Evolution is a mechanism that acts upon organisms. Give it organisms and it happens.
Arguing that abiogenesis is essential to evolution is like insisting that apple trees are essential to universal gravitation. Sorry, gravity exists and is understood completely outside of what object you chose to demonstrate it with.
Also, anyone with a cursory understanding of the subject knows there were flaws in Miller and Urey. And flaws in many of the other studies since. But it has still been shown, over and over again, that under conditions including -- but not restricted to -- those of primitive Earth, complex molecules of the form seen in life can form.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 458724molecules that are contained in life, yes, but not life itself, not even the simpilest, not by a longshot.
There are many ideas contained within the idea of evolution.
Natural adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc is both logical and observable, no one has a problem with that.
It's the idea that a few species, as Darwin put it, turning into the multiple species we have today that is challenged.
Yes, a horse may grow bigger or smaller through breeding, enviroment, etc, may grow spots, stripes, etc, but it will always be a horse, it could only have come from a horse, and it can only produce a horse, no matter if it reproduces itself in multiple enviroments for a billion years.
The part of evolution that says the horse came from what was once a fox, or a rabbit, all the way back to a worm or whatever, is what is both illogical, and unobservable.
It's simply an idea. An idea that rubs against common sense, yet it might have survived if the fossil record we find was not so overwhelmingly stacked against it.
