Just this part for now:
Peg writes:
Darwin's 'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' is still widely accepted as fact, yet there is no evidence of a simple beginning.
Not again Peg. Once more then: Beginnings have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They aren't even mentioned in the theory.
Im saying this because some theories ARE proved wrong, or are perported to be factual before the evidence has been presented. If it turns out that there could not have been a primordial soup which caused life to exist, then the theory of evolution will need to revised too. It will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link.
Could you explain how abiogenesis is crucial to descent with modification?
I just dont think its fair to teach something that cannot be proved yet.
They're not.
and I know you'll say that evolution does not require abiogensis, but it does when we are told that humans came from apes and all species are related.
No it doesn't. God could've poofed our "ancestor-apes" into existence, and all evidence then still points to us being descended of them. No abiogenesis required.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
™ Version 4.2
