This does not prove the origin of all living kinds from a simpler ancestor, it is the interpretation of scientific data, in accordance with the dominant paradigm. This theory is contrary to the criterion of Popper's falsifiability, it also has no possibility of repeating in the laboratory or monitoring this process. Strictly speaking, this theory is accepted only because there are simply no other options for science.
Theory of Evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life, only how it evolved. And it is falsifiable because it makes predicitons, or better yet, retrodictions, since anthropology is an historic science (like cosmology, forensics) and not an operational science (like physics, chemistry).
This does not prove the origin of all living kinds from a simpler ancestor, it is the interpretation of scientific data, in accordance with the dominant paradigm. This theory is contrary to the criterion of Popper's falsifiability, it also has no possibility of repeating in the laboratory or monitoring this process. Strictly speaking, this theory is accepted only because there are simply no other options for science.
Theory of Evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life, only how it evolved. And it is falsifiable because it makes predicitons, or better yet, retrodictions, since anthropology is an historic science (like cosmology, forensics) and not an operational science (like physics, chemistry).
Why should evolution create barriers for crossing different species, because it could (in terms of theory) give positive results?