Nasa writes:
Mainstream Evolution believes in the formation of a single cell, its from this cell that divided, then attacked its self- that the information for your eye for your ear and so forth came from.
I assume you were trying to say, "...it's from this cell that divided, then
*attached* itself..."
Biology is a broad scientific field with many sub-disciplines. Evolution is one major discipline. So is abiogenesis, the origin of life. In other words, evolution and abiogenesis are two different disciplines within biology.
They are closely related. Evolution is imperfect reproduction combined with selection in each generation. Abiogenesis is the process by which reproduction originally developed and became established, and certainly selection played a large role.
No one will ever be able to say where abiogenesis ended and evolution took over. But certainly today we see nothing but evolution, and just as certainly billions of years ago, before there was real life, there was only the process of abiogenesis, meaning dead chemicals on their way to becoming life. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to strictly classify into either category what came in between.
It is a frequent occurrence for Creationists to come here believing evolution is a theory of the origin of life, but it isn't. Evolution is a theory explaining how new species arise, not how life arose. Darwin's book was titled
The Origin of Species, not
The Origin of Life. Some Creationists believe God created the first life, then allowed it to evolve according to his plan.
But the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are separate disciplines should affect your argument very little. All the evolutionists here accept both evolution and abiogenesis, and reject a divine origin or influence for either one. It would just as devastating to us if you were to disprove abiogenesis as evolution, so go for it!
--Percy
™ Version 4.2