Uh oh....someone is dodging the question because they can't answer it. Now let me educate you.
Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolutionary theory. It is the foundation.
It's not.
Life reproducing and passing on heritable variations is the foundation of evolutionary theory.
Darwin and Wallace described existing life and fossil remains in their formulations of the Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection. No understanding, or even discussion, of the origin of life was necessary.
The origin of life doesn't need to be considered AT ALL for the Theory of Evolution to accurately describe the observed fact of evolution, nor the history of life on earth.
You can't have a working theory without a beginning.
You can. For instance, we have working theories of the fundamental interactions in physics, without having an understanding of what caused the beginning of the universe. All we need are observation and testing based on our predictive models.
This is sort of like arguing that if you don't understand the beginning of the universe, you can't have a working theory of nuclear physics, or gravity, or quantum mechanics.
If I ask you, how did life begin? The atheist answer is always the same. You avoid the question.
We don't fully know. We may never have a full understanding of the particular circumstances that led to the formation of life on earth.
However, we have some understanding of the processes that needed to occur for simple self-replicating molecules to become complex self-replicating molecules which at some point at a minimum of 3.8 billion years ago (and in all likelihood more like 4.1 billion years ago) became 'life' as we define it.
If abiogenesis is not true, then you must accept the existence of an eternal, uncreated God.
Errrm, what? This makes as much sense as saying "If meatballs go with pasta, then you must accept the existence of an eternal, uncreated Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Abiogensis is a collection of hypotheses about how life could have started on earth. You can't say "abiogenesis is not true". At most, you could say that our current hypotheses are not adequate to explain the origination of life on earth. And so those hypotheses would just get replaced with better candidate explanations.
Louis Pasteur proved that abiogenesis is not true.
No, he disproved spontaneous generation. Which is the idea that certain living things were created (fully formed) inside inanimate material. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that biological life is derived from simpler non-biological self-replicators.
So there is your evidence for an eternal, uncreated God. Unless you provide evidence that abiogenesis is true, then evolutionary theory collapses into the hole where it's foundation should be.
It's not evidence for God.
If I say the evidence shows that the butler didn't commit a murder, it's not evidence for someone else having committed it. Evidence needs to be specific to the claim and exhaustive of other claims. If all existing origin of life research was invalidated tomorrow, it would have no bearing on whether a God or gods exist or not, nor whether such a being is capable of creating life, nor whether such a being did in fact create life.
So again, please tell me if Dawkins presents evidence for abiogenesis in his book, or if he is just blowing hot air from both ends.
Dawkins may or may not have presented evidence of abiogensis, but that's totally immaterial to the actual point.
Origin of life research is an ongoing field. New hypotheses and evidence about the origin of life continue to be produced.
At the moment,
ALL of the evidence suggests life is derived from a universal common ancestor that lived about 4 billion years ago and that life has evolved progressively since then, undergoing multiple periods of rapid diversification and adaptive radiations.
At the same time, none of the evidence points to a deity being involved, or of any particular religious creation myth accurately describing the development of life on earth.
