@OnTheWayOut
yet that same someone will accept that a "creator" did the exact same thing or was just always there, well that person needs to start over in their thinking
I never mentioned God in my post not even inferred it. Granted there may be some implication but only because it is the Yang to Evolution's Ying. It's the opposite hence it's assumed.
Anyway you're making an assumption there as it has nothing to do with that for me. It has to do with the viability of early life theories. It's about whether I can even consider it as a viable theory.
As I indicated earlier it is a far stretch for me that RNA magically offloaded its enzymatic functions. I must admit it is possible that RNA and DNA developed in tandem but I personally can't support the above as the model is quite complex as to the science of the matter.
I don't buy the argument that evidence of life evolving or kickstarting as it did from the time of the primordial soup won't be "in our lifetime". Why not? The components are still here since they are needed for life in the first place.
Where I have trouble is that we can't see it because it is slow and happened long ago. Well am I to believe that all the evolutionary chains all started at the same time so they are in a phase that isn't visible today? You mean none started 1 billion years ago, 100 million ago, 1 million ago. Stands to reason since it is happenstance there would be different events as such that they'd be staggered so some would be evident. Some half man half hominid or half amphibian half something else.