"Probable paths..." Theories are built on words like "probable...likely...we can infer...maybe...must have...could have...millions and billions of unobservable and unverifiable and evidenceless years ago..." Theories are just fine if they have some actual data to back them up. They are pseudo science when they not only have no such data, but ignore the data that exists.
All proposals and models that make it to the level of theory in science not only have evidence supporting them, but have withstood years of testing and challenges.
Furthermore, theories do not ignore data that disagrees with them. If the evidence against them or aspects of them is strong enough, the theories MUST be changed or replaced entirely.
Terms such as "probably" and "most likely" are used when talking about theories because all scientific theories are falsifiable. As a result, there is always a chance, no matter how small, of evidence resulting in any given theory being changed or replaced, and thus it would be intellectually dishonest to treat any scientific theory as if it has no chance of being disproven in the future. Consider the fact that the idea that microbes cause disease, which is the germ THEORY of disease, has the potential to be disproven, even though we can literally watch viruses, bacteria, etc. cause infections from the start to the conclusion of whatever disease they cause. Just because words like "probably" have to be used in applications of it doesn't mean that there is much room for doubt.
The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. If that is not scientific fact, kindly provide data to support your contention. Again, theories are fine if they don't ignore, dismiss, and contradict the actual evidence.
Ah yes, biogenesis, which is actually a part of cell theory, not some law. Laws in science mostly refer to mathematical equations used to represent physics, and they are still extensions of theories and models. A law in science is not stronger than a theory; there is nothing stronger than a theory in the field of science. Theories certainly have quite variable support to them, but a theory is the BEST you can get in science.
Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created.
Check out my abiogenesis thread, very simple RNA based life has been created in lab, and the system to build it is so low tech that you could actually do it yourself if you really wanted to put in the time, money, and effort. I'd be careful as to what you use as a spark source though, since you wouldn't want the whole system to explode (a disadvantage of needing to prevent anything outside of the experimental system from getting in and contaminating the results and that the internal environment needs to match up with the ancient Earth rather than modern day Earth is that it needs to be closed off).
The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. Therefore there is no data, no evidence, no science to support so called abiogenesis, i.e. life from inorganic matter.
Cell organelles developed over the course of billions of years, it wouldn't make sense for an experimental trial to get them all within a few decades. Also, no one is claiming that you get life from inorganic matter. Organic matter is carbon based molecules. Table sugar is organic, for example, as is carbon monoxide. In fact, there is a wide variety of compounds which are carbon based, thanks to the fact that individual carbon atoms can form 4 bonds at a time (not an exclusive property of carbon, though carbon is the most common element with this property). Amino acids are organic, nucleotides are organic, organic life is made up of organic molecules. The term organic doesn't mean alive or coming from living things, it just means that the molecule or molecules in question have carbon in them.
The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together.
-_- abiogenesis experiments have produced not only the 20 amino acids needed for most life on this planet, but a few extra. Plenty of proteins as well. Funny thing, in environments that simulate the ancient Earth, the extremely simple RNA based cells don't really need many proteins. RNA sequences capable of replicating themselves as long as there are nucleotides present (which are in the environment and pass into the cell) do the bulk of the work. RNA translates other forms of RNA to produce proteins. Even in modern cells such as our own, DNA just serves as a template for making the RNA that performs multiple important tasks.
No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the physical components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them and put life back into them?
-_- and the point of that would be...? Sounds like a lot of time and effort to put into something that says nothing about existing theories and has no superior practical application to doing simple alterations to cells to make them perform a different function. It certainly would say nothing about the origin of life to use cell parts that came from modern, LIVING cells.
And before someone talks about the Miller and Urey experiment from the 60s, uh, they didn't get any life either. However, tons of peer reviews some decades ago claimed M & U showed life could come from inorganic matter in the conveniently untestable and invisible past. "Could have come" of course falls into the theoretical again. M & U didn't get life! They got the kinds of amino acids that destroy life. They got a few amino acids. So what? I have some amino acids in my supplement bottles. They don't gather the other complex and numerous components needed for a cell. They don't organize such parts into "simple" cells - actually more complex than a block of factories, with nano machines that make other nano machines - and spring to life.
Abiogenesis research didn't just stop in the 1960s. I refer you again to the thread I started called "Abiogenesis Progress".
Life comes from life. Life of the same kind. Every time. Period. That's what the data shows. If you prefer to believe in what has never been observed, and flat out contradicts what has been observed throughout history, that's your choice. Don't try to foist it off on me, though. I like real science, thank you.
You know, I always find it funny that people act like biogenesis and abiogenesis are contradictory theories, as if one has to be wrong for the other to be right. Here's the funny thing; the simple cells produced in more recent abiogenesis experiments are only considered alive if they are the product of reproduction. Basically, a protocell first forms, and once it divides into daughter cells with the same basic RNA that it had, then those daughter cells are considered living. So, yeah, in abiogenesis, the first recognized cells still came from a cell (even though that predecessor didn't come from a cell and isn't recognized as such in a formal way, it's essentially the same as the daughter cells, so the contention is a bit moot).
In any case, the conditions to produce these super simple cells no longer exist in nature, so abiogenesis truly is a relic of the past on this planet "revived" through only controlled, artificial environments that imitate that of the past.
