[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Has there still been no progress in "origin of life" studies?"

papertyger: "None. Zero. Zip.
The Scientific/Cultural mandarins gave up on the question as unknowable and irrelevant."

I think not.
In fact, growth in understandings of biology & chemistry in the past 63 years has been as great as in any other scientific field, for examples:

What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology Addy Pross, 2012

The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life Nick Lane, 2015

A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth Ward & Kirschvenk, 2015

[papertyger]

I’ll betcha you can’t find even ONE “rival conjecture” in ANY of those three works...

[papertyger]

BTW, we are well familiar with the tactic of making a claim, then offering an undifferentiated “phone book” instead of a falsifiable argument.

If you can’t give a falsifiable summary, you are simply engaging in hearsay.

[PUGACHEV]

Thank you!

[editor-surveyor]

.
Pathetic pulp fiction, and nothing more.
.

[JohnyBoy]

papertyger: “None. Zero. Zip.
The Scientific/Cultural mandarins gave up on the question as unknowable and irrelevant.”

I think not.
In fact, growth in understandings of biology & chemistry in the past 63 years has been as great as in any other scientific field, for examples:

---

You haven’t been following very closely then.

Here’s the offical line on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Spontaneous_generation

Notice that there’s nothing newer than the 70s quoted there? The reason is all the promising experiments for the basic theories of spontaneous generation came up false and now largely don’t like to talk about it.

The facts are that spontaneous generation seems less likely today than it did in 1952 but biologists refuse to discard the theory because it’s become scientific dogma. And when you require dogma instead of experimentation then you’re no longer doing science.