Proponents argue it's "proven" and a "fact" ... but how can evolution evolve from theory to fact when evolution ignores this simple fact: Evolution does not explain how the very first cell, or whatever you choose to call it, changed its state from Not Alive to Alive.
Evolutionists already have an answer for that challenge, however, and argue that evolution isn't required to explain how life began, only how life changes ... especially to "evolve" new species, according to natural selection and genetic drift.
That's why evolution can skip past "How'd life start?" and still land at a gallop, explaining that human beings are the leaves dangling from the chimpanzee twigs of the primate branch extending from the vertebrate limb of Mr. Darwin's magic tree.
Evolution argues God's not necessary, and that DNA sequencing and the fossil record are proof. But proof of what ... if they don't know where DNA came from in the first place?
Why can't evolutionists refer back to pre-historic mud pies and mutations, do themselves a favor, and cast genetic runes to explain how life began?
Why can't evolutionists refer back to pre-historic mud pies and mutations, do themselves a favor, and cast genetic runes to explain how life began?
Because (a) that's not in their job description; and (b) the answer lies above their pay grade.
