Peg writes:
If there is no evidence for how evolution began, then there is no evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.
The origin of life and its subsequent evolution are two entirely different matters. As Mr Jack said: none of the evidence for evolution depends on how the origin of life occurred.
Wikipedia writes:
Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller—Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth.
Peg writes:
what children need to be taught is that scientists HAVE ATTEMPTED these things and failed again and again and again and again...and why have they failed?
because its impossible for non living things to come to life. If all children are taught that in science class, i'll be happpy.
The failure of science to completely explain something (in this case abiogenesis) is not ample reason to leap to the conclusion that no rational explanation exists, and that there must have been a supernatural cause. There are plenty of ideas about the origin of self-replicating organisms, and some scientists believe that the emergence of self-replicating entities is inevitable.
Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker writes:
"What is the vital ingredient that a dead planet like the early Earth must have, if it is to have a chance of eventually coming alive, as our planet did? It is not breath, not wind, not any kind of elixir or potion. It is not a substance at all, it is a
property, the property of self-replication. This is the basic ingredient of cumulative selection. There must somehow, as a consequence of the ordinary laws of physics, come into being
self-copying entities..."
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
™ Version 4.2