[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy But even if one of those experiments managed to create a more complicated and obviously living organism it still would not necessarily be how it happened. Only a possibility of how it could have happened. The major problem with all abiogenesis explanations is that there is not much left in the fossil record from 3.5 billion years ago. And of course it is very likely that it only occurred in a few locations or possibly only one location on earth and it certainly could be the case that the original site was subsumed under a tectonic plate long ago and is now molten rock and if it were not it would be a giant stroke of luck to come across it since it would have to be close to the surface of earth. And even if we did stumble across it, which we may have done many times already, we do not know exactly what we should be looking for.

I would heartily agree with this statement, we cannot, because of the paucity of fossil evidence, ever truly reconstruct the origins of life. However, the major problem facing a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation is not lack of fossil evidence, but a lack of a possible mechanism.

Quote by: Starboy So it is far from hocus pocus but scientists for the most part are honest enough to admit what they do and do not know and what is speculation and what can be shown.

If by “hocus pocus” we mean resorting to mechanisms or events that are unknown and only speculative (many of them being not testable), then I assert that it is hocus pocus. The speculations about the origin of life (they are not theories, but speculations, because they require mechanisms that are unknown to science and still others that are un testable) not only face a lack of a plausible mechanism, but what we do know about living systems makes finding a plausible mechanism more and more improbable. Further experimentation show things are getting worse for a naturalistic cause not better.

This very topic is one in which they have had a tenacious grasp on the illusion that they have even the slightest idea of how non-living materials were assembled into self-replication systems or living organisms by way of naturalistic causation. When the truth is that they have no plausible mechanism. The ideas they have proposed have been have been shot down by actual experimentation or they are non-falsifiable (and therefore not real science).

Quote by: Starboy As far as I know the various theories are based on experiments. They all attempt to simulate the conditions they speculate existed that were favorable for life. Some of the experiments are very elaborate. But so far the best they have been able to produce are the most basic biological structures.

I am very familiar with these simulation experiments and even mentioned one of them, but, as I said, these speculations involve mechanisms not derived from experimentation or even observation, but from necessity. There is little if any evidence anywhere that any of the simulated conditions they propose, such as the atmospheric conditions in Miller’s experiment, have ever existed. In fact, the geochemical and isotopic data are opposed to almost all of the proposed conditions.

What, exactly do you mean by “the most basic biological structures”? Amino acids? Whole proteins? DNA or RNA sequences? Of these listed hear only the first has been achieved through naturalistic means, the other two have not.

Quote by: Starboy however it looks like it will not be too long until they are building living organisms from scratch.

This is a misunderstanding of how far scientists are from demonstrating abiogenesis. Using naturalistic (unguided) causation:

- Scientists have been unable to produce all 20 amino acids required for proteins as we know them. And what is more some of these amino acids are very difficult to produce under ideal lab conditions, let alone naturalistic ones.

- They have been unable to produce a working protein form even purified amino acid stocks (let alone the racemically-mixed stocks containing high percentages of terminating amino acids that even the best experiments can produce).

- They have been unable to produce cytosine (as I mentioned in my previous post). And what is more some of these nucleotides are very difficult to produce under ideal lab conditions, let alone naturalistic ones.

- They have not been able to produce a useful DNA or RNA sequence from nucleotides even under the most favorable (and I would add, unrealistic) circumstances.

- They have been unable to produce anything that is even remotely similar to self-replication from constituent parts using naturalistic (unguided) causation.

Where did you get the impression that scientists are anywhere close to “building living organisms from scratch”? Please provide a link or reference.

Quote by: Starboy And although they may not know the exact mechanism of abiogenesis they will be able to demonstrate ad naseum that it is very possible in principle.

Let me reiterate, it is not that they do not know the exact mechanism, they know of no mechanism at all. They have no plausible mechanism. None at all.