Hello ChristineM. I'm a lawyer with a physics major, I'm not a biology major. That said, my studies ranged fairly broadly across the hard sciences.
Apparently, you missed out on the reading comprehension courses, since your response to Christine does not correspond to what she posted.
I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution.
Why would any one be aware of 'overwhelming' evidence of the claims of a straw man argument?
Molecules to man is not an assumption, statement of fact or prediction included in or made using the theory of evolution. Molecules to man is made up and not something claimed in science.
What is the overwhelming evidence that DNA/RNA copying errors in brainless sea sponges or nearly brainless comb jellies and their descendants (along with damage to DNA from cosmic rays, etc.) resulted in the conscious human mind?
Sorry. I had to jump out of the way as those goal posts shot by.
John Cleese had great advice. You should maybe kiss the girl before you jump, blindly, groping frantically at her.
Failure to have a ready answer available to explain the human mind is not evidence that the theory is failed. It is being used to seek the answers to the human mind, its state and origins.
As for abiogenesis--it cannot be truly seperated from molecule to man evolution. Both form necessary components of the naturalistic origins paradigm.
The theory and fact of biological evolution do not form any component of the origin of life. The theory is related to the origin of life only by way of the necessity for life to exist, contain variation and reproduce in order for biological evolution to take place. Evolution is not dependent on a specific origin of life and would work the same whether life was divinely created or formed from some natural process.
Whether someone believes life arose spontaneously from non-life on earth or whether one believes in some form of panspermia, abiogenesis is the unavoidable necessity when working within a naturalistic origins paradigm.
No it is not.
Since science does not deal with supernatural causes, the only causes it can hypothesize about and test are natural causes. This does not mean that the supernatural is eliminated as a possibility.
Plumbers are not trained to do open heart surgery, but by your logic, it is reasonable to hire one for the job.
is just an attempted escape mechanism from the difficulties of abiogenesis via infinite regression.
Panspermia is a legitimate hypothesis and the understanding is that it would explain the origin of life on earth and not any ultimate origin of life.
However, it doesn't remove the abiogenesis dilemma. Extraterrestrial life itself must have originally arisen spontaneously from non-life.
Exactly. The hypothesis does not say otherwise.