> Note the key words: “no operative principles in common”.
Wow, someone made an assertion? Well, then it must be true!
Oh wait, it’s not.
Abiogenesis doesn’t actually have any operative principles beyond the idea that non-life->magic->life. Its core idea is life came from non-life which is something we’ve never observed in many, many years of scientific observation and experimentation. It doesn’t prescribe how non-life->life happened any more than spontaneous generation prescribed how non-life->life.
It’s a thoery without any evidence to support it beyond a lot of people asserting that it’s true, IE Dogma. The flim-flam about takes a long time, super special conditions, yadda yadda yadda is just designed to make the theory untestable but still allow idiots to continue spouting it as dogma.
Of course it does, but you still refuse to learn anything real about them, right?
JohnnyBoy: "It doesn’t prescribe how non-life->life happened any more than spontaneous generation prescribed how non-life->life."
Wrong again!
And now you've been invited politely to learn something true and yet utterly refuse.
Why is that?
JohnnyBoy: "It’s a thoery without any evidence to support it beyond a lot of people asserting that it’s true, IE Dogma."
But it's not a "theory", much less "dogma", instead abiogenesis is a set of tentative hypotheses covering just a few steps in the many which would be required for chemistry to become life.
Evidence for it is what's found in the geological record or can be reproduced in laboratories.
Nobody imagines abiogenesis is a completely developed, tested and confirmed theory.
But anybody who takes time to learn knows that we are far beyond what George Wald knew in 1954.