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

reply to post by radix


Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.
...
Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.

I just presented evidence of such transitional forms. If you're going to reject them I want to know on what grounds and what credentials you have in paleontology.

Again, what are your credentials in evaluating fossil evidence? Call me crazy but I think I'd go with the interpretation of someone who's spent decades studying this material and doing peer-reviewed science over the interpretation of someone who's presented no credentials in the field and who's clearly demonstrated that he has an axe to grind with anyone and anything who challenges his supernatural beliefs.

It doesn't take a paleontologist to spot a quackery or a nonsense. Simple common sense will do - google also helps.

But first do you know the reason why many of the findings made by evolutionist are based on assumptions?

The fossil record is incomplete and inaccurate.

That's why.

Question is do you agree?


No? then notice:

The fossil record can give us large amounts of knowledge. But there are many other ways that the fossil record is incomplete or misleading. Scientists must keep these problems in mind when they are reading the fossil record to come to conclusions about dinosaurs and their lifestyles...." -- read more here: animals.howstuffworks.com...

"...The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete. Here's one major reason why: Sediment has to cover an organism's remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen. Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population." -- science.howstuffworks.com...

"..Body fossils Fossils of organisms' bodies are usually the most informative type of evidence. Fossilization is a rare event, and most fossils are destroyed by erosion or metamorphism before they can be observed. Hence the fossil record is very incomplete, increasingly so, further back in time. Despite this, they are often adequate to illustrate the broader patterns of life's history.[22] There are also biases in the fossil record: different environments are more favourable to the preservation of different types of organism or parts of organisms.[23] Further, only the parts of organisms that were already mineralised are usually preserved, such as the shells of molluscs. Since most animal species are soft--- rest here: en.wikipedia.org...[27]"

Luckily some don't approve agree of this misleading practices.

"...a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." -- Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.

“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time." -- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95

just a few facts for your info.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

OK - since you're the expert here take me to one of your "observable facts" - as evidence of evolution and let's see if it's really evolution.

OK, let's look at the DNA evidence for common descent. There are at least 4 lines of DNA evidence: DNA homology, DNA synteny, pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses (ERV:s).

DNA homology means comparing the DNA sequences between different species, DNA synteny means comparing the order in which the genes are placed in the chromosomes. Pseudogenes are genes that have lost their function due to mutation but still remain in the genome and ERV:s are retroviruses that can infect a host organism and insert a DNA copy of their own genome into the host's genome. Like the pseudogenes, these viral DNA sequences have lost their function as viruses through mutation and have become a permanent part of the host's genome.

Each of these different lines of DNA evidence can independently be used to make phylogenetic diagrams which describe how closely related different organisms are to each other. Now that we have the complete genomes not only of simple organisms like bacteria and viruses but also of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans we can make accurate phylogenetic trees of ourselves and our closest relatives. It turns out that these 4 different lines of evidence produce the exact same phylogenetic tree structure and also confirm the phylogenetic trees made from physiological and biochemical data.

To go into detail on one of these lines of DNA evidence, the pseuodgenes, I'd like to introduce you to Dr Dennis Venema. He's an associate professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He also happens to be an Evangelical Christian. He has written some great articles about the evidence for evolution at biologos.org that I can heartily recommend. Here's the 2-part article on pseudogenes as evidence for common descent:

LINK

Evidence for common descent is obviously also evidence for speciation as you can't have one without the other.

Before I go on reading this stuff - one question:

Which common descent is the study based on?

One with one "root" - Darwin's?
en.wikipedia.org...

or

One with many "roots" - modern?
en.wikipedia.org...:Horizontal-gene-transfer.jpg

reply to post by edmc^2

Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.

The evidence has been presented. Sticking your head in the sand and denying it just makes you look stupid or downright dishonest.

It doesn't take a paleontologist to spot a quackery or a nonsense. Simple common sense will do - google also helps.

But first do you know the reason why many of the findings made by evolutionist are based on assumptions?

The fossil record is incomplete and inaccurate.

That's why.

"Quackery or nonsense", eh? Let's review, shall we? You defend a "theory" which contains:

a talking snake
a talking donkey
a woman giving birth at the ripe old age of 90
people living to be several hundred years old
a man living inside a fish for 3 days
a man surviving without water for 40 days
a drought with zero rainfall on the entire earth for 3 and a half years
a global flood killing all people and animals on the planet except those lucky enough to be on the ark
a wooden rod turning into a serpent
the same rod turning a river into blood by touching it
dust turning into lice (how's that for life from non-life?)
a river separating by the touch of a cloak and then rejoined by the addition of a pinch of salt
an iron axe head floating on water
a woman turning into salt
a man killing a 1000 other men with the jaw bone of an ass
people being able to drink deadly poison without harm just through the power of faith
various accounts of dead people coming alive

...and so on in absurdum - and you call a science based on centuries of observations and mountains of physical evidence "quackery and nonsense"? Well, you may be a hypocrite of epic (not to say biblical) proportions but at least you're not boring.

The obvious difference between paleontology or any other science and creationist nonsense is that science can present evidence for its claims. You have - nothing. Not a single shred of evidence for any of these preposterous assertions.

To say that the fossil evidence is incomplete is an embarrassingly obvious truism. The fossil record will remain incomplete until every possible fossil that can conceivably exist has been found. So what? All the fossils we have actually found (and they number in the billions) all fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification and totally debunk the creationist account. Again, your mind is completely closed to anything that challenges your beliefs which makes you utterly irrelevant in any scientific discussion. It's just sad.

Before I go on reading this stuff - one question:

Which common descent is the study based on?

One with one "root" - Darwin's?

or

One with many "roots" - modern?

Unless you have evidence of horizontal gene transfer between species of higher animals like primates, I think you can safely assume one root. Incidentally, you might want to check out this article from 2010 (I'd say that's pretty modern) which concludes that even taking horizontal gene transfer into account, the Universal Common Ancestor theory still holds.

I notice you still haven't presented any article mentioning genetic boundaries against speciation, how's that coming?

edmc^2, I admire your patience with these guys, but, these discussions are not about facts. They are never about facts. You can give great arguments and sources and all that, but it won't change anything. They'll just filter it with their pre-conceived beliefs. People don't defend evolution so much for rational reasons, but for emotional ones. It's all for emotional reasons, and no one likes to feel like they've been believing in something that's not as solid as they'd like it to be for such a long time, especially when it makes them feel connected to the so-called 'greatest minds' of modern science. Of course they will all say that what I'm saying is BS, but what else can be expected? Their state of mind is purely fueled by confirmation bias, and anything that falls outside of that will be dismissed as 'unscientific' or 'creationist garbage' or whatever other term they often use, even if it's a scientific source. They will refuse to see the underlying assumptions that lack evidence, because they pretend that it's all fact, and really believe it's all fact and that everything is pretty much already known and we just need to fill a few gaps. And because they believe they are being more rational and scientific than everyone else, they have no incentive to change their ways either.

reply to post by vasaga

these discussions are not about facts. They are never about facts. You can give great arguments and sources and all that, but it won't change anything. They'll just filter it with their pre-conceived beliefs. People don't defend evolution so much for rational reasons, but for emotional ones. It's all for emotional reasons, and no one likes to feel like they've been believing in something that's not as solid as they'd like it to be for such a long time, especially when it makes them feel connected to the so-called 'greatest minds' of modern science.

By just changing a few words, this describes to a tee how I feel about these discussuions:

these discussions are not about facts. They are never about facts. You can give great arguments and sources and all that, but it won't change anything. They'll just filter it with their pre-conceived beliefs. People don't defend their religious beliefs so much for rational reasons, but for emotional ones. It's all for emotional reasons, and no one likes to feel like they've been believing in something that's not as solid as they'd like it to be for such a long time, especially when it makes them feel connected to the so-called creator of the universe.

I'd say my version is closer to the truth but that's just me.

They will refuse to see the underlying assumptions that lack evidence, because they pretend that it's all fact, and really believe it's all fact and that everything is pretty much already known and we just need to fill a few gaps.

Total misrepresentation. In fact, we're constantly being berated and ridiculed by edmc^2 for admitting that we don't know for a fact how life started or how the universe came into existance. This arrogant pretense of absolute knowledge seems to be a uniquely religious trait.

Originally posted by edmc^2
So where in the above statements did I say LIE or LYING?

Kindly please point it to me before I proceed.

"But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous."

"based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available"

"transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation"

Those are the lies I was referring to.

I just posted a huge list of transition forms. It is not based on assumption, speculation or interpretation. That's how religion & the bible works. It is based on study and comparison to other fossils. We've found thousands of them. Read down the list and if you'd like to argue that one doesn't qualify, please post it here and explain why. Generalizations will not be accepted. Specific scientific data only, please.

Originally posted by vasaga
edmc^2, I admire your patience with these guys, but, these discussions are not about facts. They are never about facts. You can give great arguments and sources and all that, but it won't change anything. They'll just filter it with their pre-conceived beliefs. People don't defend evolution so much for rational reasons, but for emotional ones. It's all for emotional reasons, and no one likes to feel like they've been believing in something that's not as solid as they'd like it to be for such a long time, especially when it makes them feel connected to the so-called 'greatest minds' of modern science. Of course they will all say that what I'm saying is BS, but what else can be expected? Their state of mind is purely fueled by confirmation bias, and anything that falls outside of that will be dismissed as 'unscientific' or 'creationist garbage' or whatever other term they often use, even if it's a scientific source. They will refuse to see the underlying assumptions that lack evidence, because they pretend that it's all fact, and really believe it's all fact and that everything is pretty much already known and we just need to fill a few gaps. And because they believe they are being more rational and scientific than everyone else, they have no incentive to change their ways either.

Look in the mirror! You just described creationists to a T! Sorry, buddy. Real evidence backed by scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals means something in the real world. It has been posted here and ignored. Edmc hasn't posted any legitimate scientific evidence for his claims. He's just asking a script of questions over and over and just blindly attacking science as if it's wrong.

That's the exact problem. You're too busy pointing fingers at creationists to notice that you suffer from the same problem, just with a different authority. And it's not like I wasn't expecting these responses. It's inevitable, just like any christian will jump in at any moment to defend Jesus. It's even more ironic that you're telling me to look in the mirror. I'm not a creationist btw, but that's how your minds work. I have doubts about evolution, so I must be a creationist kook. Sound familiar? No? Ok. A christian person would say that someone who's not a christian is a sinner or satanist or whatever. See the parallels now? You still don't see it don't you?

Whatever. The message was not meant for you two anyway, but for edmc^2. I'm pretty sure he'll understand what I mean.

reply to post by vasaga
¨
People are entitled to their own beliefs but not to their own facts. If someone tells me he believes in a deity because it makes him feel good or because of a personal experience, I have no problem with that. However, if he claims that his beliefs are scientific, he must be prepared to back them up with evidence. edmc^2 has made plenty of such claims but utterly failed to back them up with anything but logical fallacies or misrepresentations of what science actually says.

He started this thread with the premise that abiogenesis is unscientific and a silly idea but hasn't offered any support for these claims other than arguments from ignorance. "All life comes from life" is not a fact but a claim he has yet to justify.

reply to post by radix


What is there to justify about that claim? Life has only been observed to come from other life. Life has not been observed to come from inorganic matter. That is still only hypothesized, and until it is demonstrated that life can actually arise from inorganic matter, he has the upper-hand in the discussion. Life from other life is the only thing that has been observed, and has been observed consistently, so that he somehow needs to justify that claim is kind of ridiculous. The ones believing that inorganic matter can give birth to life are the ones that need to present the evidence, because it's a fact that we have seen life arise from other life. It is not a fact that we have seen life arise from inorganic matter. Just because you and others (including scientists) think 'it must have had to happen that way', is not scientific evidence nor a scientific conclusion, but simply an assertion.

Like you yourself said. People are entitled to their own beliefs but not to their own facts. I'd only wish you'd exercise it in an unbiased manner and everywhere, not only on things you don't like and not with one-colored glasses on. And one more thing. Just like you atheists can not prove that God does not exist and the burden of proof is on the believer to proof that he does, no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise. It's the ones saying that it can that have the burden of proof.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't see it that way, but that's how it is. Maybe it's time for me to leave this thread. These things never end well.

reply to post by vasaga


The point was that evolution is backed by scientific evidence. It's not about difference of opinion or wanting to be right or wrong. It's about tangible objective facts. You attack it as if its a religion, when it's not even close. You accuse me of pointing fingers when your first post in this thread is you attacking people who "believe" scientific studies.

these discussions are not about facts. They are never about facts. You can give great arguments and sources and all that, but it won't change anything.

People don't defend evolution so much for rational reasons, but for emotional ones. It's all for emotional reasons, and no one likes to feel like they've been believing in something that's not as solid as they'd like it to be for such a long time, especially when it makes them feel connected to the so-called 'greatest minds' of modern science.

Maybe you should ask one of these great minds yourself.

reply to post by vasaga

What is there to justify about that claim? Life has only been observed to come from other life. Life has not been observed to come from inorganic matter. That is still only hypothesized, and until it is demonstrated that life can actually arise from inorganic matter, he has the upper-hand in the discussion. Life from other life is the only thing that has been observed, and has been observed consistently, so that he somehow needs to justify that claim is kind of ridiculous.

The fact that life has only been observed to come from other life does not constitute proof that all life comes from other life, it's still an argument from ignorance no matter how you slice it. It also doesn't explain where that first life came from. If you want to appeal to a supernatural creator you need to provide evidence that this creator actually exists, it really is that simple.

The ones believing that inorganic matter can give birth to life are the ones that need to present the evidence, because it's a fact that we have seen life arise from other life. It is not a fact that we have seen life arise from inorganic matter. Just because you and others (including scientists) think 'it must have had to happen that way', is not scientific evidence nor a scientific conclusion, but simply an assertion.

Straw man. No-one is asserting anything, abiogenesis is a hypothesis which is being tested. That's what scientists do, they pose a hypothesis and test it against the observed evidence. So far, there's nothing to suggest abiogenesis is impossible.

Like you yourself said. People are entitled to their own beliefs but not to their own facts. I'd only wish you'd exercise it in an unbiased manner and everywhere, not only on things you don't like and not with one-colored glasses on.

If I've shown any bias in this thread, it's against poor logic and misrepresentation posing as fact. I'm funny that way.

no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise.

Exactly! Don't look now but I think you just blew edmc^2:s entire argument out of the water, since he's claiming to have proved just that.

It's the ones saying that it can that have the burden of proof.

Correct - but again, I don't see anyone making that claim. I do think it's a reasonable hypothesis and there is supporting evidence in its favour but there are obviously a lot of loose ends.

reply to post by radix


"no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise." - vasaga


"Exactly! Don't look now but I think you just blew edmc^2:s entire argument out of the water, since he's claiming to have proved just that. " - radix


isnt the idea that life arose from organic matter ( not inorganic matter)? organic matter that exists in quantities in the universe that is not making up life?

reply to post by ImaFungi

isnt the idea that life arose from organic matter ( not inorganic matter)? organic matter that exists in quantities in the universe that is not making up life?

This is just semantics. By inorganic, most people mean "non-living" and that's how I read vasaga's post. In scientific terms, organic molecules are carbon-based molecules which of course make up the building blocks of life.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

isnt the idea that life arose from organic matter ( not inorganic matter)? organic matter that exists in quantities in the universe that is not making up life?

This is just semantics. By inorganic, most people mean "non-living" and that's how I read vasaga's post. In scientific terms, organic molecules are carbon-based molecules which of course make up the building blocks of life.

ok just wanted to make sure,, now i know there is no important or meaningful distinction between inorganic and organic..

Originally posted by radix
The fact that life has only been observed to come from other life does not constitute proof that all life comes from other life, it's still an argument from ignorance no matter how you slice it.

Then the laws of thermodynamics are also an argument from ignorance. They can not be proven. Only disproven by observing the opposite, and yet they are seen as scientific facts, because nothing that contradict them has ever been observed. And that is the same regarding life. No one has ever seen life arise from non-life. Until that is the case, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that life only comes from other life, and that is no different than the same method used for the laws of thermodynamics. It's basic inductive reasoning, and that somehow you're not allowed to do it for life, is pure bs. Aren't you people always demanding so much evidence for everything? Why is this suddenly an exception?

Originally posted by radix
It also doesn't explain where that first life came from.

Maybe you should look into biocentrism.

Originally posted by radix
If you want to appeal to a supernatural creator you need to provide evidence that this creator actually exists, it really is that simple.

I didn't make such an assertion. Unless of course you say that nature is the creator.

Originally posted by radix
Straw man. No-one is asserting anything, abiogenesis is a hypothesis which is being tested.

Then why are you trying so hard to defend the position that life can arise from non-life while it has never been observed?

Originally posted by radix
That's what scientists do, they pose a hypothesis and test it against the observed evidence. So far, there's nothing to suggest abiogenesis is impossible.

There is nothing to suggest that heat can't flow from cold to hot either, or that time can't go backwards and so on. The only reason we dismiss them is that we have not observed those events. Again, same as life arising from non-life. Just because something is not impossible, it does not mean it's how it happened. That's appeal to probability. Until there is evidence, abiogenesis is still nothing more than an unproven hypothesis and is no more valid than the view that there was a creator. They both lack enough support. That you somehow completely disregard a creator and want to support abiogenesis clearly shows your bias and your selective skepticism, which brings me to....

Originally posted by radix
If I've shown any bias in this thread, it's against poor logic and misrepresentation posing as fact. I'm funny that way.

Yeah easy cop-out. Always blaming others for your own actions so you can keep acting with double standards.

Originally posted by radix

no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise.

Exactly! Don't look now but I think you just blew edmc^2:s entire argument out of the water, since he's claiming to have proved just that.

No I haven't. Read the whole thermodynamic thing again. If you dare to say in your reply that those laws have been proven, you've got to apply the same logic to life arising from life only, and if you call that conclusion unscientific, you'll have to call the laws of thermodynamics unscientific too.

Originally posted by radix

It's the ones saying that it can that have the burden of proof.

Correct - but again, I don't see anyone making that claim. I do think it's a reasonable hypothesis and there is supporting evidence in its favour but there are obviously a lot of loose ends.

What do you mean? You were constantly saying that somehow edmc^2 needs to prove that life comes from non-life, while that is the only thing that has been observed as of now. And what is this supporting evidence that you're talking about? Just because you can make a wheel with rubber doesn't mean you can make a whole car with rubber. If you don't know what I'm referring to, it's the whole amino-acid/protein generation as somehow being evidence for abiogenesis. It's not enough.
And the pickle they are in is, that even if they manage to create life, it was still done by an intelligence, which are the scientists who were controlling all the conditions. So one still could not conclude that somehow it happened by accident. It would be no different than a chemical plant creating plastics if the conditions need to be so specific, which they seem to be. The only thing to conclude is that they found to proper conditions to generate life. Impossible to say that nature and/or life has no purpose and is a product of mere chance.

Originally posted by radix
This is just semantics. By inorganic, most people mean "non-living" and that's how I read vasaga's post. In scientific terms, organic molecules are carbon-based molecules which of course make up the building blocks of life.

I always end up using inorganic instead of inanimate.

reply to post by vasaga

Then the laws of thermodynamics are also an argument from ignorance. They can not be proven. Only disproven by observing the opposite, and yet they are seen as scientific facts, because nothing that contradict them has ever been observed. And that is the same regarding life. No one has ever seen life arise from non-life. Until that is the case, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that life only comes from other life, and that is no different than the same method used for the laws of thermodynamics. It's basic inductive reasoning, and that somehow you're not allowed to do it for life, is pure bs. Aren't you people always demanding so much evidence for everything? Why is this suddenly an exception?

The claim was that abiogenesis is impossible because we've only observed life coming from other life. This is an invalid argument because it misrepresents the hypothesis of abiogenesis. What we have observed is the organisms we see around us today coming from other life. No-one has suggested that a modern cell containing hundreds or even thousands of different proteins could spontaneously be assembled from simple organic molecules.

What has been suggested in e.g. the "RNA world" hypothesis is that the first self-replicating "protocell" consisted of nothing more than a self-replicating molecule (RNA or a chemical equivalent) inside a lipid membrane. This would be enough to start an evolutionary process. Claiming this protocell could not possibly have formed from simple organic molecules by appealing to observations exclusively made with modern, complex cells is a logical fallacy.

Maybe you should look into biocentrism.

Interesting hypothesis, how would you go about testing it?

I didn't make such an assertion.

No, but edmc^2 - who you seem to be defending - did. So what exactly is your position?

Then why are you trying so hard to defend the position that life can arise from non-life while it has never been observed?

I'm defending the right to pose a hypothesis. When the hypothesis is claimed to be impossible I'm asking for evidence to back up this claim. Why would you have a problem with that?

There is nothing to suggest that heat can't flow from cold to hot either, or that time can't go backwards and so on. The only reason we dismiss them is that we have not observed those events. Again, same as life arising from non-life. Just because something is not impossible, it does not mean it's how it happened. That's appeal to probability. Until there is evidence, abiogenesis is still nothing more than an unproven hypothesis and is no more valid than the view that there was a creator. They both lack enough support.

I still haven't made the claim that abiogenesis is anything more than a hypothesis, so what's your point?

That you somehow completely disregard a creator and want to support abiogenesis clearly shows your bias and your selective skepticism,

Nonsense. My skepticism simply compels me to ask for evidence supporting the god claim. None have been presented.

Yeah easy cop-out. Always blaming others for your own actions so you can keep acting with double standards.

Kindly point out where I've applied a double standard.

No I haven't. Read the whole thermodynamic thing again. If you dare to say in your reply that those laws have been proven, you've got to apply the same logic to life arising from life only, and if you call that conclusion unscientific, you'll have to call the laws of thermodynamics unscientific too.

edmc^2 claims to have proof that abiogenesis is impossible, you yourself stated that this is impossible to prove. These would seem to be mutually exclusive statements, would they not?

What do you mean? You were constantly saying that somehow edmc^2 needs to prove that life comes from non-life, while that is the only thing that has been observed as of now.

I'm pretty sure you meant "life from other life". Again, I'm asking edmc^2 to support his claim that abiogenesis is impossible with some evidence. Why would you have a problem with that? Is edmc^2 somehow exempt from having to justify his claims?

reply to post by vasaga

And what is this supporting evidence that you're talking about? Just because you can make a wheel with rubber doesn't mean you can make a whole car with rubber. If you don't know what I'm referring to, it's the whole amino-acid/protein generation as somehow being evidence for abiogenesis. It's not enough.

Did I say it's "enough"? I'm pretty sure I didn't. The supporting evidence is, e.g., that the building blocks of life will form readily under various conditions, that there are plausible chemical pathways to synthesizing activated nucleotides (which can react to form oligonucleotides), that simple RNA oligonucleotides can have enzymatic activity (and can evolve) and that lipids will spontaneously form bilayer membranes.
No, it's not "enough" but it's a pretty good start.

And the pickle they are in is, that even if they manage to create life, it was still done by an intelligence, which are the scientists who were controlling all the conditions. So one still could not conclude that somehow it happened by accident. It would be no different than a chemical plant creating plastics if the conditions need to be so specific, which they seem to be. The only thing to conclude is that they found to proper conditions to generate life. Impossible to say that nature and/or life has no purpose and is a product of mere chance.

No pickle at all. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that the goal of abiogenesis research is to demonstrate exactly how life on earth came about. It's not - that would basically require a time machine that could take us back some 4 billion years or so. The best that can be achieved is a plausible chemical pathway (under plausible conditions) that can be experimentally verified. In other words, "proof of concept" that life can come from non-life by natural means under the tested conditions.

Originally posted by radix
The best that can be achieved is a plausible chemical pathway (under plausible conditions) that can be experimentally verified. In other words, "proof of concept" that life can come from non-life by natural means under the tested conditions.

Thank you! Very well said! Far too many people completely misunderstand what a scientific hypothesis is or what they are trying to prove. Great explanation!

reply to post by radix

The evidence has been presented. Sticking your head in the sand and denying it just makes you look stupid or downright dishonest.

Like I said - the 100 million+ year old evidence you've presented are purely based on assumptions and speculations. Why you don't see it - I don't know.

Heck there's so many instances of this.

for example:

Current knowledge and new assumptions on the evolutionary history of the African lungfish, Protopterus, based on a review of its fossil record

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

..even evolutionists themselves admit this to be a fact! - that your fossil evidence of evolutionary change are just assumptions:

notice again:

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." -- Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.

As for:

...a talking snake a talking donkey a woman giving birth at the ripe old age of 90 people living to....

mod warning - off topic.

But you say:

To say that the fossil evidence is incomplete is an embarrassingly obvious truism. The fossil record will remain incomplete until every possible fossil that can conceivably exist has been found.

Nope, not " embarrassingly obvious truism" but just stating and establishing the facts and also to make you agree that the fossil record IS incomplete.

But now that you agree, how can you then conclusively say that we have "transitional fossil" evidence, if the "evidence" itself is incomplete?

Know what I mean?

So what? All the fossils we have actually found (and they number in the billions) all fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification and totally debunk the creationist account.

Sure billions. But billions of what? Billions of incomplete fossils. That's what - which makes your platform weak and unsubstantiated. Furthermore the fact remains that you're forming your conclusions based on INCOMPLETE DATA!

And forming a conclusion based on incomplete data leads to tada...

ASSUMPTION and SPECULATION -thereby pinning your "evidence / belief" on shaky foundation -or more like on - Blind Faith!

as an example:

"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?

....But there's a big gap in the fossil record from this time period, Richmond noted. Researchers are unsure when and where the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans split from the other group of primates that includes lemurs. "[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree," Richmond said, "but it's not the only branching point." At least one aspect of Ida is unquestionably unique: her incredible preservation, unheard of in specimens from the Eocene era, when early primates underwent a period of rapid evolution. (Explore a prehistoric time line.) "From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there," Richmond explained. "So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology." In Ida's case, scientists were able to examine fossil evidence of fur and soft tissue and even picked through the remains of her last meal: fruits, seeds, and leaves. What's more, the newly described "missing link" was found in Germany's Messel Pit. Ida's European origins are intriguing, Richmond said, because they could suggest—contrary to common assumptions—that the continent was an important area for primate evolution.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

In short, they are aware of the huge "gaps" so they have to assume a "conclusion" to be revised later on based on a new assumption.


So like I said - if you assume that the fossil record support your evolution theory - then so be it. You're entitled to your own "evidence".

Same deal with the "evidence of horizontal gene transfer between species"....

I notice you still haven't presented any article mentioning genetic boundaries against speciation, how's that coming?

Clue: Repair Gene, Gene Barrier and Stirility!