have argued that the transition from non-life to life
But, if you don’t like the results you rename it and call it something else:
In the years following Louis Pasteur’s experiment in 1862, the term “spontaneous generation” fell into increasing disfavor. Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from non-living materials. Heterogenesis was applied to once-living materials such as boiled broths, and Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from inorganic materials. The two were lumped together as “spontaneous generation”, but disliking the term as sounding too random, Bastian proposed biogenesis. In an 1870 address titled, “Spontaneous Generation”, Thomas Henry Huxley defined biogenesis as life originating from other life and coined the negative of the term, abiogenesis, which was the term that became dominant.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
PeterPrinciple: "Spontaneous generation has continually been proven wrong.
Accepted scientific principle.
Life begats life."
Nobody today talks about the old "spontaneous generation", but complex chemistry is seen to evolve naturally and that has lead to much new research.
Beyond Pasteur in 1862 and Miller-Urey 1950s experiments, much more has been learned in recent decades.
So there are any number of new books on this subject and ones I've read include:
