You say that, ” science does not say that the first life forms were complex. Instead, the first life forms were simple, and hardly distinguishable from other kinds of chemical self-replication that we know about.” but where have we ever seen such a thing?
Why is it that every “missing link” is missing? Where in nature do we see these simple forms of life? Life requires vast amounts of complexity to reproduce even in the simplest forms. Not to mention the complexity necessary to gather oxygen and food. The most basic single celled organisms are more complex that the city of San Francisco.
And don’t use viruses as an argument, because we both know they
require complete cells to reproduce. (The RNA of a virus is also very complex).
Point: If a form of life led to the formation of single celled organisms we should see millions of steps of evolutionary life to lead to that “city of San Francisco”. Are you really suggesting that ALL of them have despaired? Name at least 250 forms of life less complex than a virus (that live today) and that show a ladder of evolutionary change from chemical reproduction to single celled life. Then you’ll have evidence in favor of what you’re claiming. Then document one of these forms of life changing to a new form of life and you’ll have proof.
Until then what you are saying is quite unfounded. Please understand I do not write this to insult you. I have seen some of your videos and know that you are an intelligent person.
Name at least 250 forms of life less complex than a virus (that live today) and that show a ladder of evolutionary change from chemical reproduction to single celled life […]
This is like demanding that the prosecutor in a court case should have high definition film footage of every inch of the accused person’s body and actions before they can be concluded to be guilty. Your demands are delusional. And they are red herrings, so they are a waste of my time (and maybe I should just mute you).
Instead, I recommend you try actually making an argument for why abiogenesis is unlikely to be true. Bayesian Reasoning shows that you will need to do this by comparing it to an alternative hypothesis which you can show to be more likely to be true.
Your only attempt to make an argument is to claim that life is complex…therefore abiogenesis and/or evolution can’t have made life as we see it? But this is completely backwards. Evolution is exactly how such complexity can indeed occur.
[I’ll link to an expanded rebuttal if I write one]