lasereye: "Evos typically say that's not formally a part of evolution theory...so therefore that's not a problem."
Well... not necessarily a problem for basic evolution theory (descent with modifications plus natural selection), but a far more complex difficult problem.
A basic question is: when & how does interesting organic chemistry first become the simplest possible form of life?
Current hypotheses & models are, well, light-years beyond the 1952 Miller–Urey experiments, and while fascinating cannot be called confirmed theories.
So far, any abiogenic origin ideas can still be falsified and panspermia (non-Earth origins) cannot be ruled out.
Current hypotheses & models are, well, light-years beyond the 1952 Miller–Urey experiments, and while fascinating cannot be called confirmed theories. So far, any abiogenic origin ideas can still be falsified and panspermia (non-Earth origins) cannot be ruled out.
Not sure what you mean by "light-years beyond" here. My non-expert impression is that there was an expectation a few decades ago that the origin of life was about to be demonstrated--but it was completely dashed and the matter turned out to have intractable difficulties that were not previously anticipated. After this kind of correction by reality, it seems to me a bit premature to presume science is progressing toward showing abiogenisis to be feasible. While as far as I know, it might be, I think it rather fallacious to presume it. How about keeping an open enough mind to the possibility that the meta-physical framework might be different, and perhaps abiogensis is not the explanation of life? I suspect this is uncomfortable for many, but being rational is not always about comfort.