Hi, I'm GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN. I started this thread with the basic idea to have a debate over whether theroies of evolution, the dawn of life and others are true, fact, lies or rumors. I will ask if you would follow ALL of the rules provided by SaRuMaN and follow them to the last letter. I want NO breaking of the rules and I also want sources sited and no baiting, or calling names. I did it and I have been banned from chat, so think on. I hope you enjoy doing this and it will be an experience for us all.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I believe evolution is a conscious change that occurs during an animals life and upbringing, not birth/conception. Just like how skin is designed to callous over, I believe all living things bodies are designed to change depending on how that specific animal lives and acts.

Technically, the evolution theory explains the chicken and egg question, as I posted on my profile, according to theories, life began by bacteria forming over the earth which then evolved into sea creatures which EVENTUALLY evolved into land animals, then mammals, therefore, the chicken was created by evolution, according to the theory anyway.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN


P.S Anyone who wants to, and I'm not forcing the matter, can add evidence to back up their claims, or theories, but don't forget to site the scources everytime no matter how small the quote of the scource is

I was referring to evolution in the form of adaptation mainly. I have no idea how life started, and I think it will be a long time before we know with 100% certainty.

I agree, but I also agree with your point on adaption. If you left a human in conditions such as the south pole, like a human from egypt, and he reproduced while there, his line of children will continually be more and more adapted towards the southern pole conditions. But also, evolution in the way of DNA changing, causing mutations and so forth.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I believe that DNA is an adapting molecule of ‘design’ properties…as opposed to a molecule with ‘pattern’ properties. Hence, I’m swayed that a creator’s hand has played a part in its origin.

No naturally occurring molecule possesses the properties of information. We have yet to discover a naturalistic process that produces information…nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

My personal view…I believe language comes from the mind.

That's a concept known as Lamarckian evolution, and it's false. An individual might develop roughened skin during it's lifetime due to the environment, but that won't be passed down to the offspring. What actually happens is, if we pretend that roughened skin was for some reason beneficial, you'd have a population of animals and the ones with the roughest skin would have an advantage over others, they'd out compete the ones without rough skin and soon they'll be the only ones left.

That's why I referred to my opinion of adaptive evolution as a conscious change. Kind of like mind over matter, when a living thing becomes aware of a more efficient form or way of doing things, it changes. For all we know males might be capable of subconsciously mutating their half of the dna to specifically fit the environment they live in. I"m probably wrong, but it's what makes the most sense to me.

I think that adapting isn't really mutating the genome or dna, more like slowly being able to withstand harsh environments. On wikipedia, it states that:

An adaptation is a positive characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection.[1] The concept is central to biology, particularly in evolutionary biology.

Something you have to get used to in the enviroment.Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment is known as adaptation. [Source: Oxford Dictionary of Science]

Adaptation is the change in living organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptations can be structural, behavioral or physiological. Structural adaptations are special body parts of an organism that help it to survive in its natural habitat (e.g., skin colour, shape, body covering). Behavioural adaptations are special ways a particular organism behaves to survive in its natural habitat. Physiological adaptations are systems present in an organism that allow it to perform certain biochemical reactions (e.g., making venom, secreting slime, being able to keep a constant body temperature).

Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection. The underlying genetic basis for the adaptive trait did not arise as a consequence of the environment; the genetic variant pre-existed and was subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage. The first experimental evidence of the pre-existing nature of genetic variants was provided by Luria and Delbrück who developed fluctuation analysis, a method to show the random fluctuation of pre-exisitng genetic changes that conferred resistance to antibiotics by the bacterium Escherichia coli

While many traits have obvious adaptive purposes, it is worthwhile to point out that many traits are not adaptive, that is, there is no obvious reason scientists can divine for the presence of a certain trait. This situation is common and there are many causes: the utility of a trait is lost and hence does not now appear adaptive, the utility of a trait is unknown, the trait is a consequence of another trait that is adaptive (the Spandrel idea). This observation underscores two other important points: genetic variants arise randomly and hence traits can appear randomly and that because the environment for all living things is constantly in flux, the utility of adaptations will naturally ebb and flow.

Organisms that are not suitably adapted to their environment will either have to move out of the habitat or die out. The term die out in the context of adaptation simply means that the death rate over the entire species (population, gene pool ...) exceeds the birth rate for a long enough period for the species to disappear; due to individual phenotypic plasticity, individuals will be more or less successful. The opposite is selection which in this context means that the birth rate of those carrying the adaptive trait and the hence the underlying genetic variant exceeds over time the birth rate of those that do not carry the adaptive trait. Therefore, those that cannot adapt becomes extinct, like dinosaurs, which therefore gives another theory of how dinosaurs died out, the world changed and they couldn't keep up.

Heres the link if you want to read on: Wikipedia: Evolution

Evolution is a highly misunderstood theory... And even word!

I don't have the time for anyone who doesn't understand it's most simplistic notions and even less for those who claim to understand but deny it. I am sick of hearing "we didn't evolve from monkeys lol!!! why aren't all the monkeys peopel then????"

I, despite my avatar, do not follow it's every word as fact. It's there more to piss people off, because I am a jerk.

Evolutionary theory has some huge holes in it, that a lot of followes don't seem to know about or even want to acknowledge. And those people are just are ignorant as those who deny Evolution all together... And the people who think evolution means monkeys turned into people. Evolution is a theory. Too many people forget that.

So is gravity.

About evolution, an example of Human adaptation over a long period of time would be the Moken people of South-East Asia. They have twice the visual acuity of European people due to the amount of time they spend diving for food. Their children actually learn to swim before they learn to walk. They are called Sea Gypsies.

All babies can swim before they walk. They've just spend the last 9 months floating and wriggling about in fluid.

Thats a common misconception, babies CANNOT swim in water, but they can survive up to an hour in water straight after birth. All because it can survive in water doe not mean that it can swim. Do not mistake the two.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

So what are the huge wholes? It something I have seen many times, but has never been answered adequately.
Speciation is a proven fact.
Micro-evolution has been observed.

The theory of evolution is a theory (something that requires a substantial amount of scientific evidence). Evolution is a fact.

Also, to quickly add to my other post, if babies could swim immediately after birth, why would we need to learn how to sim? Again, another flaw in your comment HAJime

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim, I just said it was easier for them than walking. Which it is. The water supports their weight and they have much better control over not letting water in than adults.

As for evolution and it's flaws, many creatures, which completely different evolutionary paths, end up with such similar designs. I think that it's quite obvious that the result just must be the best way of "coping" with the problem, but creationists claim it's too much of a coincidence.

What most educated non-believers won't accept about evolution is the creation of a whole new species. It is a bit, loose. Some species are so highly similar... whilst others are so independant. There is a HUGE lack of "missing links" for the millions and billions of species to show their transitional forms. Whilst one could argue we simply haven't discovered them yet, assuming that is doing exactly what religious folk like to do. And it bugs me.

Evolution also contradicts general physics and biology with spontaneous...ness.

Micro evolution is fact. It's been observed. But it's wrong to assume that maco-evolution must be true because of that. I believe, because I feel there is more in it's favour than against, but I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the "problems" of the theory.

Yes you did say that babies can swim, it says so right there

You then go on to say in the post above:



WHAT A CONTRADICTION!

I will just repeat that: In one post you say, I qoute: All babies can swim before they walk. The definition for swim is: 1. to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc. So technically you are saying that babies do that: 'move in water by movements of the limbs'. You go on to say, 'I didn't say they were born with the ability to swim', but you did, see. Because by using the word swim. I naturally assumed that you meant immdeiately able to do so, i.e move forwards or swim in a controlled way.

The morale of the story: Don't contradict yourself, and don't make comments which you know will later be assessed by me or others, and ridiculed. Also, don't make vague comments like: 'all babies can swim before they walk.'

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Yes, this is correct. "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" is only a conundrum to vapid dolts with no ability to chain concepts together.

If you believe in creationism then you believe the chicken came first. (The magical genie in the sky clicked his heels together and a chicken pooped into existence)

If you believe in evolution then you believe the egg came first. (A creature that was a single genetic mutation removed from what we would consider a modern-day chicken laid an egg that contained that final mutation)


I'm not 100% sure that there doesn't exist some mechanism with which the DNA in the eggs isn't slightly programmed by the female. What scientists consider the "junk" DNA might be analogous to executable code whereas the DNA that is known to map to certain attributes might just be the data tables.

To be accurate, you never claimed that babies are born with the ability to walk. And that would be necessary for you to argue that he contradicted himself (because you used "born with" as a rebuttal point of contention and he never said "born with").

The only postulates advanced by HAJiME in this debate were:
1. Babies acquire the ability to swim before they acquire the ability to walk.
2. It is easier for a baby to swim than to walk.

I have no idea whether those postulates are true or not. I only know that you did nothing to disprove his statements.

I obviously did. Right, HAJimesaid, babies swim before they walk, and can swim because they have been in fluid for 9 months. I retorted wth, Thats a common misconception, babies CANNOT swim in water, but they can survive up to an hour in water straight after birth. All because it can survive in water does not mean that it can swim. Do not mistake the two. Therfore, when HAJime said what he/she did, he/she impied that the baby can swim. It can't. Yeah it can be suported by the water, that doesn't mean it can swim.

Also, repoman, why the hell would I actually say that babies are born with the ability to walk? How the hell would that prove his contradiftion? His contradiction is staring at you in the face! We are talking about the baby swmming, not it walking. Also, when have I ever said 'born with'?? HAJime has, I haven't. Please read all the posts and not the quotes. That way, you can interpret all the facts and not a select few phrases and punchlines.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

But the punchlines are the best part.

AIRBORNE

Maybe when GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN learns to use the caps lock and shift keys, I'll take him seriously.

Repoman has a brain.

I said that "all babies can swim before they can walk" - okay, so what I really meant was "all babies could swim before they can walk."

It looks like, to me, you just want an argument. Arguing over the definitions of "swimming." I'm sorry, but I thought being in water kicking your arms and legs about around you in order to move was enough to count as swimming. A babies "dive reflex" is far, far, far stronger than an adults. Up to about 2 years, I think? They are quite capable of swimming under the water. That reflex is so strong it's been known to starve babies of oxygen and kill them.

Apparently, having a quick look on Google, the gag reflex is more like 12-18 months... And they also have the "amphibian reflex" which causes them to kick their limbs in spouts to move in the water.

So, in other words, you got owned. Do a Google search for babies swimming dive reflex or something and you'll find loads of stuff.

And you think you have a brain because you use google? Ha! I didn't get owned at all, far from it, you got it wrong, and your trying to pull yourself back and its not working. Repoman, I agree punchlines are the best bit lol . HAJime, why ridiclue my name? I had a full blown argumant and got a formal warning because someone ridiculed my name and I hurled profanity back in their faces. The ohter in question got done for bait ing and harrassing (Because they didn't let it drop. The fact is, your using my name as a weak argument because you where incorrect in the way you phrased your posts. Basically, you are right in what you said, but I said what I said to show you how and where you got it wrong, not to pick a fight. Hhopefully, we can all start to talk about evolution and not babies swimming lol.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Agreed, lets get this back on topic please.

Sure, lets get back on topic. And GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN can send me a pm telling me why I got what wrong regarding swimming babies...? Since he failed to mention it.

I wasn't making fun of your name! I'm more amused by how you go to type mine in caps then stop at the i... You can just call me Joey, if it's easier to remember.

Anyway, since you took this off topic when you ignored a reasonable post yesterday about evolutionary flaws, why don't we start where we left of.

What are peoples feelings towards mutations by diasters such as radiation, such as chernobyl and so forth. I think that if the people who had been mutated by radiation had kids, then wouldn't their altered DNA be passed down their line of children, therefore, if the infected child had sexual intercourse with someone who wasn't mutated, then their children had children with someone who wasn't mutated, couldn't that spread the mutated Genome, causing an outbreak in the mutation? I don't know if I'm talking out of my behind here and I'm way off, but could it happen?

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

P.S I mean this in a family tree sense, you have one person, who is mutated, then his/ her children have children with someone who is not mutated then their child who is mutated has children with someone who is not mutated and so on and so forth

Anyone? ^^^^^^^^


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Speciation has been observed. Macroevolution is a fact. There is no binding factor that limits microevolution. I can't even believe I'm using the terms right now since they really are the same thing. There are thousands of fossils that link species trees and more importantly genetics has entirely proved that mutation is responsible for every species on the planet, all of which arose from a simple protocell ancestor. Evolution does not contradict any other field of science in any way and is the entire basis for biology. There's also nothing very spontaneous about it. It's not like one animal suddenly gave birth to another. Evolution works on populations not individuals through an accumulation of minor mutations.

What are you suggesting instead? That they have gills??

Push an adult who has never swam a minute in his/her life, and see if s/he can stay afloat for an hour. My guess is you will be 'disappointed'...

I have seen babies swimming, real swimming that is.

Somehow we lose that ability as we grow older. Maybe it's an ability we once needed, living close to the shores of seas and lakes, diving for seas shells, clams and all that.

We are the only apes that are naked, apes that sweat, and apes that are able to hold our breaths for a considerable amount of time.

Our heart rate slows down as soon as our faces touch water, and that's what happens with all marine mammals.

We are also the only apes that store fat below our skins, just like many marine animals.

It's all about the aquatic ape theory.

Yes radiation can cause mutation of the DNA in gametes and thus cause birth defects. Radiation cause delitirious mutations though. These mutations will be part of the offsprings DNA (if they survive) and would have a chance of being passed on to their offspring.

It is strange, is it not, how evolution adapts to many changes, that should really shunt the balance of life ascue. I feel it is really amazing, that things such as changing environments, can create such a unique change in the persons structure. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that it is a great topic to discuss.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN


P.S I think that we dropped that subject a long time ago Abramelin, please, don't bring it back up!!! What you are saying is correct, but I just think we should let that little topic slide.

I'm sorry to bring this old boat back up, but I couldn't resist. Ok, so you say, that you've seen babies swim, properly that is. Ok, so you've seen a one minute old baby doing the butterfly up and down a swimming pool..... I think not! Also, you state that "What are you suggesting instead? That they have gills??" Nope, but I think many will agree with me here when I say, do homework. It is a fact, that babies can survive up to an hour in water because they have been in liquid in the womb for 9 months, so a bit off there Ok, you then go on to say, that we probably lose the ability to swim over time. Oh well, it seems that a baby, who can do the butterfly, will gradually lose this ability. I'm sorry, but your claims are ludicrous! You dont have the ability to swim when your young. Yeah, you can flap your arms and legs and sort of waddle around a bit in the water, but that is hardly swimming in my eyes. So technically, if a baby could swim when it was born, that is just like saying that a baby could, say read straight away, or walk straight away. All because it has been in liquid for 9 months doesn't mean it could swim, why would it? It has been cooped up in a small area, only able to turn over, can suddenly as you said do real swimming. Now, I don't know about anyone else here, but I class real swimminmg as strokes such as: Frontcrawl, backstroke, the butterfly etc. That was a bit off as well.


My advice, a bit more research. The rest is ok, and I agree, the beginning; easily flawed.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I'm new to this forum and I wanted to add somethings...Id say I'm a creationist, just in case you think of me as somebody else

When we talk about evolution I think we should state which one we are talking about.

I'm not sure, but I think there are about 9 kinds of evolution... evolution of stars, evolution of species, and others.

I want to say that not even one of the 9 terms have been proven true except micro-evolution (changes within a kind).

I believe in micro-evolution, for example there are about 300 kinds of dogs in the world and I believe they came from a dog. not a marine animal or somebody, or something else.

please answer me the following question:

If evolution happened before, why doesn't it happen now?

Mutation doesn't prove macro-evolution...mutations is just mixed up data that is already in the genes. Mutations don't produce anything new, but they scramble what is already there.

How come macro-evolution "happened" and it doesn't happen now??

Have you seen a dog produce a non-dog?

How do you prove who evolved first and who evolved second?

If you find a bone all you can conclude is it died. You can't conclude that this is a missing link, because you can't prove that it had any kids.

Trilobites were one of the first things to evolve according to evolution, and when you do research on them you can find out that they had the most complex eyes of almost any species...






I'll finish for now and continue later. I'm sorry for starting off with so much stuff.

Well, technically, we can't really say that evolution doesn't happen now, all evolution is, is changes over time, due to the changing of an environment etc. I believe that as soon as we are able to fly further than our solar system, evolution will kick in once again, because, all the people travelling would be going to different planets, therefore, different environments.




Lol, it's fine to start off with how much information you want, as long as we can answer you, we will!!!!


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

Moderator edit to add source

hi again...

these are the different parts of evolution:

Cosmic Evolution –is the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang.

The big bang produced hydrogen so we get this term:

Chemical evolution- is the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

I believe that Big Bang is not true either.

You want me to believe Uranium evolved from hydrogen??

Stellar and Planetary evolution – is evolution of stars and planets.

We see stars blow up all the time but we have never observed one form.

Organic evolution – is the origin of life.

Life is supposed to start from non-living material, that’s hard to believe.

Nobody has ever made life and you want me to believe it happened by chance?

Even if a bunch of smart people do make life it will only prove that intelligence is need to make life.

Macro Evolution – is the change from one kind of plant or animal into another.

Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, for an example.

Micro Evolution – is the variations between kinds.

Only this has been observed and that is the only part of evolution that I believe.


When talking about evolution please state what part of evolution you are talking about...

Robotroid,



Thanks!

Theres no need to get technical, this thread is about evolution in general, not it's sub headings etc.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I actually got those terms of off a non-copyrighted evolution youtube video.




I'm getting technical, because you guys are using micro evolution , which is the variations within kinds, and use that to support the theory that we came from bacteria billions of years ago.

Macro evolution has never been observed, so please don't give me examples of micro evolution and tie it in with macro evolution.

for example: A wolf , a dog, and a coyote probably ad a common ancestor, I agree with that. (micro evolution)

But please don't use the information above to tell me that dogs came from bacteria over billions of years.(macro evolution)

Robotoid.

Macroevolution is evolution that occurs above the species level. Microevolution is evolution that occurs below the species level.



You saying this statement right here, shows that you agree with macroevolution. Wolf, coyotes, and dogs do share a common ancestor and are all different species (which is the correct position to hold)

We have genetic evidence of this and comparative morphologies and many transitional fossils (don't believe creationist propaganda, if you want, I can cite many peer-reviewed scientific journal articles to support this) to scientifically back these claims up.

In addition, just because it hasn't been observed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We have fossils that show progression and common morphologies. Direct observation isn't a necessity of science. We can use indirect observation all the time when examining dark matter, gravity, and many other things. Both require interpretation so the point that it isn't observed doesn't matter. If you would like more information regarding how life came into existence, then please pm me, I would love to discuss it with you. Unfortunately, abiogenesis and evolution are two totally unrelated topics, and evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, only how it progresses.

I think that wolfs and coyotes are just wild dogs or vise versa.

example: Once A team of dogs ran away into the wild and is they reproduced. They got the name coyote or wolf, because of their changes.

Later they were called different species.

Or a wolf or a coyote ones got adopted and turned into a pet,, as it changed over the years it got its name, dog.

It just changed a little, but it didn't change into a reptile or fish or bird. We have never observed skin or fur or scales turn into feather or vice versa.

if you find a fossil in the ground you can't prove that's a missing link, because you can't prove it had any kids. You also can't prove how old it is all you know is a died.

If I ave you a candle that is burning right now and asked you when was it lit. What would you answer me?

You wouldn't know.

This is the same case with fossils .

Also I wanted to mention that organic evolution has to do with the origin of life, and you said evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Thanks, bye-bye

Okay, so you have a population of animals, all one species. They become divided by some sort of barrier so now we have two isolated populations of a single species, one begins "microevolving" one way while the other "microevolves" another way. What keeps the two together? What stops them becoming two different species?

Funny thing, I was reading sciencedaily.com under the fossils/ruins section just a few minutes before I came to this website. It had a new article talking about the very fast evlolutionary tract that Italian wall lizards had undergone in the short 36 year span since being introduced to a new region. According to the report, the wall lizard grew in size, had a stronger bite and had new structures to it's digestive tract. I say chalk one up to the evolutionists. I could be wrong, give me some proof.

There's a great Gary Larson Far Side cartoon panel featuring a group of amphibious fish-type sea dwellers. They come up close to the sandy shore and say: Life will emerge from the sea at 6:00 a.m. Pass it on...

Just adding some humor here (maybe). Anyone else see that panel?

First off, dogs and wolves are the same species (Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris, just a different subspecies. however the coyote is in fact are entirely different species. Denying this is just being ignorant. Just like the red wolf is also a different species (they are all the Canis genus however). However we have produced domestic animals which are not the same species as their wild ancestors, such as sheep, chickens and cats.

Actually you can show how old it was (it is called radiometric dating and it is highly accurate) your candle analogy is terribly insufficient for this example and is not in the same context. Secondly if a few are found over a period of time it is pretty much conclusive that it bred. It is also not exactly a huge leap to assume the species was larger than one member. Also we know Dinosaurs had feathers and we know they share morphological features (which are also shared with crocodilains) and are unique to the archosauria (birds, dinosaurs and crocodilians) and there is clear genetic similarities between birds and crocodiles (look up genetic bar-coding if you want to find out more). To make an even stronger link tissue preserved in a Tyrannosaur bone was shown to share cells that are unique to ostrich, there are other links as well such as birds having scaled etc. There is in fact a lot of evidence to support evolution hence it is all but universally accepted with in science.
Why would they evolve into fish or birds btw? How does that support your argument?
As has been stated previously evolutionary change to the extent to make a very different animal takes a very long time in general, but if you want to watch it I suggest you look at bacteria and don't be idiotic enough to say it is still just a bacteria, bacteria are huge different and wide ranging. Bacteria are great to look at evolution with because they have really small generation times and evolution can and has been observed.

Actually your are wrong there. There theory of evolution is merely about how life changes and speciation. It is not the same as abiogenesis or pans permia theories for example which do deal with how life begun.

And this has been proven using fruit flies and the only change was a different food source for each population.
Speciation in fruit flies.

The theory, that all things evolved from bacteria, are regarded as strong in some circles, robotroid, I would not simply cast these aside....


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

It is considered as extremely strong in scientific circles.

Bacteria are highly developed,

One part of a bacteria is more complex than a space shuttle.

Nobody has ever created life, some say wee need all the ingredients to make a life and stuff like that.

If a was to put a frog in a mixer and switch the mixer on, the frog would be dead of course,

then I will give you everything from the mixer and tell you to make life out of it, you still can't create life!

isn't that how life came to be? , but everything happened "on Accident".

Even todays scientists can't make life, and a bacteria, which I have mentioned before, is more complex than a space shuttle, came alive out of boiling soup "on Accident"???



I'm not trying to prove you all wrong, but just stating what I think.

Your maybe should study some biology. Some bacteria are extremely simple.
Which bacteria is more complex than the space shuttle? some evidence please. (though having been around for a few billion years you'd expect them to be well developed).
Your analogy is an irrelevant one. If you blend up the frog you destroy the structures and mix up the chemicals. This is beyond a massive over-simplification.
And abiogenesis is not the same as evolution and abigenesis has more supporting evidence (ie the natural chemical formation of organic molecules) than anything else which points to the origin of life.

Evolution btw has overwhelming supporting evidence, really overwhelming.