So DNA, after pruning the insults and derision, you are basically saying: abiogenesis must include a mechanism which is compatible with the constraints imposed by the 2LOT. So what? Has anyone asserted to the contrary here?
It seems that some here may have mistaken DNA's argument for the erroneous creationist bleat that evolution/abiogenesis is contrary to the 2LOT. DNA's point is different, but trivial from a scientific perspective because an abiogenesis researcher would not seriously propose a mechanism for abiogenesis which contradicts the 2LOT and would need to .
Let's take the venom out of the thread and relook at DNA's opening assertions in message #2
The second law of thermodynamics poses no problem at all for evolution: abiogenesis is a different story.
This is one source of confusion over what DNA's position is. Many seem to have misinterpreted the above to mean that the 2LOT presents an insurmountable problem for abiogenesis which cannot be solved in principle. This is the typical creationist bleat. DNA only means the much weaker, and accurate, assertion that the 2LOT is a constraint imposed on any credible mechanism for abiogenesis. As some have already remarked: so what?
Actually the original assertion is somewhat inaccurate. The 2LOT also poses a problem for evolution. However the mechanism for overcoming this problem is known: the capture of solar, geothermal or chemical energy by biochemical processes. So, the 2LOT posed a problem for the theory of evolution which has been solved.
Equally, homochirality of biological amino acids poses a problem for abiogenesis. And homochirality of biological carbohydrates poses a problem for abiogenesis.
Any credible mechanism for abiogenesis must address all of these issues and more. Nothing new in that.