Let us visit 'panspermia'.
The latest generation of 'scientists' are, as you say, visiting the panspermia hypothesis calling upon what might be called science fiction disciplines as interstellar microbiology, impact physics, galactic dynamics and planetary dynamics.
The fiction of panspermia gained interest when meteorites from Mars and the Moon were identified a few years ago. Mars, a 'relatively' large planetary body with an atmosphere took a powerful impact from an steroid which threw fragments up and out of the orbit of Mars and a few made their way to Earth. This spawned the term lithopanspermia. It is estimated that not all fragments will carry organisms due to cosmic radiation, thermal degradation, ultraviolet radiation. Only about 0.02% would carry organism if they existed. But as you know, all of this is speculation. You may call it hypothesis if it makes you feel better. But, there is not one shread of evidence this is actually what happened. It is like a comic book. A figment of imagination.
Most asteroids could never reach the Earth because of gravity. Only grains of dust could actually escape, and that would also be dependent on Solar radiation (solar winds). If bacteria were to be carried on dust survival ability is impossible because there would not be enough of a shield from radiation. Any meteorite with the mass of a tennis ball would never escape the Solar gravity effect. It is said that only in about 5 billion years would our star degrade to a Red Giant with a substantially smaller mass that escape of our star could be attained.
If a 10 pound rock did escape our solar system it is estimated that at a speed of 100,000 miles per hour it would travel about 16 light years in a million solar years, a length of time which not allow bacteriological survivability, given the very dangerous cosmic radiation, thermal fluctuations, and ultraviolet radiation. Radiopanspermia is unlikely to allow viable organisms be transported in such a manner.
The other question of Earth to Mars panspermia has resulted in non seeding of the suface of the planet Mars, or Venus ( very hot) for that matter. Should we consider this and wonder why? Mars is sterile. Venus is sterile. RNA and DNA transport is equally unlikely to result in seeding--->life.
So based on this 'hypothesis' let us take bacteria, morsillate or emulsify those cells, and plate them on agar. Let's do this thousands of times....no millions of times and you get the same thing-->no life.
Even the experts ( if such a person exists) on the subject of panspermia--->let us call them astrobiologists--->proved exchange of copious quantities of organic material the shortest time estimated to transfer this material is on the order of millions of years. If that happened, why did it not take?
This leads scientist to conclude that this idea is nonsense.
Miller-Urey---->contrary to what you say, and I paraphrase, little or no progress has moved us any closer to the goalposts of creating life in the lab. If you can refer me to coming close to life, (not organic molecules, not nucleic acids, not lipophosphates, but LIFE) I will change my mind. But I did get a library book and have spent many years studying this very subject and it just is not there. Speculation runs rampant, but science is in short supply on this subject.
I will not waste your time on the philosophical considerations that leads to warranted, true belief. I will only say that presuppositionalism is an affliction we all have to fight against in our mind if we are to attain to honest science. When we want something to be a certain way, we tend to evade a warranted truth if it does not comport with what we wish to be the case, we evade, we avoid and eschew certain obvious findings. If you wish to engage in this subject it is a long, arduous series of discussions on epistemology, ontology, and presuppositionalism.
The permutations of embryological development, I assure you, are not an article of faith of mine. The embryology of most classes of vertebrates have been worked out to a reasonable understanding. My only reason for my previous comment is to affirm, and now I reaffirm that Haeckel used deceit to inculcate millions of students into the nonsense that ontology recapitulates phylogeny. As I think you tangentially referenced we have now learned that what were once referred to as branchial slits are simply clefts and do not represent antecedent gill slits as once was thought. We can discuss embryology if you wish, but it has little to do with anything more than alleged homologies, not unlike hard parts (bones, shells, etc) which more easily fossilize. But that is not where changes occur, is it? All of the action is inside the nucleus of the cell. Those other fossils are simply expressions of nucleotide/nuclieoside changes. I will stop there.
i will return to "theistic evolution".
I believe theistic evolution is seized upon as a sort of "get out of jail free" card. It seems to want to create an atmosphere of conviviality between two views which cannot be reconciled. It is sort of what Philip Johnson called 'soft creationism', and not real Darwinianism as 'science' uses the term. As well read as you are, you certainly know George Gaylord Simpson. He was the head of the Paleobiology department at Harvard and world renown in his acclaim. He is known famously for saying, "If you put a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter and he struck 60 elements per minute at random, he will eventually create the entire works of Shakespeare, given enough time." Few questioned him on this. After he died Stephen Gould took over his position and was equally at tension with the Biblical creationist. Simpson also said, "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or in a proper sense of the word, materialistic factors......Man is the result of purposeless and a natural process that did not have him in mind. This comment was ripped of the Dawkins and others. But this is their belief. I could give you 25 similar quotes. Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation. Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point because they think that Darwinism is an empirical doctrine.....that it rests on observation.....but it does no such thing.
In short the reason that Darwinism and theism are incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to create. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblicalto some, or and unlikely method for God to use, but it is always possible that god might dod something that confounds our expectations. The contradiction between Darwinism and theism is at a deeper level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one must know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. This is to therefore know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot, or did not create. To infer that Darwinsm is true because there is no creator God, and then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creation is to engage in self-contradiction. I will not waist your time by going into Dobzhansky's Rules and their implications on this discussion.
Today the keepers of the culture eschew theistic evolution as a simple point of hostility. They imply everything contrary to Darwinism, specifically the existence of God, is simply false.
So the question becomes the following....."Do you know (warranted true belief) it is true that Darwinian evolution is true?" The honest answer requires one to set aside his presuppositions and allegiances to the metaphysical nature of science. Without that honesty, the scientist stumbles around like a blind man in the dark.
So, Buddy, ole, Pal (a nice reference, not a snippy one) I did find a library a long time ago. I learned to read,,,,at first, "See Spot run.", then right to Darwinism. It is late now, and I have work tomorrow. So I will let it rest and simmer tonight. Good luck to you and yours.
"FRiend" is the most sincere term you can use, here on Free Republic.
Every other term, "Pal", "Buddy", "Kemo Sabe", "Amigo", contains at least a small element of sarcasm & humor.
They are usually intended to be short for something along the lines of: "look, we're on the same side here, we're allies, and I want to be your FRiend, but you're not acting all that FRiendly, so listen more carefully to what I'm saying here".
Posters who respond with sincere friendship should be addressed as "FRiend", those not quite as Friendly as they should be, call "pal" or "buddy".
Hostile & insulting posters should be called... well, try to be nice, sometimes that works!
Texas Songwriter: "But as you know, all of this is speculation.
You may call it hypothesis if it makes you feel better."
Scientifically, as of today, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis, and so it will remain until or unless more evidence is found of it.
If it makes you feel better to call it "fiction" or "figment of imagination", that's fine, but scientifically it could eventually be confirmed, and so qualifies as "hypothesis".
Texas Songwriter: "If bacteria were to be carried on dust survival ability is impossible because there would not be enough of a shield from radiation."
I've read reports, over the years, of bacteria surviving in outer space on human space-craft.
I can't say any specifics, or for how long, but the suggestion is out there that life can be very hardy indeed.
Texas Songwriter: "If a 10 pound rock did escape our solar system it is estimated that at a speed of 100,000 miles per hour it would travel about 16 light years in a million solar years, a length of time which not allow bacteriological survivability..."
Of course, any argument that panspermia is unlikely is doubtless correct.
But the question is whether it's actually impossible, and that we don't know, yet.
Texas Songwriter: "astrobiologists--->proved exchange of copious quantities of organic material the shortest time estimated to transfer this material is on the order of millions of years."
Earth's geological evidence shows signs of early "life" within the first few hundred million years -- around 3.9 billion years ago.
Did it come from outer space, did it develop on Earth, or some combination -- nobody knows for sure, yet.
Texas Songwriter: "If you can refer me to coming close to life, (not organic molecules, not nucleic acids, not lipophosphates, but LIFE) I will change my mind."
The earliest "life" on earth would doubtless not satisfy your own personal definition of what is, or is not, "LIFE".
But if it did three basic things, we could call it not just "complex chemistry", but also "pre-life becoming life".
Those three things are the following:
Whether scientists can duplicate a simple "pre-life" in the lab is yet to be seen.
Texas Songwriter: "Speculation runs rampant, but science is in short supply on this subject."
Sure, so far...
Texas Songwriter: "Haeckel used deceit to inculcate millions of students into the nonsense that ontology recapitulates phylogeny."
You people keep claiming fraud & deceit, but I've only ever seen evidence that Haeckel was honestly mistaken, and even then was onto something: that fetuses of related species look much like each other, while those of more distantly related species still look amazingly similar.
In this particular example human "gill slits" do in fact look like those in fish, and in fish they do, in fact, become gills.
So, for you people to keep hollering "fraud" and "deceit" seems to me, well, just a tad dishonest, pal.
Texas Songwriter: "Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation.
Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point..."
But there's no confusion here.
Evolution is an often confirmed scientific theory, based on the assumptions such as methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Obviously, it's no more valid than its assumptions, but it's the result you get, when you look at the world naturally.
And since the Bible says nothing specific about how God created the Universe, evolution can easily be seen as one of His tools of creation.
Texas Songwriter: "To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one must know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible.
This is to therefore know that God does not exist..."
Now I'm out of time, for now, must run after this...
So, here is your fundamental, core root deep problem: science is not all-about "truth", science can't define "truth", indeed science explicitly excludes all forms of "higher truth" that come from the religious/spiritual/philosophical realm.
Science is only about "what works" and evolution theory, regardless of its higher "truth", or lack of, works in predicting and explaining what the geological & biological data tells us.
So, if somehow tomorrow, some genuine scientist confirms an alternate theory, falsifying evolution, then my response will be: that's fine, it's always interesting to learn how God might have worked to create us.
But it would change nothing of my religious beliefs, which are totally independent of any scientific theory.
Now time is gone, must run! Thanks FRiend!