Chupacabra

How can you say that? Thanks to technology, no animal on the planet can take on a properly prepared human being. We can survive in any climate. We can repair injuries which would've killed any other animal. We can live for decades upon decades, and our population growth continues to be explosive. And we haven't had to speciate in order to do any of these things.

Remember one important thing: as archaeological evidence tells us, human brain hasn't changed noticeably for at least tens of thousand years. For the most of this period the technology remained very primitive, there was also little population growth. In fact, thinks like bipedality and large brain (entailing smaller jaw power, bigger parturient mortality etc.) hampered primitive humans significantly. Being so awkward and feeble, they were an easy catch for many ancient carnivorous. And their average longeivity was in fact much smaller than that of apes. Circa 70000 ys. ago they were even on the verge of extinction, remaining not more than several thousands on

the whole Earth. And natural selection doesn't work by "what'd be better over millenia", in works by "what's better now".

The ability to exchange abstract information via spoken communication necessitates the capacity for abstract thought.

That's inconsistent. The ability to exchange abstract information can't exist without the capacity for abstract thought.

Knowledge the primitive humans really required was very applied. The capacity for abstract thought in those remote times when we should've evolved led at best to the invention of religious practices and shamanic rites that took out time and energy from humans with little practical utility. Thus it couldn't evolve just by natural selection.

The problem with explaining abiogenesis is the lack of anything resembling fossil evidence. That doesn't mean we haven't created all sorts of thoroughly plausible hypotheses for explaining it, just that we have no evidence for which one is true.

Were any of them plausible, why the process hasn't as yet been reproduced in tube? Scientists can simulate the conditions in the middle of stars, what's wrong with abiogenesis?

I'm not a proponent of ID "theory" (as an ecologist, in fact, cannot be). Still would like to show you some points unexplained by the darvinian evolutional theory.

1) natural selection promotes survival of the species most fit to certain environment. Still in can't explain why complex and highly organized creatures originated from more simple ones. Complexity doesn't correlate with survival chances; in fact, some primitive bacteria stay unchanged for billions of years perfectly fit for their environment;

2) why the consciousness appeared once in the course of evolution? It doesn't help to survive, in fact, the ability to reflect on our actions more often hampers our ability to make quick decisions. And, primitive men had the same mental abilities than we have. How the abilities like taking square roots or conceiving metaphysical systems helped primitive men to survive?

3) Darvinian theory has nothing to do with the appearance of life on Earth. There are no valid scientific theory to explain these.