Wrong on two counts--evolutionary theory barely addresses or cares about this issue, and can get along nicely without it. and 2) those few who do care about it, don't offer spontaneous generation of cellular life forms as a solution, since about the turn of the previous century.
2. This only happened once.
Not applicable, and if it were, not an accurate summation of the picure a modern paleo-microbiologist would want to draw.
3. Viruses, plants, animals and bacteria are all related. 4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoan 5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. 6. Invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
Well now, you got a few right. Why do you think these junctures in life are any more particularly miraculous than any other? Why aren't you concerned that colony ants arose from solitary ants? That seems more miraculous than any of the steps you've listed here.
7. Fish gave rise to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals.
Opps, off the tracks agsin. Paleo-microbiologists do not think that birds gave rise to mammals.
"evolutionary theory barely addresses or cares about this issue"
You're right, the evolutionist hardly ever addresses the FACT that his THEORY is based on assumptions.
Ever read any school or even college text which made this point clear? Probably not.
However, it is an issue. That is why you had all those experiments where they tried to show that you can make amino acids using a particular atmosphere and current. Without proving that you can spontaneously generate life, evolution is dead. However, even those experiments where amino acids were produced; huge assumptions in that they don’t really know what the atmosphere was like at the time were hand waved away. They have some guesses, but no real certain information and an amino acid is still miles from a living cell. But we would rather just use (interpret) the information based on a test (designed to show what we want to hear) and extrapolate this and say that given this atmosphere and some lightning we’d get life from dead pond scum. When you really break evolution down into its most elemental state. What is it really saying? You end up realizing that this theory is pretty wild, is based on several heavy assumptions, does NOT answer many questions, has had many intentional deceits and misguided efforts to prove its validity, is in some ways contradicting and yet considered the “truth” and an undeniable fact.
I won’t even discuss any further. After a tirade about how there are no assumptions in evolution I list them. Then you arm wave them away. Just the first assumption is a MOUNTAIN.
Red6