Yes, well a beginning is also necessary for inanimate stuff to exist, yet physists persist in studying what is and how it works without having a perfect theory of how existence came to be.
Evolution studies what is and how it works. For the moment you can have any theory you please as to how it started.
Even if we can set up the "super-Miller" experiment that starts with a bottle of inanimate gunk and produces a pussycat, we will not know the exact history of how live arose on this planet. Just as you will never know exactly, in complete detail, what happened to Nichole Simpson.
You can, however, say whether a Simpson theory is possible and plausible, or not.
Yes, well a beginning is also necessary for inanimate stuff to exist, yet physists persist in studying what is and how it works without having a perfect theory of how existence came to be. True
Evolution studies what is and how it works. For the moment you can have any theory you please as to how it started.
True
Even if we can set up the "super-Miller" experiment that starts with a bottle of inanimate gunk and produces a pussycat, we will not know the exact history of how live arose on this planet. Just as you will never know exactly, in complete detail, what happened to Nichole Simpson.
True one will never know in complete detail what supposedly happened a few billion years ago - no peer-reviewed journals. :-(
You can, however, say whether a Simpson theory is possible and plausible, or not.
True
However, my point has not been about "evolution" - of the universe or otherwise - but rather a simple statement about abiogenesis, and the impossibility thereof.