The origin of life, as stated above, is a different topic. Perhaps I can address it in a different article. Many opponents of evolution claim that a God must have created life and all the species. However, aren’t they just dodging an even bigger issue - who created the creator? Isn’t it easier to imagine a universe in which something as imperfect as E. coli either always existed or spontaneously arose than one in which an omnipotent, omniscient being came about spontaneously?

The point that evolutionists always try to dodge is this: even if macro-evolution could be proven, when it all began, where did that first cell or strand of DNA come from?

I think what you perceive as dodging is something else, perhaps indifference. I say that because it’s not relevant to this conversation (or any conversion about debating evolution): what does the origin of life have to do with the evolutionary process? Why is an answer needed for the origin of life in order to accept evolutionary theory?

IF the article and studies are correct and a strand of Ecoli is now able to survive where no Ecoli survived before… it’s still Ecoli. It’s not changing a tadpole into a monkey into a human.

First, your idea of evolution is incorrect in your tadpole-monkey-human comparison. That’s not how it works. Assuming you do understand the process, though, and were just being glib, you may want to read more about macroevolution. The “it’s still e. coli” argument is not true - macroevolution is a change at a level above the species, not below.

Also, IF the article and studies are correct and a strand of Ecoli is now able to survive where no Ecoli survived before… it’s still Ecoli. It’s not changing a tadpole into a monkey into a human.