The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible.Funny - at the most basic levels, there are more things that are in common than 'things' that are different.
I guess that's a matter of the way you do science and the way real scientists do 'science' ...
Oh, I don't 'do' science, I only read other persons' comments. I can barely comprehend the concepts most scientists are working with.
I just read stuff like this and wonder about the implications of it and if there is any countervailing evidence:
We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code . . . [it] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.
(Leslie Orgel, New Scientist, 15 April 1982, 151)
The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning . . . Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of Earth were formed. Thus we have no clue, even from evidence which penetrates very far back in time, as to how the information standard of life was set up in the first place, and so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.
(Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, 8)
Thus there is a paradox. Both nucleic acids and proteins are required to function before selection can act at present, and yet the origin of this association is too improbable to have occurred without selection.
(T. Dobzhansky et al, Evolution, 1977, 359)
The gap between a rich organic environment with all the necessary precursors . . . and the simplest organized life, remains immense . . . It is difficult to visualize the steps by which they may have originated, because the various processes which occur in them are interdependent; none can function without the others.
(J. Butler, The Life Process, 1970, 185,188-189)
---
Funny - at the most basic levels, there are more things that are in common than 'things' that are different.
---
You might want to actually talk to some real scientists first. The basics of chemistry he's talking about are the proteins and acids required to form self-replicating molecules. The chemical principles involved in their formation are extremely well understood (activation energies, stability of intermediates, etc.), and the odds of them just forming (selection can't work on non-replicating systems), is astronomically remote.
Evolutionists who actually know some Chemistry understand this. You can spot them by how quickly they shout that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life.