Great, it was proven 60 years ago that organic compounds, the basic components present in all living things, can originate by natural chemical reaction, from in-organic non-living matter. That's Organic compounds from non-organic matter. Organic Compounds.... go look that up in your dictionaries. So the critical organic compounds essential to all life develop naturally on non living material! Many new discoveries and progress since Miller-Urey. You first brought up Jack Szostak, and his Lab contains many of them, and his stated scientific research is into those compounds as the origin of life. So I'll ask again.....what do you think those essential organic compounds for life itself that form on non-living matter do next? Develop into living organisms, or candy crucifixes?
You keep proving your zealous atheism over and over. No matter how you wish to spin it, you never had science showing how life evolved from non life. Shall I quote your bozo statement word for word again? 2. Next you first brought up Szostak. 3. There is no observation or proof life evolved from non life by random chance. You can guess all you want but your guess is not science. Some nobel prize winners speculate there was not enough time for random chance to cause evolution on earth. Others say it must have been directed evolution. And I illustrated for you , some scientists insist it must have been random chance even though random chance seems like such and impossibly unlikely, event. But... no matter how you slice it... you were and still are wrong. There currently is no science showing life came from non life.
Note to stu... this is a total side issue. We are not disputing building blocks... you stated you had science showing life evolved from non life. But even when you speak of organic compounds you bull shit. You make shit up. You use minority defintions... you do everything you can to prove that you are a fraud. organic compounds as we all know does not mean they are alive... nor does it mean they have a connection with substances found in living organisms. from wikipedia Modern classification Even after vitalism had been disproved, the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" compounds has been retained through the present. The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon - even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms. There is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some text books define an organic compound as one containing one or more C-H bonds; others include C-C bonds in the definition. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic.[2] Even the broader definition of "carbon-containing molecules" requires the exclusion of carbon-containing alloys (including steel), a relatively small number of carbon-containing compounds such as metal carbonates and carbonyls, simple oxides of carbon and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon and simple carbon halides and sulfides, which are usually considered to be inorganic.
Finally Stu.. lets make this simple. This is a litmus test of your troll hood. Specific support for you answers will give you more credit. When did non life evolve into life. Please put in context of earths timeline. How long did it take. What was the process? Was the process random. Please support you conclusions with links to peer reviewed papers which concur with your opinion.
You've demonstrated many times how you are incapable of quoting my statement word for word without changing adding or removing words from it. What is so wrong with you that you can't read, let alone understand what I have said? You are clearly terribly confused. Try it this way. Can the essential components for life originate naturally from non living material? (abiogenesis) How did it metabolize into fully living organisms? (abiogenesis) The âcan- is scientifically proven. The âhow- is ongoing scientific research. What exactly is your rather sad problem with that?
Note back to jem... No, this is certainly not a side issue. This is the issue. If you are not disputing the crucial organic compounds known as the building blocks of life, essential to all life on earth, can develop naturally on non living material, wtf is your problem exactly.? I stated no such thing. That constant repetition of something I haven't said just demonstrates your intention to deceive. Go learn what I did actually say. Bull shit eh? The building blocks of life, those essential for life organic compounds, which you no longer dispute, that can form completely naturally on inorganic material and are present in all living organisms, are clearly not something... [wiki quote] ...'that have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms'. Are they? So why did you clumsy quote in such an ill-informed manner a wiki reference, to a point which the wiki reference does not apply? Because you blindly jump without thinking about anything a dictionary might say when sounds as if it supports your personal religious prejudices.
Litmus test LOL. You really are too ridiculous. A troll would ignore a fact problematically standing against his flimsy anti-science attempt at an argument to ask faulty loaded questions like... "When did non life evolve into life." ...and then demand evidence for his nonsense. So you passed your own test, congrats. pink litmus though suggests a very gay 'troll hood' for you considering all the bs you come up with. So why was it again, that you only want me to answer those questions to do with the research part of abiogenesis and not the proven part of abiogenesis, which is actually the part I mentioned? Are you really still hoping to wedge your own non-scientific personal creator into the science somehow?