[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So it is separate from evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution speaks to how life changes over time, in order for life to change there has to be life in the first place.

Evolution is descent with modification, to go from a combination of chemicals and such to a self-replicating molecule isn't evolution, since there's no descent and no modification, it's something else. The first step.

Many of the components of evolution simply don't apply in that first step, so it's a different theory.

Originally Posted by Rathji

Evolution is a recursive sequence, that is at every step of the chain what we have is defendant upon what we had in the previous step. So you start at humans and work your way backwards until you get to the origin of life. Then once you are at the origin of life, in order to prove the whole thing, you need to prove that base case.

Not really, evolution doesn't depend on any specific method of abiogenesis. Could be chemicals in the early earth, could be aliens, could be God, from evolution's point of view it doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am a computer guy, so that's how I think. I realize that with the natural sciences that base case isn't required but without it I am surprised that the lack of creation (or its impossibility) can be considered a certainty without that last building block.

What do you mean the lack or impossibility of creation? Evolution isn't a theory about how life began, so it doesn't say anything about creation or the lack thereof. Evolution is about the diversity of existing life. I guess it removes the necessity of special creation back to the point of first life, but that building block of abiogenesis isn't a component of evolution.