Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is that how were going to play it? You have absolutely no idea how long it would take any number of animals to repopulate the earth, that is something that has never been observed, so you're not even talking science right now.

A couple of scientific papers calculating minimum viable population size ...

Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates

DETERMINING MINIMUM VIABLE POPULATION SIZES FOR THE GRIZZLY BEAR

Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility

Citation required.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original),

There is a difference between a digital and an analogue copy. Copying an analogue tape or photograph means that noise builds upon noise as the signal degrades. Your computer on the other hand will make perfect copies each time no matter how many times it happens if no errors occur. But any errors that occur will be localised. Genetic reproduction is more akin to the latter than the former with errors being mutations. The theory of evolution accounts for the role of mutations over time. This is how new information enters a population. Most mutations are deleterious and die off. Some mutations are neutral and open up a new area of search space, while other mutations are beneficial and are more likely to be passed onto off-spring.

---

Starting at 3:22 of the above video.

Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

So?