[unlearner]

"The chemical elements did not 'self-organize' themselves on the periodic table. An abstract description of a thing is not an example of that thing self-organizing. This is a self-serving corrupt definition, and I think you should drop it."

Do you prefer self assemble? I am unsure what you are objecting to. I understand that the periodic table is merely a model for how elements are grouped. Am I wrong to assume that matter that is not in the form of plasma, will naturally gravitate, group itself, assemble, or however better you can describe it, into periodic elements? This is due to the nature of matter's chemical and physical properties. It flows naturally from electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, apparently.

"How will your proposed lab experiment produce this effectively infinite stretch of continuous gradual change from lifeless to lifeful?"

It only needs to simulate the final stage of this infinite process. Unless you are claiming the transitional structures cannot be created more quickly in a controlled environment. But how do you know they can't? You should at least be able to simulate their properties in a computer (or other) model. There should be a reason why they cannot exist any other way but an infinitely long process. If life came to exist through an infinitely long, unguided process, you would have as much challenge of proving it as proving God exists via the scientific method.

"It can't significantly address what science actually does think is the way life formed"

So now you are claiming abiogenesis is what science thinks? Verification and falsification are not necessary prerequisites to think this. It is not just assumed, the conclusion has already been reached? On what basis is this conclusion science?

"the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

Only? So physical laws are irrelevant? You already implied that causality is not allowed to get in the way of abiogenesis. (Of course if it is troubling for ID then it must be valid. /s) Now you are saying lab tests are irrelevant. I assume because physical laws are irrelevant. I mean if understanding the correlation of physical laws to the formation of life is too costly, then those laws must be unimportant. Never mind that we spend millions testing claims of super string theory when they are not even falsifiable.

"There's no reason I shouldn't consider a citrus cycle caught in closed system, such as a free floating bubble, a possible example of early life."

If you want to use this description as a possible precursor to life, fine. But calling it an early form is ridiculous. You need to define life a lot more than I do. I don't think any reasonable person would allow a simple process to encompass the definition. Otherwise, we already have living computer programs and machines.

[donh]

"How will your proposed lab experiment produce this effectively infinite stretch of continuous gradual change from lifeless to lifeful?"

It only needs to simulate the final stage of this infinite process.

There is no "final stage" just as there is no distinct species separation between zebras and horses, in actuality. And just as there is no distinct, technically precise notion of what life is, against which to construct your proposed experiment. Have you really no sense of how ludicrous it is to claim that our supposed incapacity to construct life from "scratch" will demonstrate ID, while at the same time claiming you don't need a rigorous definition of life to perform this experiment?

So now you are claiming abiogenesis is what science thinks?

Yes, as of the year 2000, there was a way to begin to see this. See Woese, and the recent changes at the root of the tree of life.

Verification and falsification are not necessary prerequisites to think this. It is not just assumed, the conclusion has already been reached? On what basis is this conclusion science?

On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up. In exactly the same manner that we concluded that evolutionary theory explains the bones of creatures we've dug up that no longer seem to exist as living creatures. Maybe you should make an effort to understand what science actually consists of before cracking wise (and fracking endlessly) about it.

If life came to exist through an infinitely long, unguided process, you would have as much challenge of proving it as proving God exists via the scientific method.

Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science, so it matters not to the extent of a fart in a hurricane.

Only? So physical laws are irrelevant?

Are you trying to bait me, or are you really this clueless? Just as a general guideline--you may assume from now on that there are a great many things I believe may be so, most of which I will fail to mention in any given note I may write.

You already implied that causality is not allowed to get in the way of abiogenesis. (Of course if it is troubling for ID then it must be valid. /s) Now you are saying lab tests are irrelevant. I assume because physical laws are irrelevant.

I don't believe I said that. I believe I said lab tests aren't the only way to do science, and I believe I also said the lab test you propose is absurd, and quite likely will never occur in actuality, because nobody cares, or will ever care, sufficiently to bother.--for one reason, because its results wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument, whichever way the experiment works out.

I mean if understanding the correlation of physical laws to the formation of life is too costly, then those laws must be unimportant.

I have no idea what you are on about here--nothing, I suspect. Physical laws are deeply involved in every scientific experiment or proposed field study.

Never mind that we spend millions testing claims of super string theory when they are not even falsifiable.

There is strong consensus that an experiment currently scheduled for 2010 will be potentially falsifiable. Several astronomy projects on a currently feasable schedule also appear to be potentially falsifiable.