The problem is that the ToE comes to a dead screeching halt when the question of what the first cell evolved from.
The other thing that throws a monkey wrench into the matter is that variation within species is well recognized by everyone. Extrapolating it to assume that enough variation can occur to give rise to completely different species is only suggested but not demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt by the fossil record.
All the lab work only indicates that wide variation can occur, but the populations produced are still recognizable as being identified with the populations from which they occur.
IOW, they're still fruit flies, bacteria, whatever.
The lab work also in no way demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are even possible. The lab work is all the result of intelligent manipulation.
Yes, the ToE is the best science has, if you want to postulate a naturalistic, God free theory of how life got here. But it doesn't mean it's right because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we have to accept it because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we're ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ungodly, creatards, or IDiots because we don't agree with those who think it has value.
One thing that supports the notion that slight variation is just as easy as large variation is our completely misguided (and now outdated) view of genetics. Biologists tend to be fuzzy and non-deterministic about inheritance and variation, but harder scientists and engineers squirm at their handwaving. The simple matter is that right now multicellular body structure from DNA may as well be magic as far as our understanding goes. The "magic" is made into "science" by invoking "evolution". The problem with this is that genetically-based evolutionary trees disagree to the point of falling apart entirely, and without a huge increase in knowing what the regulatory regions of DNA actually do, that's all we have. Okay, it's not all we have--we also have macro-level eyeball-judgment similarities between species that we categorize pretending the categories mean something more than the similarities themselves.
The point is, until there is a huge amount more work done on the molecular biology side, biology remains a very soft science that takes itself way too seriously especially when the issue of evolution pops up.
Except that the question of the first cell isn't part of TToE, any more than the first atom is part of the astronomy or geometry. That old strawman is so torched there isn't even carbon residue.
The other thing that throws a monkey wrench into the matter is that variation within species is well recognized by everyone. Extrapolating it to assume that enough variation can occur to give rise to completely different species is only suggested but not demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt by the fossil record.
Sorry. mm -- you are not "everyone." Speciation -- scientific speciation -- has been observed many times. Your assertion doesn't really carry scientific weight.
All the lab work only indicates that wide variation can occur, but the populations produced are still recognizable as being identified with the populations from which they occur.
The fossil record is clear that over time evolution has carried species into other species -- ones that cannot breed. Unless you think billions of fossils are "not enough data." That is why evolution is known as a stochastic process.
IOW, they're still fruit flies, bacteria, whatever.
Until some become something else.
The lab work also in no way demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are even possible. The lab work is all the result of intelligent manipulation.
Back to my original point -- simulating the environment merely mimics nature.
Yes, the ToE is the best science has, if you want to postulate a naturalistic, God free theory of how life got here. But it doesn't mean it's right because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we have to accept it because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we're ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ungodly, creatards, or IDiots because we don't agree with those who think it has value.
Science must deal with the physical Universe. When you say you don't "agree" with TToE it is the same as saying you don't "agree" with TToG or you don't "agree" with Quantum Physics. They are all shoulder to shoulder in the scientific community.
I asked you a simple question about some very fundamental, if a bit esoteric, principles based on mathematics and knowledge theory. If you are qualified to come to conclusions on science which you admit minimal knowledge of, then you are qualified to come to conclusions on other areas of knowledge in which you are equally qualified.