Whereas evolution is undeniably scientific fact, it seems that abiogenesis rests on far shakier grounds. That is to say, whereas we have some reason to suspect that the hypothesis is true (the amino acid experiment) we have little else to demonstrate it's truth. No lifeform has ever been observed to develop out of experiment "primordial soups", no complex molecules aside from the aforementioned amino acids (and not even all of them) have been shown to develop in laboratory conditions mimicing early Earth, there is no fossil or other data to show what the earliest lifeforms looked like, et cetera, et cetera...
In essence, whereas it would explain many things, it also seems to have essentially no solid proof, and only the most shakiest of circumstantial evidence.
Or perhaps I am not taking into consideration some new evidence?
In essence, whereas it would explain many things, it also seems to have essentially no solid proof, and only the most shakiest of circumstantial evidence.
Or perhaps I am not taking into consideration some new evidence?