So you both agree there's no alternative to abiogenesis. Life is here and it had to have originated from non-life chemical reactions.
I do, for sure.
Yet you both object to the conclusion, we know abiogenesis occurred, because you don't have confidence in the current direction of investigation. .
Is that right?
Not right for me. The two ways you said that sound like the same thing. I do not object to the abiogenesis occurred in the general form, I am only saying I haven't yet read anything I would call a fully formed, fleshed out theory. So, for example, I would not only agree evolution occurred (and still is) but would say I could outline in a satisfactory way (satisfactory to me) how it happens.
I take abiogenesis as a given. There are only so many ways that could have happened. There are volumes of work by Dr Joyce from the Scripts institute on the RNA to life segment of the theory, and the more recent work on the earlier chemical steps.
You have read deeper than I have on this, but I understood the, "only so many ways" to be a bit less clear than I think you do. This isn't surprising, I think the field is relatively new (in the modern science sense).
It just does not seem that mysterious to me. Before genetic science accumulated a lot of data, we still knew genes were responsible for transferring information from parent to offspring. Now we know a lot more of the specific details. Does that mean we didn't know evolution theory was correct until we got to the part about how genes are turned on or off, or how a codon was programmed to make a protein?
Good point. I have to say I'm just speaking for myself. I wasn't around for any substantial arguments in evolution -- it was a done deal before I was born. I do enjoy any new shaping (as in epigenetics) but I don't think they alter my take on it. Nor did the reshaping of taxonomy by way of DNA. And I was happy to see the pseudo-Lamarckian ideas come in -- I always hoped it might turn out that way.
But in abiogenesis, I see arguments about whether the top-down approach or the bottom-up approach is better and whether metabolism has precedence or replication... frame work type stuff that has me holding off a bit -- there seems to be a lot of competing stuff and no clear winner.
Again, I'll admit this is probably because I'm not in the field, just an outsider.
By the way, thanks for the nudge to at least see what I could read on the net. The farther I get from any actual academic training, the more I find I've missed quite a lot. If there is something in particular you can recommend on the subject, I'd appreciate that as well.
People make way too much of the things we don't yet know about abiogenesis as if it crossed some scientific taboo to accept the fact abiogenesis occurred. I don't have that hang up.
I hope I've made my stance a little more nuanced. We agree more than not.
