abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic

 

That's the argument from ignorance

When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
How is pointing out the FACT that he's using the "argument from ignorance" somehow "ignorant"??

Maybe because you adressed your own logic ("when you say human machinery is designed", etc.) instead of my hypothesis (recheck my comment, you won't find the verb "design" in there). I gave an effect and a possible cause, i like what you did with the car-color analogy though, it shows that you're at least looking for an observation/effect that shows the hypothesis to be false (that's how science works baby), too bad though, the color of a car is not machinery as pointed out in other words by the person before me. You'll need to try again with an observation of an effect that can be worded as "machinery" (preferrably, something that HAS actually been worded as "machinery" by someone on this planet at least).

It's funny how both of you completely misunderstood XYZ's point. The point is that science doesn't know the answer yet. We haven't discovered the origin of DNA and lots of other stuff. But just because science doesn't know the answer, doesn't mean the answer is intelligent design. This is the path of logic you guys are taking here. XYZ was offering an analogy that is similar to the ignorance in science on the origin of life. Science hasn't yet discovered this, but you are claiming that because they haven't, that it had to have been designed, which is similar to only seeing a blue car and assuming the rest are blue as well. Since you've only seen complex or coded information come from human intelligence, you assume that something that contains a code is automatically designed. It's assuming an unknown cause as well as equating human intelligence to a higher intelligence. Both are faulty logic.

edit on 22-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

BINGO!! Finally someone who gets it...

Originally posted by whereislogic

Well you don't really detect design, you conclude design by the effects one detects/observes. For example, someone detects the inner workings of the cell (notice how I already used the word "workings"), when describing the inner workings of the cell one has to use words that accurately describe what's going on, this automaticly forces you to make comparisons whith what is known (words in our language), some may say that you're already making conclusions here but I still count this as part of the observation, cause how else are you going to translate the visual observation in words/sensible information. So when someone like the person you quoted says "biological machinery" then he's not drawing a conclusion but making an observation.

So, basically you're saying that it's a machine because we use the word "machine" to describe it?

This doesn't strike you as just a tad circular?

I would have to agree with Barcs and MrXYZ here. The argument seems to boil down to: "I can't see how this could have come to be by natural, unguided means, therefore it must have been designed". This is the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance (as MrXYZ pointed out).

I've always thought the ID proponents are putting the carriage before the horse. If they want to be intellectually consistant, they need to first demonstrate the existance of this intelligent designer before they can invoke him (it?) as a cause for what they're observing. ID will stand or fall on the positive evidence (or lack thereof). All the more puzzling, then, that there seems to be no effort from the ID camp to find any such evidence. Instead, they try to justify their claims about design, irreducible complexity and biological information by looking for negative evidence against the naturalistic, unguided explanations that have been proposed.

The thinking seems to be that if the current naturalistic explanations can be proved wrong, ID wins by default. This is another example of faulty logic. Trying to justify your claims by using negative evidence against alternative explanations is a dead end, for the simple reason that it requires you to prove a negative. Disproving any currently proposed explanation gets you nowhere. You need to demonstrate that there could not be any other explanation. And yes, this includes hypotheses that haven't even been proposed yet. This is clearly not a path forward for the ID theory.

reply to post by Barcs


And you are assuming facts not in evidence...show me a sentence where I argued for design...

reply to post by Barcs


And it is funny how you still are supporting a specious line of argumentation...I know what his point was...his argumentation and support of it was and is faulty...

The question proposed in this thread is this:

Is abiogenesis supported by science?

The answer is unequivocally NO!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic

 

That's the argument from ignorance

When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
How is pointing out the FACT that he's using the "argument from ignorance" somehow "ignorant"??

Maybe because you adressed your own logic ("when you say human machinery is designed", etc.) instead of my hypothesis (recheck my comment, you won't find the verb "design" in there). I gave an effect and a possible cause, i like what you did with the car-color analogy though, it shows that you're at least looking for an observation/effect that shows the hypothesis to be false (that's how science works baby), too bad though, the color of a car is not machinery as pointed out in other words by the person before me. You'll need to try again with an observation of an effect that can be worded as "machinery" (preferrably, something that HAS actually been worded as "machinery" by someone on this planet at least).

It's funny how both of you completely misunderstood XYZ's point. The point is that science doesn't know the answer yet. We haven't discovered the origin of DNA and lots of other stuff. But just because science doesn't know the answer, doesn't mean the answer is intelligent design. This is the path of logic you guys are taking here. XYZ was offering an analogy that is similar to the ignorance in science on the origin of life. Science hasn't yet discovered this, but you are claiming that because they haven't, that it had to have been designed, which is similar to only seeing a blue car and assuming the rest are blue as well. Since you've only seen complex or coded information come from human intelligence, you assume that something that contains a code is automatically designed. It's assuming an unknown cause as well as equating human intelligence to a higher intelligence. Both are faulty logic.

edit on 22-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

BINGO!! Finally someone who gets it...

In other words - here's where atheists / evolutionists currently stands:

Does science support the abiognesis hypothesis?

Answer - we don't know.

What is the origin of life?

Answer - we don't know.

Where did intelligence came from?

Answer - we don't know.

Who fine tuned the universe?

Answer - we don't know.

Where did the laws of nature came from?

Answer - we don't know.

Is nature intelligent?

Answer - we don't know.

Can life arise from inanimate materials?

Answer - we don't know.

Is the DNA Code a form of information?

Answer - we don't know.

Is the DNA Code program for life?

Answer - we don't know.

Was chance event responsible for life?

Answer - we don't know.

How did the cell got it's membrane?

Answer - we don't know.

Can science be able to explain the origin of life?

Answer - we don't know.

from the OP:

What was Earth's primitive atmosphere like?

Answer - we don't know.

Was there a guiding causal power / force behind the emergence of the elemental materials?

Answer - we don't know.

Why only left-handed molecules for life are used?

Answer - we don't know.

How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?

Answer - we don't know.

How can such cell membrane appear in such deadly environment?

Answer - we don't know.

and the list goes on and on.

Basically atheist and evolutionists alike - when it comes down to the basic questions about life after all the huffing and puffing the answer is all together now:

WE DON'T KNOW.

reply to post by edmc^2


Yes...there's a lot of stuff we don't know (yet). But it isn't just atheists who don't know...you don't know either

Difference is, atheists admit that, while you fill that gap in knowledge with magic

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs

 

And it is funny how you still are supporting a specious line of argumentation...I know what his point was...his argumentation and support of it was and is faulty...

No it wasn't...because "color being connected to light" is completely irrelevant for the point I'm trying to make.

some food for thought for those who think it's impossible, or that life can't survive in hostile environments:

Try an ocean, or deep sea vents.. And do realize that some living organisms feed off of radiation right? In fact, where there is uranium, volcanic activity, and water there is a good chance of life.

astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov...

Abstract:

Microbes that live off radiation have been discovered several kilometers below ground, microbiologist Tullis Onstott of Princeton University announced at a gathering of the American Geophysical Union. The microorganisms make their homes in water squeezed within rock. "It's a completely novel system for supporting life," commented deep-sea microbiologist John Baross. "Anywhere you have a crust with uranium and water in it, you have the potential for life," claimed Onstott. Such conditions might be found under the surface of Mars. The two researchers were quoted in a report in Nature Science Update. Determining the range of conditions where life can exist is a major thrust of astrobiology.

Such extreme organisms tell us that for life to start, conditions don't need to be perfect, or even require a sunny 70 degree day. We also have this:

astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov...

Abstract:

According to a new report, eukaryotic cells resulted from the fusion of genomes from an ancient bacterium and a simpler microbe, Archaea, best known for its ability to withstand extreme temperatures and hostile environments. The researchers estimate that the fusion occurred at least 2 billion years ago.

Archaea are of immense interest to astrobiologists who study extremophiles. Determining what enables these microbes to thrive under extreme conditions may help scientists understand how life could survive in harsh environments on other planets. The new research also sheds light on the evolution of life on our own planet. The development of eukaryotic cells allowed for the evolution of multi-cellular organisms, which was a major event in the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem.

We also get the water bear to which can survive the vacuum of space!:

Tardigrades (commonly known as water bears or moss piglets)[2] form the phylum Tardigrada, part of the superphylum Ecdysozoa. They are microscopic, water-dwelling, segmented animals with eight legs. Tardigrades were first described by Johann August Ephraim Goeze in 1773 (kleiner Wasserbär = little water bear). The name Tardigrada means "slow walker" and was given by Lazzaro Spallanzani in 1777. The name water bear comes from the way they walk, reminiscent of a bear's gait. The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 millimetres (0.059 in), the smallest below 0.1 mm. Freshly hatched larvae may be smaller than 0.05 mm.

Some 1,150 species of tardigrades have been described.[3][4] Tardigrades occur over the entire world, from the high Himalayas[5] (above 6,000 metres (20,000 ft)), to the deep sea (below 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)) and from the polar regions to the equator.

The most convenient place to find tardigrades is on lichens and mosses. Other environments are dunes, beaches, soil, and marine or freshwater sediments, where they may occur quite frequently (up to 25,000 animals per litre). Tardigrades often can be found by soaking a piece of moss in spring water.[6]

Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of close to absolute zero (−273 °C (−459 °F)),[7] temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals,[8] and almost a decade without water.[9] Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of outer space in low earth orbit.

So the Creationist puddle tree hugging is largely a worthless argument. Especially when volcanic activity likely has to do a lot with how life likely began here on Earth --> seen next post:

Volcanic Gases:

* Volcano gasas, amino acids make peptides:

www.the-scientist.com...

* wiki - Volcano

www.the-scientist.com...

* Volcano Gases - Early Earth:

www.sciencedirect.com... canchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1224597981&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9edd47776cdaab8a6dc17e5d21a688f8< br />
* volcanoes_work climate_effects *The Haze Effect* [Blocking UV radiation):

www.geology.sdsu.edu...

Early Earth Atmosphere Part 2:

Rocks tell of warm Earth:

* news-service.stanford.edu...

Wiki..Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere:

* en.wikipedia.org...

* en.wikipedia.org...hanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

* Geology.com/nasa - oil-seeps:

geology.com...

* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:

geology.gsapubs.org...

volcanoes-created-much-worlds-oil:

www.nowpublic.com...

* Amino acids, oil:

www.concord.org...

* Volcanic_life_origin amino acids:

www.nasa.gov...

Oxygenation:

* records.viu.ca...

A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere:

* www.sciencemag.org...

* earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

*www.sciencemag.org...

If you want to learn about abiogenesis, there is a lot we do know, and some things we don't know.. Regardless, it's electromagnetism. For example, here is a good source:

www.pnas.org...

ORIGINS OF LIFE:

Biological Sciences - Biochemistry

Robert Shapiro

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life PNAS 1999 96 (8) 4396-4401; doi:10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
...27 Miller S L Orgel L E ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on the Earth ( Prentice Hall , Englewood...3226718 . 70 Woese C ( 1980 ) in The Origins of Life and Evolution , eds Halvorson H O Van...Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life ( Cambridge Univ. Press , New York...

-

Physical Sciences - Chemistry - Special Feature

Stephen J. Sowerby,
Corey A. Cohn,
Wolfgang M. Heckl,
and Nils G. Holm

Special Feature: From the Cover: Differential adsorption of nucleic acid bases: Relevance to the origin of life PNAS 2001 98 (3) 820-822; doi:10.1073/pnas.98.3.820
...919 . 23 Winter D Zubay G ( 1995 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 25 : 61 - 81 , 11536682...adsorpstation , version 1.0 ( Department of Thermodynamics and Thermal Separation...3422484 . 35 Shapiro R ( 1995 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 25 : 83 - 98 , 11536683...

-

Physical Sciences: Geology

Steven M. Stanley

An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian PNAS 1973 70 (5) 1486-1489
...Fischer, A. G. (1965) "Fossils, early life, and atmospheric history," Proc. Nat...Geology: Stanley Late Precambrian Origin of Multicellular Life 1489 3. Schopf, J. W., Haugh, B. N., Molnar...waite, D. F. (1973) "On the development of metaphytes and metazoans," J. Paleontol...1968) "Pre-metazoan evolution and the origins of the Metazoa," in Evolution and Environment...

--

Physical Sciences - Chemistry

Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller

Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life PNAS 2002 99 (23) 14628-14631; published ahead of print October 30, 2002, doi:10.1073/pnas.192568299
...atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life 10.1073/pnas.192568299 Shin...Orgel, L. E., ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on the Earth (Prentice-Hall...1998 ) in The Molecular Origins of Life , ed. Brack, A. (Cambridge...

-

Biological Sciences - Biochemistry

Matthew Levy and
Stanley L. Miller

The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life PNAS 1998 95 (14) 7933-7938
...59-69. 15 Shock E L ( 1990 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 20 : 331 - 367 . 16 Holm N G ( 1992 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 22 : 5 - 14 . 17 Shock E L ( 1996 ) in Evolution of Hydrothermal Ecosystems on Earth (and...48 Miller S L Orgel L E ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on Earth ( Prentice Hall , Englewood...

-

Research Article

D M Raup and
J W Valentine

Multiple origins of life PNAS 1983 80 (10) 2981-2984
Multiple origins of life D M Raup J W Valentine There is...conditions. If there were multiple origins of life, the result could have been a polyphyletic...given as many as 10 independent origins of life, the odds are that all but one...

-

Physical Sciences: Chemistry

Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall

Photoreduction of carbon dioxide by aqueous ferrous ion: An alternative to the strongly reducing atmosphere for the chemical origin of life PNAS 1988 85 (18) 6577-6580
...biol. 39, 397-405. 7. Stribling, R. & Miller, S. L. (1987) Origins Life 17, 261-273. 8. Walker, J. C. G. (1985) Origins Life 16, 117-127. 9. Holland, H. D. (1984) The Chemical Evolution of the Atmo- sphere and Oceans (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton...

--

Commentary

Eugene V. Koonin

An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life PNAS 2007 104 (22) 9105-9106; published ahead of print May 22, 2007, doi:10.1073/pnas.0702699104
...An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life. | National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health...chemical reactions hydrothermal vents life origin ocean floors RNA GeoRef, Copyright...

-

Geophysics

Harold C. Urey

On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life PNAS 1952 38 (4) 351-363
...Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life. | Institute for Nuclear Studies, University...chemical history of the earth and the origin of life Urey Harold Clayton Author 351 363 PNASA6...

Biological Sciences - Evolution

Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos

Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the origin of life PNAS 2010 107 (4) 1470-1475; doi:10.1073/pnas.0912628107
...2000 ) An inherited efficiencies model of non-genomic evolution . Simul Pract Theory...replicator was not involved in the origin of life . IUBMB Life 49 : 173 - 176 . 11 Kauffman SA ( 1993 ) The Origins of Order ( Oxford Univ Press , New York...


And there are other resource sites you can check out to which includes Google's scholar search engine. And you can even read this:

Physical Sciences: Chemistry

G. W. Hodgson and
Cyril Ponnamperuma

PREBIOTIC PORPHYRIN GENESIS: PORPHYRINS FROM ELECTRIC DISCHARGE IN METHANE, AMMONIA, AND WATER VAPOR PNAS 1968 59 (1) 22-28
...probable synthesis during chemical evolution," Nature, 202, 1231-1232 (1964). 9 Hodgson, G. W., and B. C. Baker, "Porphyrin abiogenesis from pyrrole and formaldehyde under simulated geochemical conditions," Nature, 216, 29-32 (1967). 10 Krashnovskii, A. A...

Or this soon to be up coming publication:

www.nytimes.com...

Dr. Ratcliff and his adviser, Michael Travisano, are experts in experimental evolution. They design experiments in which microbes can evolve interesting new traits within weeks.

“We were sitting in his office drinking coffee, talking about what would be the coolest thing you could do in the lab,” Dr. Ratcliff said. “O.K., the origin of life would be too hard. But other than the origin of life, what would be the coolest thing?” They decided it would be observing single-celled microbes evolving a primitive form of multicellularity.

The scientists designed an experiment with brewer’s yeast, which normally lives as single cells, feeding on sugar and budding off daughter cells to reproduce.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Lichens can also survive the vacuum of space:

www.esa.int...

www.spacedaily.com...

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Thanks for your valiant effort to prove an unworkable bad idea - the abiogenesis hypothesis. But what you're seeing from your examples are after the facts. Meaning the examples you've posted are already EXISTING organisms NOT what abiogenesis hypothesis is saying - spontaneous generation of life by blind chance.

In addition they don't show us exactly or even remotely show us

4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?



You see under the Urey-Miller experiment, the ONLY way to save the non-living organic materials they created from being completely destroyed was to REMOVE them from the DEADLY environment they were created from. If they leave this non-living organic materials in the "trap" - they will disintegrate to nothing.

But as for your examples, sure the organisms can survive in such deadly environment nobody can deny that but the thing is - it doesn't explain how they got there or what made them able to live in such deadly environment. It doesn't even explain how they got such impervious membranes - which is one of my questions.

Also don't forget this ONE glaring FACT - using the Urey-Miller experiment:

If the apparatus they used to produce the non-living organic materials correspond to the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and the organic materials correspond to the building blocks for life, who do the scientists - Miller/Urey / people in your examples,

i.e.: (Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller
D M Raup and
J W Valentine
Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall
Eugene V. Koonin
Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos )

et al correspond to in the abiogenesis hypothesis world?

Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?

I think your answer will be the same "I DON'T KNOW'.

Bottom line:

As long as INTELLIGENCE is EXCLUDED from the equation of the ORIGIN OF LIFE - the answer will be a perpetual - WE DON'T KNOW.

Only by INCLUDING Intelligence - one IS be able to understand the Origin of Life!

There's no other alternative otherwise it's an unending unprovable hypothesis upon hypothesis on top of another hypothesis.

>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis
> etc...etc...etc...

The key is INTELLIGENCE whether you believe it or not.

reply to post by edmc^2


^^^ And that ladies and gentlemen is how you fill a gap in knowledge with magic

One argumentative fallacy after another

Here's why your entire argument is nonsense: God of the gaps

And here's a video in case you don't like to read:

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

^^^ And that ladies and gentlemen is how you fill a gap in knowledge with magic

One argumentative fallacy after another

Mr. XYZ - you've reduced yourself to a fool on the hill who keeps shouting - the sky is falling the sky is falling - or was it chicken little?

But it makes you happy keep it up.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

^^^ And that ladies and gentlemen is how you fill a gap in knowledge with magic

One argumentative fallacy after another

Mr. XYZ - you've reduced yourself to a fool on the hill who keeps shouting - the sky is falling the sky is falling - or was it chicken little?

But it makes you happy keep it up.

Ad hominem

Thanks for providing us with another argumentative fallacy...that one was still missing from your impressive list of nonsense

PS: Thought about reporting this for a second...but then I realised you're simply trying to help by providing more examples of how not to argue

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

^^^ And that ladies and gentlemen is how you fill a gap in knowledge with magic

One argumentative fallacy after another

Mr. XYZ - you've reduced yourself to a fool on the hill who keeps shouting - the sky is falling the sky is falling - or was it chicken little?

But it makes you happy keep it up.

Ad hominem

Thanks for providing us with another argumentative fallacy...that one was still missing from your impressive list of nonsense

you have nothing to share but to attack the messenger thus it's you who is making a fool of yourself.

Share something intelligent and you will get a respect.





mods - can we just please stop these types of post from this member? It's like a fly who keeps buzzing around.

thanks

reply to post by edmc^2

you have nothing to share but to attack the messenger thus it's you who is making a fool of yourself.

Share something intelligent and you will get a respect.

First of all, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the content of your post by highlighting it's a great example of "god of the gaps", an argumentative fallacy.

You on the other hand responded with an ad hominem attack:

Mr. XYZ - you've reduced yourself to a fool on the hill who keeps shouting - the sky is falling the sky is falling - or was it chicken little?

And another one:

It's like a fly who keeps buzzing around.

All I did was point out that you use one argumentative fallacy after another, which is a FACT. I even linked the definitions of the fallacies you keep on using...and posted a video.

So while I contributed to the thread and stuck to discussing the topic, you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Share something intelligent and you will get a respect.

Irony

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

you have nothing to share but to attack the messenger thus it's you who is making a fool of yourself.

Share something intelligent and you will get a respect.

First of all, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the content of your post by highlighting it's a great example of "god of the gaps", an argumentative fallacy.

You on the other hand responded with an ad hominem attack:

Mr. XYZ - you've reduced yourself to a fool on the hill who keeps shouting - the sky is falling the sky is falling - or was it chicken little?

And another one:

It's like a fly who keeps buzzing around.

All I did was point out that you use one argumentative fallacy after another, which is a FACT. I even linked the definitions of the fallacies you keep on using...and posted a video.

So while I contributed to the thread and stuck to discussing the topic, you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Share something intelligent and you will get a respect.

Irony

Then address the questions:

If the apparatus they used to produce the non-living organic materials correspond to the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and the organic materials correspond to the building blocks for life, who do the scientists - Miller/Urey / people in your examples,

i.e.: (Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller
D M Raup and
J W Valentine
Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall
Eugene V. Koonin
Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos )

et al correspond to in the abiogenesis hypothesis world?

Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?

I think your answer will be the same "I DON'T KNOW'.