There is no scientific separation of the two.
Only bloggers who keep them separate.
The origin of life is part of evolutionary biology.
From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
Separate? They aren't even in the same field of inquiry. Abiogenesis is a set of hypothesis based in biochemistry.
The theory of evolution is zoology, genetics and geology.
I gave you two references, "law of mass action", and "endothermic reactions"
No, you referred to two scientific principles, you didn't give me a reference for how they make the formation of RNA and DNA impossible.
well yeah, we could guess that lightening struck and with a whole lot of luck some amino acids formed. But water because it is a solvent, will break down even those elements, not build them into proteins. Secondly, even with energy you can't produce 100% left handed amino acids which proteins and basics of DNA and life all require (DNA require right handed nucleotides-rather). But lets get back to the energy required for endorthermic reactions. Lightening? Volcanoes? Really? I have given you two scientific citations, do you have any peer reviews that suggest what this energy is? I presume you are simply guessing. In which case chemical evolution/abiogenesis shall not be in the least bit considered a scientific theory, as it lacks observation and testing.
Yes, just guessing... however, I never implied that abiogenesis should be called a theory. It's merely a hypothesis.
However all those examples are actually in existence and do allow for energy to fuel chemical processes.
Demonstate what exactly? That's according to our knowledge it's impossible to beam people up on the Enterprise and warp to the next galaxy? You want to prove this fairy tale Frankencell never existed?
I believe your example prove exactly the oppisite that we can use our knowledge of biogenesis (jets) to disprove abiogenesis (Superman).
The fact that no one has come close of engineering a true self-replicating machine is good evidence. As well as the many paradoxes that abiogenesis has to overcome, the only reason to believe in it is for religious reasons. (The belief the mindless universe created life)
"We don't know how this can happen" is not the same as "This is impossible".
Just tell me how the biogenesis experiments have any effect of the abiogenesis hypothosis.
We can't build a mountain either, but that doesn't make the existence of everyone a miracle and mystery to science.
I have read that miller had assumed certain elements were present for his experiments such as no oxygen in a reducing atmosphere. Other elements like ammonia, Methane and hydrogen are all assumed or are not stable enough to last the time that is needed. So, the atmosphere used was irrelevant. In fact, the experimental conditions are also irrelevant.
The Miller-Urey experiment
Even if the Miller–Urey is a total failure, that just means it doesn't show anything to demonstrate abiogenesis. It doesn't disprove the hypothesis.
(Incidentally, I'm suspicious of your source as it it features misleading information about science and evolution.)
"Steve Benner: We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we're up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."
Steve Benner: Origins Soufflé, Texas-Style | Suzan Mazur
Your cells have nano-machines that is constantly repairing your DNA to keep it together.
I'm a little suspicious of anti-evolution journalists as a source. Got some scientific references?
