All you do here is make it obvious where your difficulties in comprehension arise. As LaPlace explained to Napoleon why his text on celestial mechanics omitted mention of God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Where is annointing necessary? Catalysts happen. Something somewhere will catalyze formation of a molecule identical to itself. When that happens, the world changes.
Care to refute my "imaginings?" If you cannot analyze my arguments, I guess you then cannot debate this issue.
But I have analyzed your arguments in detail. For some time now, they've been arm-waving chemo-babble from a person who cannot tell "species" from "isomer," abiogenesis (pre-replication) from evolution (post-replication). There's really no there there.
Miller created certain non-polymerized, lower energy amino acids from polymerized precursors.
No, he didn't. He made aminos in a very unguided process, a little warmth and some elecrtrical arcing, from simple gasses and water. He went in a simulated early Earth environment from inorganics to organics, which was the significance of his experiment. That you get even this wrong, that you claim he broke his simple aminos down from polymers, shows you ain't never never never gonna get any of this. Hydrogen is not a polymer. Methane is not a polymer. Ammonia is not a polymer. Water is not a polymer. With the main article of this thread right in front of you, you state this falsehood. Here, look:
Miller had applied an electric discharge to a mixture of CH4, NH3, H2O, and H2--believed at the time to be the atmospheric composition of early Earth. Surprisingly, the products were not a random mixture of organic molecules, but rather a relatively small number of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids, hydroxy acids, and urea. With the publication of these dramatic results, the modern era in the study of the origin of life began.You're being Ignorant for the Lord, so to speak. Who knows, of course, maybe you don't know what the words mean. A polymer is a long chain of simpler elements, like RNA or nylon.
When the slow learners in the third grade have trouble with long division, they don't advertize their difficulties as a refutation of the discipline of arithmetic. They may be lazy or a bit thick, but long division is there and it works for anyone who wants to learn it.
Your typical disinterested reader, encountering an article such as this one on abiogenesis may very well have questions or even objections which the article does not answer. Having no axe to grind, however, and knowing he is not the world's foremost authority, he probably makes some allowance that the scientists involved have made a far more thorough study of the subject in getting to where they currently are.
But not the creationist. Unlike the slow-learner third-graders or the guy with no axe to grind, his every confusion, even his ignorance, is proof that all of the scientists whose work he questions are wrong. He not only concludes this, but logs onto the Internet to announce his findings to the world.
It doesn't work that way. If you ever get truly curious, read some articles in the area. A good book is J. William Schopf's Cradle of Life, although Schopf's main claim to fame and the centerpiece of that book has been questioned: 3.5 billion-year-old "cyanobacteria" lookalikes in Australian chert may be geologic artifacts. For all that, it's a very good text on the early Earth and abiogenesis issues.
That's if you ever actually discover any real curiosity on the subject. For now, you aren't fighting to learn but rather to stay confused. You have thus picked a fight you can't lose.