>>713855763
>There's no known way to turn non-living material into life
You do it every time you eat something
>The belief that dust/water just randomly formed into functional DNA, proteins, a cell, etc. capable of reproducing itself is absurd
It's a complicated chain of reactions with very niche circumstances, but all it takes is for a single imperfectly replicating combination to be strung together for a chain reaction to occur.
>We OBSERVE genetic mutations delete data over time
A mutation can add, delete, or shift things around. There's plenty of degrees of motion. If a large enough portion is double-copied, you can even end up with entirely new sets of limbs. Over enough generations, these different sets can diverge in purpose to reduce redundancy and increase function.
>There is no known way asexual creatures could develop sexual reproduction through mutation
Even asexual creatures have gene swapping functions, since lacking it leaves a species more susceptible to obliteration. A form of genetic mixing and recombination would naturally form from imperfect replications of such functions. We see horizontal gene transfer in single cell organisms all the time. Even the relationship between viruses and cells fusing genetic material to create infected cells/viral factories is similar to sperm and eggs combining into zygotes.
>The scientific community believed Piltdown Man was a human ancestor for decades before discovering it was a hoax
No they didn't. They called bullshit until the truth came out.
>The entire "fossil record" is unscientific, lining up the remains of different animals is not evidence they evolved into each other
What you're describing is reductionist to the point of falsehood.
>Missing links
Literally every generation of organisms not recorded is a missing link. No shit we can't collect every permutation of life that has ever existed before it goes extinct