The oldest trick in the book, dodge and belittle since you know there is no answer. Just ignore the gorilla in the room while I show you these nice rocks. None of them are of a transitory animal which there should be billions, but look at these nice old rocks to prove there is no creator.
Why don’t you be a real scientist and try to find holes in the theory, there are gaping ones if you bothered to look.
That is exactly right - When did that change? Darwin was wrong, but at least he listed his errata - That is what science does... or used to do anyway...
I didn’t dodge anything. You used a metaphor to make fun of the idea that abiogenesis was separate from evolution. I used your same metaphor to show that even if they’re related, you don’t need to fully explain one before you can understand the other. Personally, I prefer the metapor that a pediatrician doesn’t need to fully understand conception and pregnancy in order to treat a child’s flu, but whatever. If you feel belittled by my using your own metaphor, you have only yourself to blame.
Besides, I’m happy to admit that when it comes to the origin of life, we really just don’t know. That doesn’t invalidate everything we do know about life once it exists, much as you’d like it to.
Sorry, but every fossil, every individual without exception is "transitory" between its ancestors and descendants.
You, bray, are "transitory" -- because of a small number of mostly harmless mutations, you are individually unlike your parents, or your children, if any.
The average number of DNA mutations per individual is on the order of dozens, perhaps 100 per generation.
Multiply those times a million generations, and you accumulate enough changes that separated populations can no longer interbreed.
And that, by definition, is called "speciation".
Of course, fossils alone can't tell which species were "parents," and which "child".
But DNA analysis tells a lot about how closely related today's species are, and when their common ancestors lived.