New Questions--moral perspective

"Now, let's talk about the Miller Experiment (if you think that I brought this up as a plan-B because I might be worried that you are cornering me with your meaningless discussion, you're wrong. I merely brought it up because I brought it up earlier and you ignored it). After all, if Darwinian evolution is to prevail, it has to be proven and demonstrated that life can arise from nonliving matter without the aide of intelligent intervention."While the discussion of the theories related to abiogenesis is a perfectly acceptable topic of discussion, it is important to note that it is not part of evolutionary theory. Also, evolotuionary theory doesn't require abiogensis to succeed as a theory. For example, there is no conlusive evidence for what caused the big bang, however the formation of stars, galaxies, etc and their proccess are well known and scientifically valid. In the discussion of evolution, the generation of life has no bearing on the evidence or theories of evolution.

Matter isn't living or non-living. The hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc that compose living tissue is identical to those types of atoms in non-living objects. Life can be reduced to chemical reactions.
The early atmosphere is theorized to have little free oxygen. The majority of atmospheric oxygen is the waste product of photosynthesis.The very reactivity of free oxygen requires a way of releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere to maitain O2 levels.That aside, evolutionay proccess doesn't care wether life was generated by abiogenis, god, pink space bunnies, green aliens, etc. The fossil and genetic evidence is what supports the ToE. Abiogenesis is an intersting topic, but as I previously said, the theory of evolution doesn't require or deal with abiogensis.