Well, 'explode' is a bit of a misnomer, as you seem to understand or you wouldn't have put it in quotes. The Cretaceous extinction event wiped out about 75% of species if I'm remembering things correctly, including a lot of mammals, and it isn't until about 10 million years later that a really diverse mammal population shows up in the fossil record. Something that takes 10 million years isn't really much of an explosion, it's just that it's pretty fast in terms of the geological time scale. Every major extinction event--and we know of at least five--shows similarly fairly rapid recoveries of diversity. Life's pretty tenacious.
But we're getting a long way from Adam and Eve's children here...
In the 10 million years before the near extinction event how how many new species compared to the end of the 10 million after the extinction event? If the one after had a greater number and that number was similar yet somewhat greater that is an increase, if it is in the 1,000's or higher then that is an explosion.
If you want to take this exercise as being hypothetical that's fine, that lets you contribute. If you want to prove the Bible before going on with the exercise then we are back at the banker question. Did God's system of banking work to the advantage of all, while our system is geared to having a small elite and a mass of unfortunates? That would seem to make God smarter than we are today. (unless the mass majority are poor because they demand to be) In the recover phase it would have taken the same route the earth has always used when recovering, moisture, a seed, a plant, (small life), a tree (larger life and birds move into their new home). In terms of speed it can almost be said it is an aggressive recovery, Mt. St. Helen recovered much faster than what was originally forecast. How long before the land recovered from that last great flood of the Mississippi River. A spring flood and by that fall everything would be green again (not saying it was the crops the people wanted, they might have called the plants weeds but it was most likely food for somebody.
MHz ol' chap, none of that means anything because your premises are false. The Bible's not an accurate record of events. There was no flood, except perhaps locally, the generations of man as given in Genesis are not correct, there was no Adam and Eve, there are no angels, fallen or otherwise. You're operating from false information.
For this exercise it only has to be used to fill in a set of parameters. If you want to use modern data then a study should be to closely monitor the mutations DU causes
in babies. Course most of them will never reproduce so they can't become a new species but they would certainly seem to have started down a path that could lead to new species.
You don't believe in angels, we can get around that by hypothetically thinking ahead till our science could do those things. Take a normal baby and turn it into a giant, some as tall as any drawing that exists in Egypt today. 20ft would not be beyond the possibilities. No species change just better living through chemistry, not just one giant a race that filled the earth.
Now if we spliced our genes (men) with a lower level of primate would the 'children' be a separate species? In Scripture that would be fallen angels and daughters of Eve.
Given enough time if the desire was to create hybrids of man and beast it could probably be done.
Is Eve a twin (genetically) or a clone? The male/female difference would have me voting for twin. What would happen if cloned sheep had off-spring?
