Even if one accepts that species change from one thing to another, it is farmore difficult to explain where the first living thing came from, and how it was magically able to reproduce itself.
If life is so simple that it can occur spontaneously in a primordial soup, science should, by now, easily be able to demonstrate several simple mixtures that do the same.
Correct. Abiogenesis should not be taught as a fact. It is a researchable problem, but there is no real theory.
This is why all the evolutionists on FR try to explain that the cause of first life is not part of evolution. Darwin explicitly excluded first life from his "Origin."
Now you've slipped out of the theory of evolution and into the realm of biogenesis. Currently there are numerous competing hypoetheses of how life arose (my money's on the one with the interstellar dust clouds, but that's simply because there is a lot more data available for it that for many of the others). However, it's in this territory that the definition of life becomes fuzzy. What separates self-organizing and self-replicating molecules (of which there are many) from self-organizing and self-replicating life? At what point is it no longer a chemical but simple life. Is there even a hard cut-off, or does it all kind of shade together? These are the questions the pioneers in the biogenesis field are currently tackling.