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.
Who doesn’t recognize variation within species?
Who can’t look at different individuals within each species and see that they are not clones of one another?
Darwin proposed his theory and then told what would falsify it and people have been looking for fossils to do that.
It’s gotten to the point where some people are so convinced of the truth of theory that whatever they see, they interpret as evidence supporting it.
Similarities between fossil remains are just that, similarities. Some creatures are related to others, that is true.
But to demonstrate common descent to a reasonable degree, one would have to see direct *father to son* every generation descent and catalog it. Otherwise, it’s assuming that what you want to see is what happened because of similarities.
Otherwise, it’s just analysis and deduction based on forensic evidence.
I’ve see people who look like about twins to other people they’ve never even met and are not related to and seen wider variation within families.