You are talking
about abiogenesis, which is not contained in the theory of evolution.
Not exact matches
Theo, «
Abiogenesis is
about as far from real science as one can get, and yet the die - hard naturalist is forced to conclude that it is possible from that splatted mosquito that life can emerge.»
Abiogenesis is
about as far from real science as one can get, and yet the die - hard naturalist is forced to conclude that it is possible from that splatted mosquito that life can emerge.
In 1864, Louis Pasteur proved that point in one case, showing that spontaneous generation (that life could originate from nonliving matter, also called
abiogenesis), though accepted by some in the scientific community (such as Belgian chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont
about 200 years earlier, who also believed that the basic elements of the universe was just air and water), was untrue.
What you're talking
about is
abiogenesis, not evolution.
So my point was more
about creationism vs
abiogenesis.
When you talk
about the origins of life it is
abiogenesis, and the beginnings of the universe is in the realm of cosmology.
It is not
about origins, but how life changed over time and across generations after it started.The study into the origins of life is the field of
abiogenesis.