The creature that evolved from bacteria should evolve from bacteria in lab experiments, then.
One species evolving into another takes millions (yes, with an "m") of years most of the time. At best, hundreds of thousands of years. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, in, at best, 1809, assuming he proposed it the year he was born. That means we've known about evolution for 205 years at best. 205<<100,000. However, even time is not the issue. Evolution has been proven. Creationists just can't accept it. To deny that one species can turn into another is to deny that 1+1=2, which itself has also been proven (seriously; Google it, though I doubt you can understand it). They also demand impossible things from science, as if that made their beliefs any more true.
It would be hard to say.
It seems you're not familiar with the phrase "in addition". It doesn't mean "feel free to ignore everything before it". It means "I have said some things, so here's another one". Reply to my comment regarding YHWH and clay or admit your question was idiotic. Also, if you don't know, just say so. Don't go off on a tangent in a futile attempt to protect your false faith. My guess? You already know what you believe is false, but are trying to ignore the proof.
Is it possible that a brand new species will evolve from humans? if so, what do you think it might be and how might that happen?
Or will humans be like crocodiles and remain humans for millions of years?
Define "humans". Seriously. What genetic differentiation would be enough for you
to consider "humans" an entirely different species?
I'm not sure if the "odds argument" is the best one to use. For example, the odds of life forming on its own have been calculated to be a number of a much higher magnitude than the one you posted here.
I actually did calculate the odds of life and how many planets in the Universe we should expect to contain life. Well, to be more precise, I calculated how many planets with something we should expect, given very low odds. I assumed 1/one quintillion (0.0000000000000001%) for the odds of life, and then calculated the number of planets, using the average galaxy as an example. Of those, I assumed only 1% were in the "habitable zone", which allows for life as we know it. However, using our solar system as a standard, that number is actually closer to 12.5%. I am already assuming much lower odds than what I should be.
The number of planets with those conditions? About 8.9*10^19, or 890,000,000,000,000,000,000. Yes, you heard that right. The number of planets that are habitable, assuming terrible odds, is still much larger than the odds of life spontaneously appearing. Now, if you multiply 8.9^19 by 1*10^-18, you get a grand total of 89,000 planets. I'll say that again: 89 thousand
planets where we should expect to find life.
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again. Theists whose beliefs are contradicted by science (that is, when they believe
their beliefs are being contradicted by facts) just tend to be slower than the rest of humanity when it comes to accepting new information.
yet, atheists believe it happened on its own.
Every single atheist in history believes this? Really? Even now, at this very second, not all atheists believe this. Hell, we might have a few of those on this very forum.
The only thing every single atheist in history (per the current definition of the term) had in common was the lack of belief in deities. To assume anything else is stupid.