I'm so excited that I may have found something that I disagree with most atheists on! Bout damn time. Most theists like to lump abiogenesis and evolution together not because they understand what those words mean, but because they think a lack of evidence for chemical reactions from billions of years ago somehow weakens a position they otherwise have a hard time arguing against. The old, "you don't know how life started, therefore God" argument. We counter with telling them that ABG and EVO are not the same thing. Problem is that to me it seems like they are the same thing, one is just the beginning of a process and another is the continuation of that same process. I never really considered them 2 separate events. To me, once the chemical compounds started to combine in the direction of self replication that was the beginning of evolution. If you disagree then at what point during that process where you would still consider it abiogenesis and not yet evolution would natural selection not be the driving factor? In other words, if you could trace our lineage all the way back to the first nonliving combination of compounds required for life, at what point could you reasonably assume no natural selection involved in the formation of life. Seems to me that natural selection is the basis for evolution and I don't see where the need for that is eliminated when life gets so simplistic that it's not really life by our definition. Even viruses evolve and they don't fit all the qualifiers to be called life. Wanna kill these ads? We can help!