The man made famous by Ferris Bueller, however quickly wades into waters too deep for him. He makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is, it couldn't--and it didn't. Organic chemicals needed eons of stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living thing.Is this brush-off really fair? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the current theory has it that Earth's early atmosphere was conducive to the production of organic compounds, and somehow the first cell came about from this. I understand there are tentative hypotheses as to various proto-cells that could be created, or that DNA could somehow have come about that would start reproducing, but is this not all speculation? Is there a theory (with positive evidence in its favor, of course) that asserts something that is not ultimately reducible to "lightning struck this soup, DNA was formed and happened to be near a membrane bubble, and voila!"?
Granted science is a process and unanswered questions do not nullify its current theories, but should not such a question should put a considerable burden upon the biologist to provide a more satisfying answer than the oft heard "an infinite time anything could happen".