D-ribose isn't a chemical reaction. For example.
Evolution does not require abiogenesis; evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.
You are being lied to by your sources. Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species", and that is what evolution explains, the origin of species.
So on the one hand we have this one chemistry saying abiogenesis is impossible, and on the other we have countless others saying it is possible. The former presents his case with Youtube videos targeting the ignorant masses. The latter present their case in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals.
As I say, "ignorant masses".
Says the guy who thinks chemical reactions decompose.
This is sheer nonsense! Doesn't evolution "require" living organisms upon which it will work its fictitious magic? Assuming that the answer is of course it does, those organisms, in all of their astonishing complexity, require a source. Accordingly, any meaningful scientific discussion of evolution must account for the existence of such organisms to begin with. It is the total lack of scientific proof that living organisms arose through abiotic processes that paints evolutionists into the proverbial corner, forcing them to resort to the silly position, exemplified by you, that abiogenesis and evolution are independent of each other. Only an idiot or one seeking to pull the wool over folk’s eyes would subscribe to such a nonsensical view. Evolution apart from abiogenesis is more a farce rather than a theory.
Yes.
No, it mustn't.
No it is not. All that evolution requires is that very first just-about-alive cell capable of imperfect reproduction. Given that, then evolution will happen.
Certainly, but that first living organism may have arisen through abiogenesis, it may have drifted through space to earth (panspermia), it may have been deliberately seeded on earth by alien visitors, it may have been accidentally seeded on earth when those visitors didn't clear up their trash properly, it may have been created on earth by Vishnu or Amaterasu or Allah or ... (insert a long list of deities here) or there may be some other explanation.
Coloring book suggestion.
This seems to be your "go to" when you are out of your depth and have no actual argument to present.
Not quite....this is as deep as your argument goes...coloring book level...
Ah, you want a more grown up version. How about the Hardy-Weinberg theorem? Let me know if that is too simple for you.
Actually it's ALL "Bad science", since it STARTS with a "Conclusion" - i.e. there's no such thing as "supernatural creation" - and works single-mindedly to prove that conclusion to the exclusion of any other considerations.
Science has evidence, or at least the absence of evidence to support that conclusion. There is evidence that amino acids can form naturally, as in the Miller-Urey experiment. So far I have not seen evidence of any supernaturally formed amino acids. The same applies to many other chemicals present in living cells; there is evidence for natural formation and zero evidence of supernatural formation.
Except that the "Conclusion" came first. Man doesn't choose to retain GOD in their knowledge, and invariably will do whatever it takes to eliminate Him.
Show us your explain, and we can see whose is deeper.
That sounds more like religion.
And yet plenty of of the hundreds of thousands of biologists who accept evolution are Christians. I would guess most are theists of some sort.