Transition from chemistry to biology

What does defining the difference between two terms have to do with experimental confirmation?

The post you were responding to was defining. The conversation went:

quote:

---

A good definition of abiogenesis should be given: one that clearly distinguishes it from spontaneous generation.

---

Message 14To which Loudmouth replied

quote:

---

Spontaneous generation: Common species found on the earth today can be produced from inanimate chemicals, such as muddy puddles (frogs), meat left out in the sunlight (maggots and flies), or milk left in a jug for a long period of time (lactobacillus). No new species can be created from spontaneous generation, but instead the theory describes where they come from.

​

Abiogenesis: A self propagating chemical reaction starts that results in self replicating polymers. This gives rise to more complex chemical reactions due to accretion of small mistakes in the self replication reactions. Eventually, this results in cellular life due to capture in lipid bodies, followed by diversification into the species we see today.

---

Nobody is imposing anything, just defining what two different things mean, in a rough around the edges kind of fashion.

As long as you accept they are entirely different ideas - what you call them is irrelevant. If you think that today's biochemists propose that the origins of life are that modern life sprang complete from rotting meat - that's when you run into problems. The question I asked you, which you seemed to have forgotten was in a completely different thread. It was Message 210 and I asked you "Do you know how much energy is required to 'further chemical reaction'? How does this compare with the quantity of energy next to an underwater thermal vent?". I imagine your answer is 'I don't know. But I can find another human who has said what I just said.'. Calling Hitching an 'evolutionist' just goes to show how useless that term is. Most would regard him as an evolution-denying hack, who also writes books about psi energy and dowsing.Until such time as you can actually provide an answer to the question your assertion that "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES)." is a bare, unsupported assertion...did Hitching provide any calculations here at all?Do you own, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, or anything else by Hitching by any chance? Have you read it? Or did you just pull that quote from a creationist/evolution-denying website? Is this your best? A sequence of out of context quotes, in response to a question asked in a totally different thread? I have already stated "It is true that water can be problematic when it comes to certain chemical reactions.", so telling me that some biochemists have said the same thing seems a little pointless - don't you think? The point is, though water can be problematic it doesn't present an terminal barrier. I even gave you a source, where a biochemist explains how such chemical reactions can take place in aqueous solutions. I assume you didn't read that? To paraphrase you - "Or your only so concern to the idea that denies evolution?"If you were honest, you would at least cite the articles and dates when these people said it. I'll give you the first one, Dickerson, R. E., 1978, Chemical evolution and the origin of life: Scientific American, v. 239, no. 3, p. 70-108. Dickerson starts with that quote, and then goes on to describe some ways polymerization could have proceeded in an aqueous environment. Scientists like starting by telling you the problem, and then telling you what the solution is. If you remember high school science you were usually encouraged to start with something like 'Define the problem'.