You quoted nothing which "showed that the concepts were the same", because they are not.
You are fantasizing if you think otherwise.
JohnnyBoy: "And yet not a single reference to any of them shows up in wikipedia."
You're kidding, right?
This is the link I recommended in post #100 above, on the subject of abiogenesis.
Check it out.
You'll find at the bottom, 327 references and a bibliography of 57 works, the oldest being Darwin from 1871 and the newest Ian Johnston from October, 2017.
>JohnnyBoy: “And yet not a single reference to any of them shows up in wikipedia.”
>You’re kidding, right?
Not a single reference to any success in creating life from nonliving matter. The last big push on the subject was in the 70s. Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence.
Almost every study since the 70s has been about finding this organic particle here or there and speculation that this particle might have been created in way X that might have led to life. However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven. All that’s required is taking nonlife and turning it into life and bamn Abiogenesis is largely proven.
Since there’s no longer any large scale experimentation going to create life in the lab and the papers published are generally of the type of: Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked, I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma.