[connectthedots]

Never was. Evolution is about how the great VARIETY of life came to be. Abiogenesis is about how LIFE came to be. We don't know about the latter -- not yet; we know a lot about the former.

Never was? That's a crock. It has a long history of being closely associated with evolution. It certainly was in the 60s and 70s when I was in school.

How life came to be is the pink elephant in the room that the evolutionist pretends isn't there. Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible, so the evolutionist had to abandon that tenant in order to help maintain some semblance of credibility in evolution.

[js1138]

How life came to be is the pink elephant in the room that the evolutionist pretends isn't there.

No one pretends it isn't there. It just doesn't have anything to do with evolutin. The way things work can be studied independently of how they originated. Else we wouldn't have any science at all.

It is ID that is obsessed with the origin of life itself.

[donh]

Never was? That's a crock. It has a long history of being closely associated with evolution. It certainly was in the 60s and 70s when I was in school.

Not according to Darwin. Who was quite clear that his theories could not account for the origin of life.

Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible

No, it hasn't, not in the slightest--of course, that's only if you listen to scientists about where science is at.

[furball4paws]

" Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible, so the evolutionist had to abandon that tenant in order to help maintain some semblance of credibility in evolution."

Would you please provide a reference for this? As a microbiologist, I'd be real interested.