I was told by a friend of a friend that because I am skeptical about "particles to people" evolution, that I must submit a viable scientific paradigm that replaces the Darwinian paradigm of evolution. But surely this is not the case? Just because I am skeptical about something, that does not mean that I must assert a position to the contrary of that which I am skeptical. For example, I may have my doubts about the alleged Alligator that lives in Lake Hickory, but that does not require me to prove that it surely isn't there. How could I check every nook and cranny of the lake in the first place? But it just seems reasonable that alligators don't live in North Carolina lakes just down from the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains.
Why am I skeptical about "particles to people" evolution? Well, because it seems odd to say that literally all of life came from a single-celled organism. That means pine trees, wheat, gnats, people, camels and strawberries all came from this one organism. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about that. Don't you?
Besides the oddity of the first idea, there is the problem of genetic information. If the neo-Darwinian theory is correct, then that means that either a) all of the information was "kept" in the first, single-celled organism, or b) new information arose at a certain point during genetic mutation that accounts for all of life as we know it. But genetic mutation isn't new information. "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene," (U.S. National Library of Medicine: Genetics Home Reference). It is true that some genes mutate and combine with other genes to make new ones, but new information is not created here. Mutations are changes in a gene's sequence, not the production of new information in the DNA.
Now, when skeptics like me ask these questions, the questions are tossed aside, and I am told I am a "creationist." Well, I'm just asking reasonable questions.