Ive already told you elsewhere.
I am not necessarily against the principle. If I see proof all well and Good.
The problem I have is there is no simpler intermediate postulated, observed or reproducible. So no process specified for how it got from soup to a cell
All you say is just speculation.
It also doesnt account for another obvious question: If it is a process of stages which have a significant probability. Why then do we observe none of the process now?Why is there no conveyor belt of intermediates from soup to a modern cell. There is nothing.
All fair questions.
Science is so far only studying possible ideas for parts of the process is as far it goes. But as I warned you by analogy, just because you can walk up a hill to get closer to the moon, does not mean you can walk to the moon, or indeed that those who got to the moon , got to the moon that way.
So the significance of what is known is way exaggerated. Dawkins statement that it is "close to fact" is antiintellectual. He is letting his faith override the big void in the science.
So when most atheists claiming evolution from small molecule chemicals IS the way that cells appeared. They are making a faith statement not a scientific one. The jury is out.
Meanwhile..... I have actual forensic evidence for so called eucharistic miracles - which if not fake - prove life by other than evolutionary process. (and there are reasons why fake seems impossible)
The question I have for this thread - is not the evidence per se.
It is why a more or less void of evidence for abiogenesis is taken as fact, but actual evidence for EM is discounted before look at them.
One of the problems of the researchers is the refusal of many establishments even to examine samples if they have come from such a source, when all they are asked to do is pathological examimation. If they think they are so asily discounted, why do many universities refuse to look. Worse: why do they try to discredit all who think the evidence is valid. The university at Sokolka gagged the pathologists just for doing the job, then offered a ridiculous alternative explanation based on not even looking at the samples!
The world of academia seems to feel threatended. Same reason on this forum, I cant get people to look!!
Why does atheism feel so threatened by science? If these labs and academics are so confident of the conclusion science will reach?
That in my view is why such as subduction wont look at the shroud science. Deep down they are worried what they might find. In that case ,they need not be. Roman emperors such as Nero claimed to be a God. Acknowledging their relics is not an action of faith!
Evolved modern-day cells are .. but the real conversation is about autocatalytic molecular replication in much simpler
protocells .. (ie: your intermediates?)
There's speculation supported by information theory and autocatalytic sets mixing with polymers in lipid vesicles .. ie: non-template replicating protocells. There is ongoing research work aimed at producing them (in the lab).
Not speculation .. experimentally testable organic chemistries, backed by information theory and
direct evidence of 3.5 billion year old primitive, 'fuelled acetoclastic methanogenesis and organic sulfides such as methanethiol and (methylsulfanyl) methane, possibly having served as substrates for fermenting methanogenic bacteria'.
IOW: Abiogenesis
Hypotheses undergoing testing!