@cofty
Speculative books on abiogenesis do not make it a fact. Why MUST we read them? When abiogenesis reaches the bar set by Einstein and Newton I’ll be glad to read its books.
All animals, birds, bacteria arose out of the primeval sea from a common ancestor due to abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic [non-living] matter, — This is still a work in progress. You would still be 100% wrong to deny common ancestry of all living things through evolution over millions of years
You say it's “still a work in progress” that means it’s now speculation, not proven. So why is it “100% wrong to deny common ancestry of all living things…from a common ancestor due to abiogenesis evolution over millions of years”? That's over the top 1975 hyperbole, “FDS is right, right or wrong.”
What you need for abiogenesis to be viableis: non-living (inorganic) matter would move from dead state toward a live state, according to some invisible natural law, eventually arriving as evolvable living (organic) matter; similar to how invisibly the law of gravity causes two particles to move towards each other.
Smarter than me explain it better:
Abiogenesis answers.yahoo.com
How can abiogenesis be a fact if no one knows how it happened?
Some think that forming life's building blocks in the lab helps prove abiogenesis. This is absurd. Scientists have found the minimum complexity of life to be about 2000 genes for a self-supporting microbe, and about 400 genes for the simplest parasitic microbe, not capable of surviving on its own. So it is not enough that there be life's building blocks present - they must be arranged in a precise order (and all amino acids must be left-handed) in order for life to function at all.
Creating amino acids or nucleotides in the lab and saying it proves abiogenesis is like someone saying the complete works of Shakespeare arose from naturalistic processes by pointing to a bowl of alphabet soup.
It is one thing to create life's building blocks in the lab, it is another for us to believe that those building blocks will be stable long enough for life to spontaneously arise from them. Many people know of the Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids from a hypothetical (now known to be wrong) early earth atmosphere. What many people don't know, however, is that those building blocks of life were unstable. Miller stopped the experiment when he got the most favorable results. If the experiment continued, the building blocks of life were broken down by the same environment that produced them. [This is Behe’s point. Lenski’s E. coli lab work is broken down specimen change, not evolved change upward.]
Also, from what is now known of the early earth, life had to have formed under hostile conditions. And while life, if appropriately designed, can survive under extreme physical and chemical conditions, it cannot originate under those conditions. There are extremophiles that can live in harsh environments, but these organisms have mechanisms built in to them to survive those conditions. If the building blocks of life were present, they would have a very short half-life. Also, the early earth was very acidic. Acidic conditions frustrate key prebiotic reactions. Acidic conditions also promote the breakdown of key biomolecules like proteins and DNA.
There is not enough time for life to have arisen on its own. After the molten earth had cooled, there is evidence that there was some water on earth between 4.4 and 4.2 billion years ago. Then the Late Heavy Bombardment occurred from 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago, causing the crust to become molten again. The first evidence for life that we have is from 3.8 billion years ago. Allowing for the possibility that extremophiles could have survived the Late Heavy Bombardment, the best case scenario for the time the origin of life had is between 400 and 600 million years. But during the majority of this time period, the earth's environment was extremely unfit for life.
And for those who say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution:
Evolution and abiogenesis are both the products of the philosophy of naturalistic materialism. Although not formally part of Darwin's theory, abiogenesis forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Life must have its beginning in exclusively physical and chemical processes for evolutionists to legitimately explain life’s diversity throughout Earth’s history from a strictly materialistic standpoint. If abiogenesis lacks scientific credibility, the foundation of evolutionary theory crumbles. Moreover, if life can be shown to have a supernatural origin, then the door opens for viewing all phenomena in biology from an intelligent design perspective.
Some scientists are trying to create life from 'scratch' in the laboratory. (It is not really from 'scratch,' but based heavily on design concepts already found in living cells.) This is different from abiogenesis and has no bearing on it because the life they are trying to create would be *designed.* Recently scientists have created an enzyme from scratch. But it took about 30 researchers working hard and the use of supercomputers to do it. This shows obvious DESIGN, not abiogenesis: which is life arising on its own from strictly naturalistic processes, and without intelligent direction.
Now I better understand what your fuss is all about. Your situation is JW 2.0 replacing the JW 1.0, Dawkins is now Rutherford. I’m way past that!
