The composition of the earth's primitive environment is often discussed in relation to how it might give rise to life. If one is going to insist upon unintelligent causes for such things, it only stands to reason that the whole progression from non-life to life falls within the purview of science. Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration? Don't you think it is a tad disingenous to imply that science does not talk about abiogensis, or that it has "nothing to do with evolution?" I would consider it a remarkable evolution for substances to change from non-living to living, no matter what the cause.
But, you see, I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, nor was the posts to which I was referring. You brought that into the discussion later. I refuse to be sidetracked.
Hey Fester! Let me in on this abiogenesis thing.
You're talking about two concepts: Evolution and Abiogenesis. Now, I know this point has been repeatedly hashed and rehashed, but I'll do it again...because it is an important point, the understanding of which is essential to a better understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution Theory doesn't do abiogenesis. Some scientists do do abiogenesis research, but it's not the focus of research in Evolutionary Theory.
There are overwhelming numbers of scientists who do research directly related to Evolution Theory. Those who research abiogenesis do exist, but are quite fewer in numbers.
The reason for the apparent dichotomy lies in the fact that they are two distinctly different topics.