[Dimensio]

Really? Point it out.

This article is primarily an appeal to incredulity to explain why abiogenesis is "unlikely".

I will also restate that neither article actually demonstrate that the origin of life is or has ever been a part of the theory of evolution, nor do they show that the theory or evolution requires that life originally came about through any specific measure. The best that they do is point out that evolution starts with a single population of life forms that diverge into the species that we see today, however even given that assumption it says nothing about just how those life forms came to exist in the first place. One of the articles also dishonestly claims that diversity of species from common ancestry is nothing but an unfounded assumption. You should know better than that, given the extremely long posts from Ichneumon explaining exactly the physical observations that lead so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise.

[johnnyb_61820]

"This article is primarily an appeal to incredulity to explain why abiogenesis is "unlikely"."

There are two things in the article:

1) Shows that there are large steps that need to be overcome
2) Shows that there is no science that provides any explanation, data, or repeatable experiment to get between the large steps.

Note that if you think that statistical arguments are arguments from incredulity, you have to throw at all science that relies on error bars. But even that is not what I'm doing. I am showing that there is no evidence for the bridges between the gaps. They could perhaps be there, but there is no data demanding that we accept that there be something to fill the gaps. It seems very silly to demand that people accept and teach what has no or slim evidence just because it makes the story work out nicer.

"One of the articles also dishonestly claims that diversity of species from common ancestry is nothing but an unfounded assumption."

One of the evolutionists favorite things to do is to claim dishonesty on a disagreement.

"You should know better than that, given the extremely long posts from Ichneumon explaining exactly the physical observations that lead so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise."

Could you point me to some? If its like any others I've read here, there is nothing in any of the arguments that isn't also a hallmark of a common designer or common constraints, or presupposes a specific view of origin of life. Thus, the preference for using the data as evidence for common ancestry is based on unfounded assumptions.

"so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise."

I agree that many biologists believe this, and also that the ID camp generally agrees with this. But not all secular biologists believe in Universal Common Ancestry. Dooliittle, for instance, thinks we should give up looking for the LUCA:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/phylogenetic_classification_and_.htm

And Woese doesn't even think that one exists:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15187180
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305