[VadeRetro]

The Miller experiment was a demonstration that very simple inorganics will combine to make complex organics with no "intelligent design" involved. That was an impressive beginning to abiogenesis research and still relevant. (However, it doesn't have an awful lot to do directly with Darwin's theory of how life forms diversify.)

The peppered moths are a fine example of natural selection. I don't think they really speciated, so someone can yell "That's just microevolution!" and it's true as far as it goes. But macroevolution is just lots of accumulated micro-.

[CobaltBlue]

The peppered moth story has too many problems to be taught with a straight face. I don't have a problem with teaching it as an example of science gone wrong.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_1999_Spring/ai_54321422

[CobaltBlue]

And the primordial soup theory, while interesting, is just that. I don't think it's any more worth teaching in an intro biology class than ID.

[steve-b]

so someone can yell "That's just microevolution!" and it's true as far as it goes

The ad hoc "distinction" between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as those terms are used by creationists corresponds to the "distinction" between "not rising to the level of impeachment" and "serious if proven true" as those terms were used by the Clinton Crime Cabal.

In both cases, the evidence that simply cannot be plausibly denied is assigned to the former category in order to denigrate its significance, and the evidence that can still be quibbled and obfuscated away is assigned to the latter category in order to make its underpinnings appear dubious. Specific cases can even be moved between categories at need (as Eohippus --> Equus and the blue dress were shifted from the latter category to the former when additional evidence made denial an untenable strategy).