[b_sharp]

"You have no idea about the complexity of the cell. I highly recommend you read the chapter “The Enigma of Life’s Origin,” from a book called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton."

So, you insist on playing with your strawman version of abiogenesis? Interesting.

Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection.

The only reason I can see for you to ignore the requirements determined by science is to enable you to produce some ridiculous and poorly defined calculation that has no resemblance to anything in reality.

BTW, is the 'spontaneous' creation of molecules such as amino acids unlikely?

[RussP]

“Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection.”

Nor did I say it does. You’re not paying attention.

[valkyry1]

bsharp, his ‘strawman version of abiogenesis’ as you refer to it, is more plausible than your ‘scientific version of abiogenesis’ or as you say, ‘imperfectly self replicating molecule... subject to some time consistent selection’.

So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule... subject to some time consistent selection’ arising up out of the morass.

Pray tell sharp, just what molecules can come about except as results of other chemical exchanges?

We will start off real simple, H and O² for starters

[jwalsh07]

How would you falsify abiogenesis as the mechanism for life on planet Earth Sharp?

Biogenesis, the current law of land, is definitely falsifiable.

However I don't see how the converse is true. Perhaps you'd offer up some criteria?

I also don't think that not be able to falsify abiogenesis casts that hypothesis outside the limits of science but that's just me. How about you?