Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[PsychoSarah]

A private message is fine but whatever you wish. I'm always interested in reasons why people make choices in regards to religion, God, Atheism etc.

Yeah, but it would derail the thread.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You would do best to read all the posts (a bit boring though) and you would not come to that erroneous conclusion. I freely admit that creation by God is based on faith, but I'm having lots of trouble getting naturalists to also admit that they have faith in abiogenesis when there clearly is no evidence. Of course I can't produce any evidence that is satisfying to naturalists, but the point I'm making is that they have just as much and even more faith than I do. If abiogenesis is fact and not faith then produce the evidence, simple as that, but you can't because there isn't any.

I will make a list of general evidence for abiogenesis.

1. Free floating proteins form naturally in the environment, they still do it today, this is proven. Proteins are the basic building blocks of life, so the fact that they can exist outside of living things is a point for abiogenesis.

2. Based on the scientific definition of life, nonliving entities, such as viruses and prions, can reproduce through extremely primitive means which do not involve metabolizing energy or having complex cell organelles.

3. Proteins have a habit of collecting together into rather complex shapes on their own, given enough time. This process in cells is of course catalyzed to be more efficient, but it does occur in nature.

4. Most cell organelles show signs that they may have been capable of sustaining themselves independently of each other, especially mitochondria, which even have their own unique DNA separate from humans. Individually they aren't particularly complex at all, our cells just end up with the illusion of complexity because they are all shoved together into one unit. They may seem like a well designed mechanism, but they are actually in many ways painfully flawed and inefficient.

5. Just would like to note that abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. It doesn't involve any complex thing arising from nonliving material, you aren't likely going to see even something as simple as a basic bacterium developing this way. Rather, it is the ever more so simple precursors to cells that would form.

 

[SkyWriting]

I will make a list of general evidence for abiogenesis.

1. Free floating proteins form naturally in the environment, they still do it today, thi <snip>

Right handed ones (for living things) do not connect except inside a living cell.

 

[SkyWriting]

A private message is fine but whatever you wish. I'm always interested in reasons why people make choices in regards to religion, God, Atheism etc.

With a thorough background in Science Fiction, I recognized that Darwin was writing fiction.
The Bible has a better explanation for Origins than Darwin. He was just trying to justify his rejection of religion.

 

[lifetips]

Hi, I won&#8217;t reply to all your points as it gets a bit boring and time consuming. For both of us I&#8217;m sure. I&#8217;ve made two separate posts.

[FONT=&quot]Are you again talking about the simplest life form in existence today? Surely you're not, as we have just explained to you why that would be a misrepresentation of the sciences involved. [/FONT]

For something to be considered living then there must be certain compulsory elements I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ll agree or there is no life. So, let&#8217;s say that the first living thing produced by abiogenesis is much simpler than the simplest life form we have now. Still, it has to be complex don&#8217;t you agree? Is there really such a thing as a &#8220;simple life form?&#8221; What would be the bare minimum of components needed to make the first living thing? Please LIST them. And please explain how the processes of these basic elements becoming life. What is required?

[FONT=&quot]Also, how do you measure complexity?[/FONT]

Observation. Try looking under a microscope.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The way you just used the word "panspermia" exposed your ignorance on this topic. I'm not even gonna bother explaining your mistake. Clearly you are not interested in what I have to say anyway. Go look it up yourself instead.[/FONT]

Maybe you object to me saying &#8220;popped out&#8221; of Panspermia. I don&#8217;t know why as I&#8217;m not trying to define it or explain about the &#8220;seeds&#8221; or where they came from or the three main hypothesis of Panspermia. That&#8217;s just how I write when I&#8217;m trying to get a brief point across quickly.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ben stein? "Expelled"? really?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Talk about exposed dishonest editing...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yes really, but of course you must never let facts stand in the way of your ideology. We can&#8217;t have that can we? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whether you like Ben Stein or not is completely irrelevant, because it&#8217;s a fact that Dawkins did say that, period. He even says something similar in the God Delusion that no-one knows how the first self-replicating molecule came about. That is 100% faith mixed with 100% delusion, period. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Also, like I said previously, Dawkins in the Ben Stein interview has no trouble accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God! That interview was a source of great embarrassment to Dawkins followers and many like yourself have desperately tried to explain it away with rubbish trying to claim it&#8217;s out of context, dishonest editing etc. Dawkins said it clearly and indisputably, period. Yes, I really can understand why that Dawkins interview is an embarrassment to the science community[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now... if abiogenesis hypothesis is correct and if it gets solved tomorrow, then that would mean that science uncovered a chemical reaction that brings the building blocks of life together into a self-replicating molecule subject to darwinian processes and mechanism.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Of course the big IF, and if we locate the flying spaghetti monster, and if this and if that. Yes ifs, maybe, perhaps, possibly, could have, we think that, is all terminology frequently used by naturalists and evolutionists when they have no evidence to offer. Evolution books are filled with these type of words, especially the ones Dawkins writes. Trust me, scientists will never be able to produce life because only God is the author life, period.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please point out where the "magic" would be in such a discovery. Considering you just agreed that there's nothing magical about Chemistry.[/FONT]

There is one major flaw in your reasoning. This &#8220;discovery&#8221; hasn&#8217;t happened. Do you understand that? Discover it first, and then we&#8217;ll examine it. Your faith that insults you is mind blowing![FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, where is your evidence that this is "impossible"? How did you conclude this? Surely, you are not just asserting it without anything to back it up, right?[/FONT]

Where is your evidence that this IS possible? Again, show me how non-life produces life then we&#8217;ll say it&#8217;s possible. A few little &#8220;possible&#8221; stepping stones just don&#8217;t cut it. Explain the process of how all the required elements produce life, and how they stay alive, which is slightly important don&#8217;t you think?

 

[RealityCheck]

If you do some basic research on life and "simple" cells it will become quiet obvious to you how ridiculously complex life is in comparison to non life in any form.

In what way is life complex? You're speaking in broad generalities.

 

[RealityCheck]

Where is your evidence that this IS possible? Again, show me how non-life produces life then we’ll say it’s possible. A few little “possible” stepping stones just don’t cut it. Explain the process of how all the required elements produce life, and how they stay alive, which is slightly important don’t you think?

Before that question is answerable, you have to provide your dividing line between what is considered "life" and what is "non-life."

Just to illustrate the difficulty you're going to have, is a virus a living or non-living thing? If it's living, what makes it alive? If not, what does it lack that would make it living?

 

[RealityCheck]

The Bible has a better explanation for Origins than Darwin. He was just trying to justify his rejection of religion.

It's always a laugh when a fundie drags this old dog of a joke out.

 

[Davian]

With a thorough background in Science Fiction, I recognized that Darwin was writing fiction.
The Bible has a better explanation for Origins than Darwin.

What is the biblical explanation for speciation? "God did it"?

He was just trying to justify his rejection of religion.

What of all the Christians that accept the theory of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on our planet?

 

[Smidlee]

The simplest "cells" that replicate are so simple they aren't considered alive. If the simplest "cell" being talked about is bacteria, that is an issue.

The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a dead cell. Dead cells which has all the "parts" naturally falls apart.

Even Sara Walker noted there's a huge difference in what she calls "trivial" self-replicating (which is what OOL researchers focus on) and non-trivial which is in my view is true self-replicating. She think "software" counts as non-trivial self-replicating but it's far from being true self-replicating like a living cell. Software cannot replicate without hardware and power being supplied to it. A living cell replicating both it's hardware and software under it's own power. A living cell is the ultimate self-replicator.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPiI4nYD0Vg#t=59

 

[lifetips]

Before that question is answerable, you have to provide your dividing line between what is considered "life" and what is "non-life."

Just to illustrate the difficulty you're going to have, is a virus a living or non-living thing? If it's living, what makes it alive? If not, what does it lack that would make it living?

AHHH, Yehhh. Okay. It's like this: Life is something that is living!!!!

 

[davidbilby]

The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a die cell.

Do you mean dead?

Also, your definition of "alive" seems a touch hazy...

 

[lifetips]

[FONT=&quot]Sure. But I consider it very unlikely.[/FONT]

Fantastic, you say that it’s possible that abiogenesis could be proven wrong but unlikely. So then you must also admit that it is possible that you have been living by faith all this time. After all, if in time scientists show that abiogenesis could not have happened, but all that time you believe it, then all that time you have been living by faith. Of course I expect you to reject this but when people are blinded by ideology they can’t see what is painfully obvious to the rest of us.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It seems you don't really comprehend how science works either....

Fact = an observation, a piece of data
Hypothesis = a proposed explanation for a set of data in a certain scope
Theory = a "graduated" hypothesis [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Of course I understand this but I’m really glad that you mentioned it so that people who think like Dawkins can comprehend it. Darwinian evolution has not been observed, yet despite this Dawkins on numerous occasions calls it a “fact” and he strongly emphasizes the point. But don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gods creating life is just as possible and plausible as undetectable 7-headed extra-dimensional dragons creating life.[/FONT]

Creation is the natural order of things. Your classic German made BMW’s and Mercedes, smartphones, houses, etc. Everything we use on a daily basis has been created by intelligence. We are far more complex than anything you can make or that humans have ever made, so of course it’s plausible that God created us. [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When talking about the actual event of life coming into being, gods are not a valid option. For the simple reason that gods must be shown to exist first. That which can't be shown to exist, can not be invoked to "do" things.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wow, I thought I had seen it all. It's a shame that you actually can’t see how faulty your logic is but I’ll gladly show you. Why don't you apply that same logic to abiogenesis and evolution? So to follow your faulty logic we can say this: for the event of evolution to start, abiogenesis is not a valid option. For the simple reason that abiogenesis must be shown to exist first, and as we know, evolution can't happen unless abiogenesis happens first. And because abiogenesis can't be shown to exist first or "do" things, then we must reject evolution. People like you never cease to amaze me when you demand God appear to prove himself, but never make the same demands of abiogenesis. You hypothesize, theorize and every other “ize” but you cannot show abiogenesis to exist first with a demonstration of how it may “do” things such as start life which is needed for evolution to get going. How sad to be so deluded.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having said that, abiogenesis is currently our best bet. For the sheer fact that:
1. it has supportive evidence (again: it's not just the end goal of life, it's the road leading up to it as well - and that road has lots of evidence)
2. there is currently no viable alternative[/FONT]

What you call evidence is purely speculation. Just because in your view there is no alternative does not mean that abiogenesis is viable. That point is completely irrelevant. The end goal of life MUST be attained or abiogenesis falls flat.
[FONT=&quot]
Also,
You previously mentioned that abiogenesis could happen if the “right conditions” are reproduced. What could be more favorable than the conditions we have today? Why has abiogenesis never been viewed in the natural world we live in? Surely life should be coming out from dead matter all over the place in such favorable conditions. But, it doesn’t. Only life can produce life. Go and re-read your biology books. Scientists with incredible technology at their disposal can’t create life in favorable conditions let alone what they think the early conditions on earth were like. Yet gullible naturalists expect us to believe that it happened without any guiding hand in unfavorable conditions. [/FONT]

 

[Smidlee]

Do you mean dead?

Also, your definition of "alive" seems a touch hazy...

Life (just like "love") has many different levels. I don't believe a "living" bacteria (or one individual cell in our body) is on the same level as a "living person".

Again... If at one point life does not exist and the next moment life does exist, then matter was somehow brought together into living systems by some process.

To deny this is .... I can't say it without being censored.

"IF" but I believe Life has always existed and is the ultimate reality (not the universe). Thus I don't believe in "the universe created life" religion but " Life created the universe" religion.

 

[Belk]

If you do some basic research on life and "simple" cells it will become quiet obvious to you how ridiculously complex life is in comparison to non life in any form.

Cool. Then it should be easy to quantify complexity, apply it to a simple cell, and show how it is much more complex then non life.

Great! I'm very happy to say all I want. There is none more credulous than a naturalist who accepts abiogenesis as a fact when there is absolutely no evidence to support this.

You mean other then the fact that we are alive and here? That seems some pretty big evidence. However you are correct there is not a compelling case for abiogenisis as far as us having lots of evidence of how life arose on Earth.

Speaking of designed. Was the first life on earth designed or not designed?

I don't know since we have no evidence either way.

[/quote]
Tell me, are you dead? Or are you living matter? If there is no difference then why not just be dead? [/quote]

Show me the difference between a "dead" hydrogen atom and a "live" one.

Now, like all the others who are incapable because no evidence exists - if you have something to offer please produce the evidence to show me that non-life produces life.

Are you going to answer my question or not? Are you able to tell us the difference between mater that is 'dead" and mater that is "alive"?

How is your naturalist faith based ideology called, abiogenesis, scientific?

This is not my ideology. It is simply a hypothesis at this point.

Show me the evidence and I will accept it.

I do not believe you. However I am not the person to request this from since I am not a scientist let alone a biologist.

Fantastic, now we are actually getting to the whole point of this. Actually, I'm not asking you to believe me at all.

Yes, you are.

I will freely admit that by Faith I believe that God created life on earth. I can't give any evidence that will be satisfying to but I have very strong and logical reasons for believing this. Those reasons are not important as it is a different subject altogether.

Well, you are doing better then most creationists then so kudos for that.

What is important is whether you will also confess that your belief in abiogenesis is a faith based belief system. Both of us have faith, it's just in something entirely different. You cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis so it remains a faith based belief system.

First I would have to have a belief in abiogenisis for it to be faith based, I don't. Second, for it to be a belief system I would need to base ,y world view on it which is rather nonsensical. I simply accept it as a provisional hypothesis with some interesting data behind it. And yet again, nothing you have written puts your beliefs on par with scientific evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The simplest cells known to man is bacteria. Any cell that not alive is a dead cell. Dead cells which has all the "parts" naturally falls apart.

If that were the case, prions would fall apart, and they are tough suckers.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right handed ones (for living things) do not connect except inside a living cell.

Actually, the proteins in living things are the "left handed" ones, not the right handed ones. It is sugars which are "right handed". And you are correct, right handed proteins won't connect, which is why living cells aren't made out of them.

 

[[serious]]

That's a dumb comparison since people still can have horse-pulled carriages today.
There are even dog sleds still around.
Frankencell only exist in man's imagination.

Ah, but no one can INVENT the horse drawn buggy today.

Since all of the examples of how a protocell could arise are are observable in the lab, the example mirrors exactly the horse drawn buggy analogy.

Watch:

Modern (life/cars) could not have arisen from (prebiotic earth/pre industrial revolution society) thus, modern (cells/cars) are evidence that (protocells/non self powered vehicles) must have also been impossible in the (prebiotic/preindustrial) world. The structure of the argument is the same. Now, I don't know any scientist that could build an entire horse drawn buggy by hand with only period tools, but that doesn't support the divine buggy creation hypothesis. Especially if we aren't giving him as long as the wagon would have taken to be build at the time. If it took even a mere million years before life began, asking scientists to recreate it in a few decades is an unreasonable demand. They are closing in on that goal using modern methods, but the fact that in 50-60 years since the miller urey experiment we haven't gotten all the way to a fully functioning artificial cell does not imply that it could not happen over hundreds of millions of years in a much larger pool of reactants.

If you want to argue that it couldn't happen, you would have to identify what step couldn't happen. I'll even give you a list of possible steps:


Formation of:
1. lipid bubbles that self propagate in heat convention currents.
2. spontaneous polymerization of bases
3. self catalyzing chains of bases
4. biochemically active chains of bases
5. sequence specific use of chains of bases
6. sequence specific use of chains of bases requiring external input
7. method of increasing permeability of the membrane to that imput
8. active transport of that input.
9. active management of the internal environment using the input and chains of bases.

I think that takes us to all requirements for it to be formally considered alive. Keep in mind that from step 3 on natural selection is going to be able to effectively spread each change.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For something to be considered living then there must be certain compulsory elements I’m sure you’ll agree or there is no life. So, let’s say that the first living thing produced by abiogenesis is much simpler than the simplest life form we have now. Still, it has to be complex don’t you agree?

No. I can't even count the amount of times I've told you that abiogenesis is not a one-step process that goes from raw materials to living thins. It's a road that leads upto to that end goal of life.

You've been told this by at least 3 distinct people on this thread alone. Had you informed yourself a bit on the subject from appropriate sources, those sources would state the same thing.

It's quite clear that the only source you have to obtain information are dishonest creationists.

Is there really such a thing as a “simple life form?” What would be the bare minimum of components needed to make the first living thing?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I'ld have to go and look it up. I suggest you do that yourself.

And please explain how the processes of these basic elements becoming life. What is required?

So... you want me to explain to you the entire theory of abiogenesis in detail, which requires extensive knowledge of Chemistry, bio-chemistry and molecular biology?

Again, I'm not a molecular biologist. I'm a software engineer. I'm not gonna pretend to have this knowledge and (unlike you) I'm certainly not going to pretend to know better then those folks who do study this stuff for a living.

Observation. Try looking under a microscope.[FONT=&quot]

That is not an answer to my question. Again: how do you measure complexity?

And, assuming you can answer that question, why is complexity a problem btw?

Maybe you object to me saying “popped out” of Panspermia. I don’t know why as I’m not trying to define it or explain about the “seeds” or where they came from or the three main hypothesis of Panspermia. That’s just how I write when I’m trying to get a brief point across quickly.[FONT=&quot]

Then that is very misleading. You don't get points accross by misrepresenting the things you speak off.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yes really, but of course you must never let facts stand in the way of your ideology. We can’t have that can we? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whether you like Ben Stein or not is completely irrelevant, because it’s a fact that Dawkins did say that, period.

My feelings about Stein OR Dawkins are irrelevant.
What both Stein and Dawkins believe is equally irrelevant.

The fact is that expelled is a great example of dishonest editing.
I'll explain....

Ben Stein asked Dawkins to bend over backwards and start from the assumption that ID is correct. He then asked Dawkins, assuming the premise that ID is correct, how that would look like.

Stein then edited it in such a way to make it look as if Dawkins actually believed what he said, while in reality, they were talking about a "what if" kind of scenario. And you, along with many other creationists, fell for it. You've been tricked.

He even says something similar in the God Delusion that no-one knows how the first self-replicating molecule came about.

I've told you at least 5 times that abiogenesis is not a complete theory and that research is ongoing, that the puzzle isn't solved yet. It's called intellectual honesty.

Before the Wright brothers succeeded in building a flying machine, the same sentence applied: "nobody knows how we can make humans fly".

You're just stating the obvious. You think you are making a great point, but what you really are doing is engaging in a gigantic, obvious and dishonest argument from ignorance. Which will most probably turn into a god-of-the-gaps the very next second.

[FONT=&quot]Also, like I said previously, Dawkins in the Ben Stein interview has no trouble accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God!

I explained above what that part was all about. Dawkins doesn't consider ID to be viable in any shape or form. Stein asked him to start from the assumption that it IS correct and then dishonestly edited the interview in such a way to make it look as if Dawkins actually considers it to be a real possibility.

It's just obfuscation and dishonest editing. Typical creationist shenannigans.

and many like yourself have desperately tried to explain it away with rubbish trying to claim it’s out of context, dishonest editing etc.

Well, it is.

Dawkins said it clearly and indisputably, period.

ON REQUEST by assuming a hypothetical world where ID IS TRUE. Do you understand this? It's like asking you "assuming natural abiogenesis did occur, what would that mean for your god?" Which would force you to say that in that case, we would have evidence that god didn't create life (or something of the sort). After which one would then use that quote against you to "prove" that you believe abiogenesis is true and aren't really a creationist.

You wouldn't appreciate that would you? However, you seem to be very ready to accept it if you feel like you can use it against a perceived authority of biology ("perceived", because of course, dawkins is just another dude and what he says and writes doesn't actually matter to science... only his science papers matter).

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Of course the big IF,

Considering everything that already supports the hypothesis, that "if" gets smaller every day. While the "if" concerning your god is still as big as 5000 years ago.

Trust me, scientists will never be able to produce life because only God is the author life, period.

Evidence for this claim?
Also, I have no reason to trust you. Especially not over people who actually know what they are talking about and are active in these fields.

[/FONT]

There is one major flaw in your reasoning. This “discovery” hasn’t happened.

Nice dodging of the question.
You made a claim that abiogenesis hypothesis is "magic".
But the hypothesis is all about a natural chemical process. It's by definition not magic.

You can't even get yourself to admit to that. Just goes to show just how deep this intellectual dishonesty is rooted in your mind.

You keep claiming it's magic, but everything in the hypothesis talks about normal chemistry. Just be honest. Misrepresenting what it says does not shoot its credibility. Instead, it shoots your own credibility.

[/FONT]

Where is your evidence that this IS possible?

I already told you that anything is possible. Including your god. I don't close my mind to possibilities.
To state that something is impossible is quite something different. That implies knowledge about the process to know it is impossible. Knowledge you don't have. It's just an empty assertion.

Again, show me how non-life produces life then we’ll say it’s possible. A few little “possible” stepping stones just don’t cut it.

They aren't "possible" stepping stones. They are REQUIRED stepping stones that have been DEMONSTRATED. Which is quite different.

Fun fact: before those demonstrations, people like declared those things "impossible" as well. Think about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fantastic, you say that it’s possible that abiogenesis could be proven wrong but unlikely. So then you must also admit that it is possible that you have been living by faith all this time

I don't have "faith" in anything.
I consider abiogenesis likely. This is not a statement of faith. This is not dogmatic belief.

It's considering everything we know about nature, Chemistry, organic Chemistry, molecular biology, physics, etc.
It's also considering that just about every natural phenomena we know of today have been attributed to gods in the past and NOT ONCE did the religious faith-based "explanation" turn out to be the correct one.

Considering all that, I think it's more likely that life came to be through a natural process.

It's a consideration based on evidence. Which is the opposite of faith. If tomorrow someone proves the opposite of abiogenesis, I'ld have no problem considering another theory. I have no emotional attachments to certain explanations, nore do I dogmatically accept certain explanations.

Again: you do that, I don't.

After all, if in time scientists show that abiogenesis could not have happened, but all that time you believe it,

Once more: considering something likely is not the same as simply believing it is true. I'm sorry you can't understand the difference, but that's on you, not me.

Of course I expect you to reject this but when people are blinded by ideology

Says the bible-tumper who declares things "impossible" while having no knowledge of the subjects whatsoever.

Of course I understand this but I’m really glad that you mentioned it so that people who think like Dawkins can comprehend it.

Saying a professor like Dawkins doesn't comprehend how science works, only makes your credibility plummeth even further below sea level dude.

Darwinian evolution has not been observed

Yea, keep telling yourself that.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to use darwinian processes to build better medicine, breed new and better vegetables and cattle, apply genetic algoritms to build more efficient airplanes and other machines, etc.

yet despite this Dawkins on numerous occasions calls it a “fact” and he strongly emphasizes the point.

Because it is a fact.

Your classic German made BMW’s and Mercedes, smartphones, houses, etc. Everything we use on a daily basis has been created by intelligence.

Cars, smartphones and houses are objects build from artificial materials which aren't subject to the laws and process of bio-chemistry.
You're not even comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

Your point is void (and extremely ignorant).

We are far more complex than anything you can make or that humans have ever made

Do you know what the core of evolution theory is?

A mechanism that makes things more complex

, so of course it’s plausible that God created us.

[FONT=&quot]

non-demonstrated entities doing anything is never plausible.

Why don't you apply that same logic to abiogenesis and evolution?

Because none of both invoke entities that can't be shown to exist:
- Nature exists.
- Organic molecules exist.
- Chemistry exists.
- Bio-chemistry exists.
- inheritable systems subject to modifications processes exist

for the event of evolution to start, abiogenesis is not a valid option

Evolution is not dependend on abiogenesis.

You hypothesize, theorize and every other “ize” but you cannot show abiogenesis to exist first with a demonstration of how it may “do” things

Abiogenesis is not an entity that "does" things. Abiogenesis is the name of the hypothesis that describes a series of chemical reactions.

such as start life which is needed for evolution to get going

Once more: evolution is not dependend on abiogenesis. Evolution only requires life to exist. How that life comes into existence is irrelevant to evolution. The only thing it has to say about that beginning, is a prediction that whatever the process was (natural or otherwise), is that first life was rather simple (as it is the evolutionary process that took it from simple to complex).

What you call evidence is purely speculation

To demonstrate how the building blocks of life can form in nature is the opposite of speculation.

Just because in your view there is no alternative

Not "in my view". Factually. There is no alternative that is on par with abiogenesis in terms of plausibility.

What could be more favorable than the conditions we have today?

What makes you think today's conditions are favorable from such chemistry? All abiogenesis researchers agree that today's conditions are very bad. What secret information do you have that they don't?

[quote[Go and re-read your biology books[/quote]

Abiogenesis is not a theory of biology.

Your arrogance is unbelievable.