[SamuraiScot]

Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish COULD HAVE MAYBE evolved the crucial ability to clot blood.

Evolution without God is a religious belief without evidence to back it up.

At least Christians have the Gospel accounts to support their view.

There are billions of recorded examples of living things being produced by other living things. I have never read a report that in recorded history, life has been produced by non-living matter. A rubbish heap can give you little rubbish heaps, if you have a shovel. But they can't do it without your help.

The unGod people (such as this editorialist disguised as a reporter) would seem to be replicating an idea from the ash-heap of the history of science: spontaneous generation.

[Lurking Libertarian]

There are billions of recorded examples of living things being produced by other living things. I have never read a report that in recorded history, life has been produced by non-living matter.

Nothing in the Theory of Evolution says that any living thing is produced other than by other living things. It is creationsm that asserts this.

[aNYCguy]

I have never read a report that in recorded history, life has been produced by non-living matter.

I believe your quarrel is with abiogenesis, not evolution, as the origin of life on Earth is outside of evolution's scope. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life first got running on this planet.

Since life forms would evolve regardless of whether they developed from primitive replicators, were created by God or Gods, were seeded by aliens, or indeed anything else, the ultimate beginnings are not integral to the theory.

Evolution without God is a religious belief without evidence to back it up.

I'm a bit confused as to your meaning. Are you suggesting that evolution with God is not a religious belief?

[Stultis]

The unGod people (such as this editorialist disguised as a reporter) would seem to be replicating an idea from the ash-heap of the history of science: spontaneous generation.

Historically "spontaneous generation" means something like, "the origin of life from non-life as a mundane process of nature".

Since evolutionary theory (starting with Darwin¹) includes the idea of "common descent" -- that all living things on Earth are ultimately related by descent, that is by ordinary biological reproduction -- it requires the REJECTION of spontaneous generation. After all if living things are regularly coming into being by means other then biological reproduction then common descent cannot be true.

¹Pre-darwinian versions of evolution, for example that of Lamark, did include spontaneous generation, but they were consequently not theories of common descent.