A better theory of evolution should be able to interface abiogenesis, with biological evolution and with the evolution of human consciousness, since this range is all about life. If a theory can only do one of the three, how do you know that theory reflects reality?
Here is an analogy. We will break the growth of a tree down into three stages of its life. We will then treat each stage as though it is independent of the other two stages and call that the best theory possible. I see that approach as flawed or at least over simplified.
Maybe those who like evolution, as is, can explain the logical assumptions behind dissociating that theory from the two bookends of life, that came before and after the evolutionary theory.
Here is an analogy. We will break the growth of a tree down into three stages of its life. We will then treat each stage as though it is independent of the other two stages and call that the best theory possible. I see that approach as flawed or at least over simplified.
Maybe those who like evolution, as is, can explain the logical assumptions behind dissociating that theory from the two bookends of life, that came before and after the evolutionary theory.