But the statement purporting to be made by Francisco Ayala is actually made by Roger Lewin. That is happened which way? That the fossils were laid down in order of increasing complexity? That much is proven, isn't it? There are pieces of the puzzle demonstrated. Here's one: The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA. The illustration I gave was to ask if you propose to alter the science curriculum. As I'm sure you know, some US school board officials, representing Creationists, still resist some of these materials. Also, do you say there is no proof of evolution, or of abiogenesis, or both? I guess that depends on the standard of proof. As a starter, I would offer the observations of microbes evolving in vitro and the synthesis of amino acids under the simulated primordial conditions. It's something more than just pictures. And some of this can practically be done at home. Pasteur was late in the game, as he himself began to realize the existence of microbes, and the cause for what ancient Greeks might have assumed was "spontaneous generation". Pasteur is one of many who contributed to the obsolescence of the Law of Biogenesis. But it has nothing to do with evolution, or abiogenesis. Or do you say that it does? Theories fall out of evidence. Evidence up on the shelf is not sacrosanct. It's only the best evidence. Tomorrow some jar is coming down and a better one is going back up. I think that the people who bring innovation will often be qualifying, if not discrediting, an older study. Cross checking is an essential feature of the sciences. It can take monumental effort, a lot more than just "for shit and giggles".