[Dimensio]

Abiogenesis is still speculative. DNA first appears in the fossil record about 3.5 billion years ago. No evidence has been found to directly explain how DNA came about.

A rather disturbing trend that I've seen lately (and I don't want to point out any specific people guilty of this) is to claim that evolutionists are just now trying to distance the theory from abiogenesis, and that the attempt to seperate the two is some kind of cop-out. It's a rather dishonest tactic on their part, as it's pretty clearly an effort to 'justify' their claim that evolution isn't really a scientific theory but rather an attack on God and Christianity (or whatever flavour of theism that they might happen to follow) by inventing things that evolution "must" explain in order to fulfill their strawman purpose of it. Anyone who makes such a claim clearly cannot be trusted in any debate, as they've already shown that they've no interest in facts, their only interest is in tearing down their own strawman definition of evolution and accusing anyone who corrects their misstatements on the theory of trying to weasel out of the debate.

[Dataman]

fulfill their strawman purpose of it

Strawman #3.

their only interest is in tearing down their own strawman

Strawman #4.

Dimensio, the big problem with the theory of evo is that it is not convincing.
It is not convincing because the evidence does not fit the theory well.
It is not convincing because laws of nature have to be violated.
It is not convincing because its supporters deliberately ignore and suppress evidence.
It is not convincing because supporters cannot defend their own assertions.

Apparrently it is not entirely convincing to PBS either, which, in spite of its overwhelming evolutionary bias, has produced the non-religious program you evos must classify as religious in order to discredit it.