When you make a claim, then please explain. That's what logical people are.

OP, dontenthursday, I accept your point fully. Do you have the intellectual honesty to accept your own point as well?

dontenthursday, in your argument you present a number of implicit and explicit claims:

• God exists; specifically the God יהוה/YHWH/Yahweh, the God of the Bible
• God, with cognitive purpose, either created humans and/or guided evolution (theistic evolution) (OP, you are unclear in your assertions), to give, or modify, specific human attributes (e.g., superior intelligence).
• The Bible contains credible evidence to support the actualizations of the claimed God
• Adam and Eve are literal and not just allegorical story figures
• The Garden of Eden, as well as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Genesis 3 talking serpent tale is literal with someone available to record narratives as a first person witness.

dontenthursday, can you/will you support your positive claim position(s), present an argument(s) and meet the burden of proof to support your claim(s), and then defend your argument(s) against refutation/criticism? And will you agree to follow some simple debate rules? If the argument fails for lack of credible evidence or supportable argument, and/or for logical fallacies, then the person making the argument never brings up that argument again with anyone. Ever. Additionally the person making the argument must demonstrate that they actually understand the argument(s) being presented - a copy/paste of an argument from someone else is intellectually dishonest if the presenter does not understand it. The definition of words commonly misunderstood, like "theory," will use Wikipedia definitions unless otherwise explicitly stated. Consider these Debate Rules as applicable to all parties when presenting your argument/post. Finally, be aware of these common logical fallacies when presenting your argument/claim/assertion as the use of these fallacies will significantly reduce or negate the credibility of your argument.

• The difference between a claim/assertion and credible evidence or supportable argument
• Circular reasoning. (e.g., The claims made in the Bible/Qur'an (or any "Holy Book") are true because the Bible/Qur'an says so based upon the authority of the Bible/Qur'an which says the Bible/Qur'an is the authority.)
• Begging the question
• Special pleading
• Argument from ignorance
• Religious Faith that reduces to the conceit of subjective emotions/feelings/wishful thinking/"I know in my heart of hearts that this thing is true" as having a truth/fact value
• Presumption/presuppositionalism

I look forward to your response. If you present a credible and supportable position, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality, to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above that of an appeal to emotion, I will consider your message and adjust my religious related worldview accordingly.

If you fail to present a credible and supportable position, then any and all argument(s) that you make that are dependent or contingent upon the above claim(s) will summarily be rejected for lack of foundation, as applicable.

Another claim by dontenthursday:

With animals and vegetation, there is balance. Food chain, bacteria > carnivores > herbivores > vegetation > bacteria and the cycle just repeats itself. There is no abuse, there is no overkill.With animals and vegetation, there is balance. Food chain, bacteria > carnivores > herbivores > vegetation > bacteria and the cycle just repeats itself. There is no abuse, there is no overkill.

General article: Amazing Mass Grave of Prehistoric Whales – Algal Bloom Toxins the Probable Cause

Source research study: Pyenson, Nicholas D., et al. "Repeated mass strandings of Miocene marine mammals from Atacama Region of Chile point to sudden death at sea." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281.1781 (2014): 20133316, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3316

Non-balance of nature resulted in runaway algal population producing algal blooms that resulted in a massive kill-off of marine animals in the range of 9.03–6.45 M-years ago (long before homo sapiens entered the fossil record).

OP, your claim has been falsified. Please feel free to refute the fossil record, the determination of the time period given, the process of fossilization, the species identified, the evidence showing non-balance of nature (algal blooms) as the causal agent of a mass marine creature die off.

Even more claims:

How, and why does this "last form of evolution" do such thing? In all perfection evolution did?

Why do you assume that humans are the "last form of evolution" in this current hominid evolution line? Is this just your projection, based in conceit, that humans are the end all or "last form"? Or do you have special pleading knowledge of an extinction level event for homo sapiens? Or do you fail to recognize that current homo sapiens are, in fact, a transition species?

Also, what is the basis for your claim that evolution results in perfection? It is as if you have no actual knowledge of Evolutionary Theory.

And yet another claim:

Humans, they are solid proof why "evolution" is false.

dontenthursday, with your claim/premise that humans are the causal agents for imbalance in nature falsified, what else to you have to support the above claim? If you claim a God/Divine causal agent as proof, be prepared to meet the burden of proof (though feel free to start with the claims already inherent within your post).

Just a reminder:

When you make a claim, then please explain. That's what logical people are.