chinglu
How about the logic that the Miller experiment was a CHEMISTRY experiment, not a BIOLOGY experiment. It started with chemicals and ended with chemicals, not life. That they were the precursor chemicals needed to assemble proteins makes no difference, those precursor chemical were still dead, lifeless and therefore not in the purview of evolution but within that of chemistry and abiogenesis. You are dead wrong again.
Don't need to, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution just like building a car has nothing to do with driving a car.
Actually,
we know that to be true.
There are no certainties in Nature, there are only probabilities. Statistics do not act on anything, they are observations. TRAITS are acted on by Natural Selection and STATISTICALLY, certain traits give better survival for the organism, giving it a STATISTICALLY better chances to reproduce which STATISTICALLY means those traits will become more common in the genome.
An example is a moth that has both a light color and a darker color in it's genome. One is easier to see by birds that eat moths(let's say the lighter shaded one), the birds eat more of the lighter shaded moth simply because it sees more of them so the lighter shaded moth has a statistically smaller chance to reproduce so that more moths are born with the darker shaded gene, less with the lighter shaded gene. The darker shade is thus selected for by Nature, IE Natural Selection.
The TOE is unaffected by whatever is found out about abiogenesis, that is just a fact. But both abiogenesis and evolution follow the physical laws of the Universe, as does every other event in the Universe. Your saying the car didn't run over you because it started it's trip in Dallas instead of in San Antonio as the driver claimed. It makes no difference to the fact you were run over. So, even if your claims about abiogenesis are true(not likely at all), it changes nothing about the
fact that evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, and would change nothing about what we know of evolution, nor the theories we test based on those facts.
Gods and demons are magic, Nature is not. The theory of Evolution is based on Natural laws, observations of Nature and logic, not magical creatures crying "Shazam".
I don't, why do you? Your magical deity cannot be found and he doesn't appear to do anything, yet here you are arguing that magic created life. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Grumpy