[_ Old Earth _] Abiogenisis

[Ashua]

Ashua: Here's a quick excerpt from the introduction of Treatise on Geochemistryhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780080437514 Volume 8, Pages 41-61



This is the perfect example to show you why both the theories in Abiogenesis and the theory of Evolution are both still Theories, not Laws. We don't know All about either of these two phenomenon, hence the reason why our explanation of both phenomenon are incomplete. Regardless of the fact that both the theory of evolution as well as the theories on abiogenesis are incomplete, we still know for a fact that Evolution does occur and that there was once no life on this planet and now there is.

You know, I am shocked you said that. Usually when I would point out to someone that evolution is a theory and not a law, they are quick to jump on me and explain that scientific "theories" are also FACT and cite such as the theory of gravity.

I do not know if you are pretty much back stepping to this same basic claim or not in the second half of this post when you say evolution does occur for a fact. (I do not know if you are saying macro evolution occurs for a fact, or if you were citing micro-evolution (variation within species.) Many will say that micro over time becomes macro, (and this is how it is proven.) but I am confident that there are genetic limiters.

If all of these species micro-evolved into completely different species, you would expect to find so many transitional forms that you could gather images of their fossils and assemble a flip book out of them.

 

[Ashua]

Yes actually we do... if you want a scientific debate on a subject we need to pick the subject. We don't pick a field because it's too general and there is too much to talk about. It's like saying "lets debate math" and then I ask "well what kind of math? are we looking at Quantity? Structure? Space? Change? Foundations and Philosophy? Theoretical Computer Science? algebra? geometry? trigonometry? calculus? linear algebra? combinatorics? differential equations? real analysis?
complex analysis? abstract algebra (includes group theory, ring theory, field theory, and module theory)? topology? number theory? logic? probability? statistics? game theory? functional analysis? algebraic geometry? differential geometry? dynamical systems (includes "chaos theory")? numerical analysis? set theory? category theory? model theory?"

If I wanted to debate that man has found a way to conquer aerodynamics, would I need to discuss airplanes or helicopters or space shuttles just because DaVinci's schematics don't pan out?

If I wanted to debate about the origin of spear heads, would I need to commit to Native Americans, or paleo France? Egyptian spears? African, South American, or Asian, Perhaps aboriginal Australia? Do I need to commit to a specific region and people or can I just consider the human race in a holistic category as the analogy suggests we compare God/Creator in a general sense?

So, What theory of Abiogenesis would you prefer to talk about first?

spontaneous generation, please ^_^

Take note that not all those deities created man and animal the same way, so yes, we would also need to look at which god in particular we are talking about as well.

Their exact method of creation is also irrelevant, only that they can.

Do I need to know the techniques of Leonardo when he painted the Mona Lisa, in order to uderstand the methods of Salvadore Dali and acknowledge that he did indeed create his art?

By natural we don't mean more plausible, we mean without any assistance from any other non-natural force. As in, produced using the physical means of the physical world. That is all. It's not meant to be insulting to any other perspectives.

No insult taken. I see what you are saying, but the term "supernatural" seems like an oxymoron to me. What is not "natural?" We say that a castle or a pyramid is not a "natural" structure because it is made by the hand of man, and not by the forces of weather, vegetation, and earth. Tell me, then why bee hives are considered natural? Why are the dams of beavers natural? Are they any less animal than are humans? All things of that which we call supernatural may be divided into two dispensations:

The first is pure fantasy. Ideas which are not empirically real.

The second, is that which is in every way "natural", but not yet understood.

"Magic" is considered supernatural. Think about "magic potions" That was witchcraft, supernatural, whatever. Now, in the day of pharmaceuticals, we do not know these as "elixirs" of "magic" but as "medicines" of "science", because we now understand the mechanics behind the chemistry.

We do in fact have theories that pertain to natural causes on The origin of space, time and matter, just for the record. But that's another topic.

I know they do. I have heard various theories. Once again, nothing wrong with theory. Test them. That is how science works. I just do not know how they can call some of these things legitimate scientific theories while mocking the possibility of Creator which when it comes down to it, is no less spectacular in terms of the "supernatural" (The idea that all things came from a literal void of oblivion, absent of any matter to begin with whatsoever and somehow exploded out of an infinitesimally small 'singularity' dot smaller than an atom sounds utterly fantastic to me. That would be supernatural. (If indeed anything that is can really be called supernatural)

Once again, this is another topic, i suggest making a new thread if you want to discuss the origin of the universe. That being said we don't need to discuss where everything came from to discuss how life began.

It is relevant because there is a serious chicken and egg problem with the physical universe. If the (insert theory name) created all matter, what composed the (insert theory name.) Beyond this, you cannot have terrestrial life without a solar system and planet. You cannot have solar systems or planets without matter. Other than that, I don't mind the lack of elaboration in this topic. Involved in too many discussions as is.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

This is the perfect example to show you why both the theories in Abiogenesis and the theory of Evolution are both still Theories, not Laws.

Sorry. No. I've only read a few posts of yours, but, I'm surprised to see you make such an elementary mistake.

For one, the word "theory" is used in two very different ways in science. Informally, it is used as hypothesis, and I hear it used that way both from layman and from actual scientists. The other way it is used is to mean a body of science backed by experimental evidence to explain certain phenomena. This is what is meant by "gravitational theory", "quantum theory", "theory of relativity" and "theory of evolution".

But, in any case hypotheses and theories do not "graduate" into laws. The "theory of evolution" will always be a theory because that is what it is.

The term "law" is mostly considered archaic in science. There are Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. But those "laws" were devised in the days when the understanding that science undergoes revision wasn't fully understood. Newton's "laws" aren't really laws, they are approximations.

On the other hand, sometimes the term "law" is used for formulas. Like the "law of gravity" is "F = G * (( m1 * m2) / (r * r) )"

So, abiogenses, is, I think still in the hypothesis stage. A tested hypothesis can become part of theory. But, they do not "graduate" into laws.

 

[Ashua]

Sorry. No. I've only read a few posts of yours, but, I'm surprised to see you make such an elementary mistake.

For one, the word "theory" is used in two very different ways in science. Informally, it is used as hypothesis, and I hear it used that way both from layman and from actual scientists. The other way it is used is to mean a body of science backed by experimental evidence to explain certain phenomena. This is what is meant by "gravitational theory", "quantum theory", "theory of relativity" and "theory of evolution".

But, in any case hypotheses and theories do not "graduate" into laws. The "theory of evolution" will always be a theory because that is what it is.

The term "law" is mostly considered archaic in science. There are Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. But those "laws" were devised in the days when the understanding that science undergoes revision wasn't fully understood. Newton's "laws" aren't really laws, they are approximations.

On the other hand, sometimes the term "law" is used for formulas. Like the "law of gravity" is "F = G * (( m1 * m2) / (r * r) )"

So, abiogenses, is, I think still in the hypothesis stage. A tested hypothesis can become part of theory. But, they do not "graduate" into laws.

Lol. thought so.

So, are all scientific theories equal? I do not think, for instance, that the theory of plate tectonics is on the same level of proven assurity as the theory of gravity. That is not to say I reject the theory of plate tectonics, only that it is not as thoroughly, undeniably convincing as the theory of gravity. I have an ultra-literal complex when I use the word "proof" as opposed to "evidence".

So, as you said there may be evidence which suggests the theory of evolution is an empirical truth of scenario and reality; but are you saying that is the exact same thing as saying that the theory of evolution is an undeniable proven fact and truth which is an infallible tenet of reality which played out in the one scenario of reality? In other words, has science in your mind (or as accepted by the scientific community as a whole) proved it in the strictest sense of the word, or are you convinced of ToE because of the amount of evidence which you determine is sufficient to accept ToE as a truth, rather than saying it is an absolute PROOF: ("I think therefore I am").

The thing about evidence is that it is always open to interpretation. A broken shard declares a million shades of light. There hasn't been a court case that I have ever heard of in which there was not evidence pointing towards the guilt and innocents of the same defendant. Innocent men have been wrongly convicted. Guilty men have been found innocent, and the guilty have been justly convicted, as have the innocent been found faultless. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

So, are all scientific theories equal?

No, of course not.

same level of proven assurity as the theory of gravity.

How proven is gravitational theory to you? Not the observable fact that things fall when you drop them, but gravitational theory, as expressed by Einstein and refined by others after him?

Not that I have any particular doubts about Einstein's gravitational theory, I'm just wanted to clarify that theory and facts are two different things. Facts we observe, theory is tested explanations for those those facts.

but are you saying that is the exact same thing as saying that the theory of evolution is an undeniable proven fact and truth which is an infallible tenet of reality which played out in the one scenario of reality?

It is often said that evolution is both a fact and a theory. We can observe evolution, we observe facts regarding evolution. And evolutionary theory is tested explanations for the facts observed.

Is it possible that evolutionary theory could be overturned. But, so could Einstein's gravitational theory.

 

[Ashua]

No, of course not.



How proven is gravitational theory to you? Not the observable fact that things fall when you drop them, but gravitational theory, as expressed by Einstein and refined by others after him?

It's been probably 7 or 8 years since I last read gravitational theory, and physics was never my thing, so I'm not sure how to answer this accurately, but the heart of bringing it up was addressed well by you.

Not that I have any particular doubts about Einstein's gravitational theory, I'm just wanted to clarify that theory and facts are two different things. Facts we observe, theory is tested explanations for those those facts.



It is often said that evolution is both a fact and a theory. We can observe evolution, we observe facts regarding evolution. And evolutionary theory is tested explanations for the facts observed.

Is it possible that evolutionary theory could be overturned. But, so could Einstein's gravitational theory.

Okay, I think you addressed this very well too, if this is the opinion of the established scientific community. I think too often semantics and connotations serve to disrupt ideas and communication on these things. From what I read by you, scientific theories, while regarded as "fact" (something accepted as true) are not necessarily to be regarded as infallible or beyond reproof, but subject to being overturned --if the evidence should present. In other words, my connotation of the words fact, truth, and proof being identical is not how science defines these terms.

I think lay people in the class room on both sides of the debate have this same understanding of these terms which is not exactly the same as how science uses them and is misleading, leading to confusion and incomplete understanding.

Thanks.

 

[lordkalvan]

Funny you mention that. the biological process of metabolism is much more complex than most people give it credit for being. The idea that the process of organic metabolism (formed independently multiple times in innumerable species from protozoa to humans, even under the theory of evolution)....

Life only needs to have formed once. Evolution does the rest. As best as I understand it, however, no theory of abiogenesis postulates that life began as a a single, unique event bringing into being a single, unique cell.

....would somehow spark itself and be able to maintain without anything to build on (origin of metabolism) is like my car jump starting itself --no actually, its like my car developing it's own electrical, exhaust, CPU, oil lines and flow, heat sink, and other processes and systems by itself if I just let it sit there long enough. Also, these protozoa would need to withstand the elements, and weathering, and temperature, and viruses.

In order for metabolism to occur, all that is required is that an evolving network of chemical reactions exists driven by an energy source. NYU emeritus professor of chemistry Robert Shapiro points out that the resources for such networks to exist are common in nature and it becomes a matter of understanding and explaining how this could have come about. I am not sure about your last point; even if the great majority of these proto-life networks were destroyed, the survival of even some ensures survival into the next 'generation'.

And while I am at it, do you believe the one theory which says multiple human beings evolved independently from all over the globe? (In other words, humans evolved in north American and also in Africa and in Asia and so on completely separate from each other.)

I am not familiar with either this theory or the evidence that supports it, and why this evidence better explains humanity's origins better than an African origin followed by multiple migrations (both out of and back into Africa). Perhaps you could explain the theory and evidence?

Metabolism spontaneously starting itself is quite a task, but to do so well enough to 'survive' for any measurable amount of time is even more considerable. I mean, there are elements which are identified because we have observed them form (and fall apart) within less than 1 second. (I'm hoping you know the one(s) I am talking about. My memory is failing on details. Something is considered an element if it lasts any observable duration of time) So, if certain elemental bonds cannot survive a few seconds, how plausible is it that such a complicated process could generate itself and maintain any significant amount of time? DNA also relies on initial formation, and then functioning well enough for the process of reproduction to generate --and with a success rate.

I do not have information on the probability or improbability of the events you postulate. However, although the chances of any given individual winning large amounts of money in a lottery are vanishingly small, the chances of some individuals winning large amounts of money are very high (effectively unity). You appear to be imagining that natural abiogenesis must be analogous to the Christian supernatural creation event, in which only a few creatures of each 'kind' come into existence.

And why should the function of reproduction even exist in the first place? It seems too intelligent for mere chance.

Huh? How do you imagine that reproduction seems 'too intelligent'? Indeed, how does it seem 'intelligent' at all. Does catalysis require intelligence?

If we were flying over a desert or something looking down and we saw right angles in the earth or under the sea, we would know some man made intelligent structure lies beneath visible undulations. This is one of the many techniques archaeologists use to find sites.

Well, it would be an observed right-angle would be a possible indication that something artificial existed, but not in and of itself evidence that it most definitely was something artificial.
A.V Kidder flown by Charles Lindbergh took aerial photographs which led to the discovery of the Anasazi roads.

Crop circles --I don't know by what means or by whom the most complex crop circles are made; but I do know that they are the work of intelligent hands: human or otherwise. Nature just does not form complexity or patterns; no, not even a simple right angle. How, then can it form such organic complexities as DNA or metabolism?

Sorry, I'm afraid nature forms complexity and patterns all the time. Perhaps you have never observed the detail of snowflakes or the differential sorting on a beach by wave action?

 

[Evointrinsic]

You know, I am shocked you said that. Usually when I would point out to someone that evolution is a theory and not a law, they are quick to jump on me and explain that scientific "theories" are also FACT and cite such as the theory of gravity.

Of course it's a fact, the theory is explaining the fact (phenomenon). Germs are a fact, Germ Theory explains the fact (phenomenon). It's the exact same thing, your just choosing to ignore that it's explaining a fact (phenomenon).

I do not know if you are pretty much back stepping to this same basic claim or not in the second half of this post when you say evolution does occur for a fact. (I do not know if you are saying macro evolution occurs for a fact, or if you were citing micro-evolution (variation within species.) Many will say that micro over time becomes macro, (and this is how it is proven.) but I am confident that there are genetic limiters.

Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, one is made of the other. The same process occurs.

If all of these species micro-evolved into completely different species, you would expect to find so many transitional forms that you could gather images of their fossils and assemble a flip book out of them.

your submissions are correct! We have an immense library of completely transitional forms which you could print out and assemble in a flip book and see the transformation. would you like me to PM you some? (It technically has nothing to do with abiogenesis, wouldn't want to trail off the original topic.

If I wanted to debate that man has found a way to conquer aerodynamics, would I need to discuss airplanes or helicopters or space shuttles just because DaVinci's schematics don't pan out?

All your other examples don't apply to what is being asked. Why? Because they all focus on something that's already singular. Abiogenesis isn't a single theory, it's many multiple theories, there for we require the person asking which theory they want to discuss, because they are all different.

It's like asking "what's the name of god" to someone who has studdied religion, yet hasn't ascribed to one. They'd answer "which religion are you talking about?". or if they asked a person of a polytheistic religion they would answer "be more specific, are you talking about the one who did this or the one who did this?"

So, What theory of Abiogenesis would you prefer to talk about first?

spontaneous generation, please ^_^

Once again, this refers to more than one theory in Abiogenesis, the question hasn't become more specific for any of us to answer anything. Please choose a specific theory in abiogenesis that you'd like to discuss first.

No insult taken. I see what you are saying, but the term "supernatural" seems like an oxymoron to me. What is not "natural?" We say that a castle or a pyramid is not a "natural" structure because it is made by the hand of man, and not by the forces of weather, vegetation, and earth. Tell me, then why bee hives are considered natural? Why are the dams of beavers natural? Are they any less animal than are humans? All things of that which we call supernatural may be divided into two dispensations

I don't know about you, but if I saw a whole pile of trees with bite marks, mud and beaver tracks I don't think "That must have naturally formed there" I think "it was made by beavers.

Supernatural refers to something that is unexplainable by natural law. Ghosts for example are supernatural (I don't believe in them because no tests can really be made, until tests can be made, then i'll take another look at the information they've gathered). Supernatural can be considered "poof" something that was not there is now in full formation all of a sudden 'there'. Do I really need to describe what supernatural means? surely you have a dictionary.

I just do not know how they can call some of these things legitimate scientific theories while mocking the possibility of Creator which when it comes down to it, is no less spectacular in terms of the "supernatural" (The idea that all things came from a literal void of oblivion, absent of any matter to begin with whatsoever and somehow exploded out of an infinitesimally small 'singularity' dot smaller than an atom sounds utterly fantastic to me. That would be supernatural. (If indeed anything that is can really be called supernatural)

Because we have physical evidence for a phenomenon, and then build a theory around it. Unfortunately there is no physical evidence for a creator as of yet, there for it's not in the same realm as science until physical evidence is found. Science builds off of facts, theories are built off of facts. Alterations are made to those theories when more facts arise through research. Theories are not made until evidence of a phenomenon are found. only after evidence is found is a theory build.

It is relevant because there is a serious chicken and egg problem with the physical universe. If the (insert theory name) created all matter, what composed the (insert theory name.) Beyond this, you cannot have terrestrial life without a solar system and planet. You cannot have solar systems or planets without matter. Other than that, I don't mind the lack of elaboration in this topic. Involved in too many discussions as is.

This has nothing to do with the origin of life. We don't need to know what happened to form a solar system and what happened to said solar system to know how life arose on a planet. All we need to know is what was available on the planet (not where it came from) and what happened to this available matter.

It's the same reason we don't ask who the murderer's ex wifes ex husbands fathers farthers farthers best friends countries current leader is, and who that leaders pet dogs name was, and which litter that dog came from back in what year, also was that a leap year? we don't go that far back because it has no relevance to what the murderer used as a murder weapon. It just makes no sense to go so far off track of the actual subject. THAT is why the origin of the universe has no place what so ever on the origin of life on this planet specifically.

 

[Ashua]

I'll give you credit for the snowflakes, being a Florida boy, I forget snow even exists half the time; but right angles never appear in nature.

actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

Multiregional Continuity Model is the theory I mentioned. (I THINK). My anthropology professor told me about this on the last day of last semester and said she will go into it in the next course I take so I cannot be sure this is but but I think it is. I found it on google search. She contends there was no "first man".

 

[Evointrinsic]

Sorry. No. I've only read a few posts of yours, but, I'm surprised to see you make such an elementary mistake.

For one, the word "theory" is used in two very different ways in science. Informally, it is used as hypothesis, and I hear it used that way both from layman and from actual scientists. The other way it is used is to mean a body of science backed by experimental evidence to explain certain phenomena. This is what is meant by "gravitational theory", "quantum theory", "theory of relativity" and "theory of evolution".

But, in any case hypotheses and theories do not "graduate" into laws. The "theory of evolution" will always be a theory because that is what it is.

The term "law" is mostly considered archaic in science. There are Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. But those "laws" were devised in the days when the understanding that science undergoes revision wasn't fully understood. Newton's "laws" aren't really laws, they are approximations.

On the other hand, sometimes the term "law" is used for formulas. Like the "law of gravity" is "F = G * (( m1 * m2) / (r * r) )"

So, abiogenses, is, I think still in the hypothesis stage. A tested hypothesis can become part of theory. But, they do not "graduate" into laws.

My mistake, poor choice of words

 

[Ashua]

Yes, I'd like very much to see a flip book of evolution. If such a thing can be produced, why are they saying there is a missing link?

 

[Evointrinsic]

I'd also just like to point out the crystals; pyrite, fluorite and hali. For right angles

Pyrite

Fluorite

Hali

Also, here's a whole lot of patterns for you (taken on an electron microscope)

 

[Evointrinsic]

Yes, I'd like very much to see a flip book of evolution. If such a thing can be produced, why are they saying there is a missing link?

Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links). Technically, if your grandfather has passed, and your father has passed, and you have passed and for some reason your fathers remains go missing. that would be a missing link. But we can still connect you and your grandfather together without your fathers remains assisting us.

I'll make you a digital flip book may be a bit before I can get it done.

 

[Ashua]

I'd also just like to point out the crystals; pyrite, fluorite and hali. For right angles

Pyrite

Fluorite

Hali

Also, here's a whole lot of patterns for you (taken on an electron microscope)

1. The right angles: My fault. I was talking about on the macro-scale. There are no right angles in the natural world in the sense of land structure and formations. (if you can prove this wrong, then please do to my edification) I learned this "rule" from documentaries on archaeology. The phrase "There are no right angles in nature" is an adage they used.

2. when you are referring to microscopic patterns... Some have said that the double helix of DNA is the "fingerprint" of intelligent design. If that camp is right, the rest of these patterns fall under the same roof. I guess it is about perspective here.

 

[Ashua]

Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links). Technically, if your grandfather has passed, and your father has passed, and you have passed and for some reason your fathers remains go missing. that would be a missing link. But we can still connect you and your grandfather together without your fathers remains assisting us.

I'll make you a digital flip book may be a bit before I can get it done.

I am very grateful for this. I hope it doesnt take too much time and effort, but no rush.

I just have 1 request.

No concept images. A lot of skeletons are incomplete. Sometimes whole "hominids" have been based off of a single tooth. So please, use as many complete skeletons as you can and little to no "paleo-patch work"

 

[caseagainstfaith]

Yes, I'd like very much to see a flip book of evolution. If such a thing can be produced, why are they saying there is a missing link?

The term "missing link" is a term used in popular press, not by scientists. Not currently anyway. There will always be missing links. In fact, the more links we have, the more "missing" there will be. For unless you were to find a fossil for everything that ever lived, there will be "missing" links between the ones you do find. The more you have the more that are "missing".

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll give you credit for the snowflakes, being a Florida boy, I forget snow even exists half the time; but right angles never appear in nature.

I think this has been answered already by Evointrinsic.

actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

Multiregional Continuity Model is the theory I mentioned. (I THINK). My anthropology professor told me about this on the last day of last semester and said she will go into it in the next course I take so I cannot be sure this is but but I think it is. I found it on google search. She contends there was no "first man".

As populations rather than individuals evolved, clearly there was no 'first' man any more than there was a 'first' person to speak French, Spanish or Swahili. From your reference, the argument appears to be that modern humans evolved separately but not in isolation from each other following an 'out of Africa' migration by Homo errectus. Your linked article suggests that the evidence best supports the idea that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and subsequently migrated from that continent. I am not sure what relevance this has to abiogenesis. Are you approaching an argument indirectly?

 

[Ashua]

I think this has been answered already by Evointrinsic.

As populations rather than individuals evolved, clearly there was no 'first' man any more than there was a 'first' person to speak French, Spanish or Swahili. From your reference, the argument appears to be that modern humans evolved separately but not in isolation from each other following an 'out of Africa' migration by Homo errectus. Your linked article suggests that the evidence best supports the idea that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and subsequently migrated from that continent. I am not sure what relevance this has to abiogenesis. Are you approaching an argument indirectly?

I don't even remember why I brought it up. It may have just been a passing question. I reject the language analogy. I have heard it before. That is not to say that I reject this theory based off of the (in my humble opinion) poor analogy, but language and physical biology just do not 'work' in the same manner.

So what, homo erecutus found his way to north america (or whichever hominid is the popular choice) and evolved into homo sapien --native american in utter isolation from homo erectus in Sumaria evolving into homo erectus --semite?

"out of africa" just makes more sense to me personally of the two.

I don't think it probably that essentially quarantined populations would mutate and 'evolve' to the same eventual end, in so much that even cross breeding is completely functional. Under the evolutionary paradigm, I can "see" how it is possible... Just seems less likely.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Out of curiosity... what does this have to do with Abiogenesis?

 

[caseagainstfaith]

Oh, and "relatively embryonic stage"? 50 years of experiments, millions of dollars and...the Easter bunny.

If, contemplating abiogensis as being correct, then it took possibly thousands to millions of years in a "laboratory" of sorts the size of planet earth. If scientists do too much to speed it up, it will be said that the scientists are 'gaming the system', that they aren't demonstrating abiogenesis, they are demonstrating they can play God to a limited degree. That is what one person said about the Ulrey-Miller experiments.

So, it is a matter that it is simply impossible for scientists to satisfy the abiogensis skeptic. If the strides look too small, they will say, "that ain't nothing". If the strides are bigger, then they will say, "see, its just the scientists playing God and gaming the system". So, the upshot is it is impossible in principle to meet the demands of the abiogensis skeptic because by definition nothing will be good enough.