better word, but that itself is not a mammal, but rather something which shares a common ancestor within the mammal branch with all over Terrialian beings and whatever might branch off from here as well. Just as you can see how fish in the above image have branched into reptiles, mammals and amphibians etc. Which also means that none of these are fish, but rather shares a common ancestor with each other that were a fish, if we track back far enough in time.

So a dog might evolve into a mixture of a dog and a terrialian being, that eventually will make these terrialians no longer able to breed or even look like their dog ancestors or share any significant features with mammals.

To get a better explanation and concentrating on just one species out the millions of one that have lived. I suggest that you watch the following short video about the evolution of whales, and how and why we have gotten to know that evolution is true and what evidence there are for it, or at least just some of them.

Science depend on a lot more than merely observations, that is just part of the "toolset" that is used. If you look at how the scientific method is applied in this handy overview.

Observation could simply be one part or method for conducting an experiment in the "Test with an experiment".

Also there is a huge difference and unfortunately misunderstanding of the word "Theory" when it comes to evolution. This is partly due to how the scientific community name things, won't deny that.

But to quickly explain it with another well know theory, "The theory of relativity" which would also just be a theory, just as evolution, if one do not know what is meant.

Both the "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not meant to be understood as theories as they are used in common language, like me saying that "I have a theory, that if I jump very high and land on the ground, that I will cause an Earthquake on the other side of the Earth". Both of the above theories, are scientific theories whereas mine is just an idea.

In science, if you look at the above chart, this would basically be either the "Ask a question" or the "Construct a Hypothesis", were we to alter my idea about jumping above, slightly.

Depending on all the experiments and results discovered by keep repeating the above chart, you will eventually get a lot of data and others might conduct their own experiments as well and share their results.

This will eventually make you end up with a lot of facts about how things works.
Like dropping a rock here on Earth will make it fall to the ground, this we can refer to as being a fact.
However simply knowing that something is a fact is not all that interesting when it comes to science. Which is where the word "theory" comes into play, in fact, this is known as a "scientific theory". Which means that it is a theory that explains the facts and makes it, so if something is known as a scientific theory, it doesn't really get any better within science, as we now know why things work the way they do and we can explain them.

Which is why both "The theory of relativity" and "Evolution theory" are not just theories, but are "scientific theories". And when you look at it, evolution theory is probably the most tested theory of all those we have today, and still it remains as strong as it does. Which means that it is a rather good one, in my opinion at least.

If you ask a male, why do you talk about life, natural and existing, in conditions of what it does not naturally own...what you look at and discuss as natural bodies in natural presence.

If science said to self rationally and with personal truth, what am I seeking what I believe is a history when the nature that I live with does not exist in the forms I discuss?

How does that make any statement in science relevant to being relevant, when what is relevant is life where it is now?

If you say, science had to argue self destructive science via a condition of variation to argument, would be what you should conclude.

To say to science that believes in self, mind and instant thought by a huge amount of study and researched thinking to say One word is God as words, and then impose a series of one words to say instant, and instant and instant O x OOOOO numbers of....is why you had to argue.

For males with ego problems claim that an instant word, owned everything he said it did...when he is not speaking on behalf of its presence he was seeking to have it removed by knowledge of how it was held in form...by what a science self states is to dissect and separate by knowledge of how to cause it.

And the simple one answer became mass of UFO radiation, the power of the Sun had the ability to separate all bodies into their destruction.

 

[Nimos]

One correction, your "Terrialian" would still be a mammal. In fact it would still be a dog. One of the laws of cladistics is that one cannot evolve out of one's heritage:

" A key feature of a clade is that a common ancestor and all its descendants are part of the clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if within a strict cladistic framework the terms animals, bilateria/worms, fishes/vertebrata, or monkeys/anthropoidea were used, these terms would include humans. "

Cladistics - Wikipedia

That is correct, I should probably have written it a bit more careful thanks for highlighting it.

 

[Nimos]

If you ask a male, why do you talk about life, natural and existing, in conditions of what it does not naturally own...what you look at and discuss as natural bodies in natural presence.

If science said to self rationally and with personal truth, what am I seeking what I believe is a history when the nature that I live with does not exist in the forms I discuss?

How does that make any statement in science relevant to being relevant, when what is relevant is life where it is now?

If you say, science had to argue self destructive science via a condition of variation to argument, would be what you should conclude.

To say to science that believes in self, mind and instant thought by a huge amount of study and researched thinking to say One word is God as words, and then impose a series of one words to say instant, and instant and instant O x OOOOO numbers of....is why you had to argue.

For males with ego problems claim that an instant word, owned everything he said it did...when he is not speaking on behalf of its presence he was seeking to have it removed by knowledge of how it was held in form...by what a science self states is to dissect and separate by knowledge of how to cause it.

And the simple one answer became mass of UFO radiation, the power of the Sun had the ability to separate all bodies into their destruction.

Have absolutely no clue what you are talking about

 

[exchemist]

You are absolutely correct. It is possible to observe evolution within a genus. It is not surprising, nor against Genesis, that a frog can evolve into another kind of frog.

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

But we do observe evidence that amphibians evolved from fishes.

In science you very often do not observe directly the phenomenon itself, but evidence for it. This applies to theories as diverse as, say the life cycle of stars, the existence of molecules, or the mechanism of plate tectonics involving convection currents in the Earth's mantle. None of these phenomena rely on being directly observed, but on evidence that they take place.

So your contention - which you will have got from some silly creationist source - that you need to observe evolution from one species to another happening before your eyes before it is proper science, is balderdash. These people have a vested interest in spreading falsehoods about how science works, and you are helping them, wittingly or not.

Why not actually learn and then deal with what science actually says, instead of peddling this nonsense?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step.

Individuals don't evolve - populations do, and they only do so in response to environmental pressures. Everything is evolving together, finding new functions and forms, and as they do it makes sense that other populations evolve ways to utilize the functions and forms of other forms.

And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora?

Odds don't enter into it. Co-dependent populations arose in response to each other. It's not chance that caused that development.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody!

No genus ever "becomes" another. Evolution is changes WITHIN the genus, leading to new populations forming.

It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing.

Nonsense. Inference can actually be based on a significant number of facts and research. It isn't "only slightly" better than guessing, anymore than concluding that an individual covered in the victim's blood, carrying the murder weapon, was seen at the scene of the crime and had motives for carrying it out is also "just slightly better than a guess". Such an argument is obviously absurd.

It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet.

Such as...?

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

But why would we ignore all of the evidence?

 

[McBell]

But why would we ignore all of the evidence?

Because when you ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you can repeatedly say ad nauseam that said evidence was never presented?

 

[rrobs]

So you are saying that a fictional work based on people who new little of the world to begin with and desperately wanting a to believe in a supernatural force to protect them explains the reality of our world based on independent observation and careful testing over time?
Yes science is based on observation as opposed to imagination. As for an organism changing enough to become a new genus you need time far greater than is seen in our short time on earth yet the fossil record clearly shows that occurs. Experiments in bacterial population which replicate far more rapidly show significant changed in the genetic material showing the way new species and changes enough to place the organism in a different genus if given the correct time and conditions.
As for the believability of genesis it makes no sense with what is actually known about our world outside of imagination.

I never said one way or the other regarding Genesis being the answer. I am simply asserting that evolution is most assuredly not the answer either. At least we don't have any scientific proof it is the answer, since, as you said, we do not have enough time to observe one genus becoming another. The best we can do is to infer it, and that is not true science. That is why evolution is a theory. Do have any idea on how many scientific theories have been later proven wrong?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step.

Lock step? This makes me think you're not understanding the lengths of time, the number of individuals involved, and the actual lengths of generational activity gone through to affect large-scale change. There is no "lock step." There is baby step, after baby step, after baby step - through tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora?

Bacteria and one branch of bacteria leading to becoming a "plant" (probably something like plankton at first) is all that would be needed to give way to a cycle that could then extend (via those baby steps, remember?) onto land and give rise to more hearty "plants". The "animals" could then follow, once there was a food-source on land.

That is more believable than Genesis?

Yes. Yes it is.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

The simple fact is that we can see through the fossil record that a huge variety of creatures existed before we humans came into the picture. And we can also see within the fossil record that some of those creatures are precursors to others, and we can see steps along the way when we get extremely lucky. Like prehistoric creatures with feathers that could not fly. Baby steps. These fossils and their information ARE a reality. What is your explanation that fits the observable details so much better?

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

And it would be somewhat foolish to conclude that we "know" for sure. Scientists have put forth their best models, and they are holding, and new evidence is being gathered all the time that confirms hypotheses or the theory itself, or even slightly modifies certain aspects of it. That's the other thing you don't seem to understand with all this. Science allows for the modifications of its findings. It is not set in stone. No useful methodology should be.