Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course...
You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'.
I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed.
So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon.
Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything!
So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in.
So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as:
Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids.
Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds?
Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true...
I don't know why we have a universe who created a
set of organic materials and a
set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a
need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no
need, no
intent, just billions of years of random accidents".
As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops...
Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding?
What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory.
Multiple fields of study and experimentation then continue to support said theory, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is always open to new data which may supersede what was previously understood. This is not, as theists like to imply, a weakness, it is the core strength of understanding through independent knowledge, as opposed to theist magical thinking and dogma which is simply pulled out of their almighty imagination.
By the way, "billions of years of random accidents"? No, again your understanding is skewed. There are no 'accidents' because that would imply, again, intent gone awry. There is only action/reaction when it comes to the natural formation of elements and molecules.
To suggest otherwise requires that *you* provide the data to support the notion of 'intent' because, as it currently stands, the natural state of the Universe doesn't require it so you would be electing to introduce something for which there is neither evidence nor need.
As for the intellectually bankrupt BADecker who likes to repeatedly and insistently spout fallacious bullshit as though it were valid assertion, evolution through natural selection is the end result of the statistical survival rates of organisms based on genetic changes which naturally occur as part of the fact that genetic replication is not a flawless process. Copies are not always exact replicas, hence the introduction of new design aspects to the 'child' organism.
What is so hard to understand?
Now, back to the OP, the article begins by dishonestly implying intent, which causes the reader to view evolution the wrong way round, leaving them perceiving it as an intentional adaptation of organisms which, if it were true, would indeed be cause to ask how did the original intent to change come to be. But it isn't an intentional change, the organism doesn't choose to create genes with different structures, they just occur because the replication process is not able to create 100% copies 100% of the time, because of changing environmental conditions and interactions as that process is taking place.
Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment.
The words 'in order to', require intent to be part of the process.
By looking at evolution from the wrong direction, seeing, say bacteria being exposed to hostile conditions which immediately kill off a portion but which, over time, sees the bacteria genetics changing to create new elements to their structure which allow them to not only survive but thrive in the once-hostile environment, it appears as though the bacteria adapted to the new environment, that the evolutionary changes saw it replicating with different elements until a new design was found which stopped it from being killed off by the new environmental conditions it was placed in.
That is how the OP's article needs evolution to be viewed in order to then continue on with the fallacious reasoning which allows it to reach a conclusion which met the researchers needs, namely, being able to crowbar religion into his 'science'.
But the simple fact is, and this isn't me telling you to believe this, this is testable and objectively provable, evolution is the end result, not the beginning. For all the instances of genetic replication erroneously failing to create an identical copy but causing the new genetic design to contain an element which helps the organism to have a better chance of survival long enough to, itself, replicate, there are countless instances of the replication process creating erroneous design changes which do nothing to change the survival rate or, for that matter, serve to actually reduce the chances of the organism surviving long enough to replicate.
The fact that erroneous replication also leads to the creation of genetic designs which are harmful to the organism means that there would be a far higher chance of that organism not surviving and, therefore, that erroneous design change is not continued on.
The bacteria I spoke about previously which some would view as having adapted to its environment is not the same bacteria that started out, it is not one organism. It was the replication process which is constantly taking place which saw the 'old' genetic blueprint, the one which could not survive well in the hostile environment it was exposed to, causing new bacterial cells to be created which either could survive better or could not. The ones that could survive better went on to thrive in the new conditions. It was not one bacterial organism adapting, although when viewed from the wrong direction it might seem like it was.