Clarified. I just wanted to be sure that "strawman" came from what you thought I was saying vs. what I actually said. The Time citation was not proffered as "Life In A Test Tube", which was quoting someone.

...which is a far stretch from "Life in a Test Tube," no?

"I can't speak on what I don't know. What I do know is I've never yet heard a person I would categorize as a scientist or scientifically-literate claim that life was made in a test tube.

If your second statement is true, then why would you capitalize "Life in a Test Tube" and wrap it in quotation marks? You clearly wished to imply that you were quoting someone.

To be sure, exactly which "quote above" are you talking about?

This one:

Another claim that was made (Time Magazine, I think?) was "Test Backs Theory That Life Began as Chemical Act."

Hope that clarifies it for you.

They don't even have to mention cells to set off my BS detector. Anyone who talks about proteins as a necessity for abiogenesis is ignorant of - or hoping the reader is ignorant of - the RNA World theory.

I don't know if you have seen the piece in the May/June 2009 American Scientist, "The Origin of Life" by James Trefil, Harold J Morowitz and Eric Smith (link below). It outlines a "metabolism first" theory of abiogenesis. It states: "In our version of Metabolism First, the earliest steps towards life required neither DNA nor RNA, and may not even have involved spatial compartments like cells." The authors outline a hypothesis in which the citric acid cycle (running either backwards - reductive, or forwards - oxidative), on which the metabolic activities of all living cells are based, initially solved a purely chemical/physical problem that existed when the earth was newly formed, hot and full of energetic electrons, which needed a pathway through which to move to a lower energetic level. If the reaction, occurring in "porous rock, perhaps filled with organic gels deposited as suggested in the Oparin-Haldane model," is recursive, "it could serve as the core of a self-amplifying chemical system subject to selection." My favourite point made by the authors is: "our progress on this issue has been impeded by a formidable cognitive barrier. Because we perceive a deep gap when we think about the difference between inrganic matter and life, we feel that nature must have made a big leap to cross that gap." (God of the Gaps, anyone?) My favourite one-liner is a quote from Albert Szent-Gyorgi: "Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest." I've had to reread the article three times to get my head around it - I'm only a layperson in scientific terms - though an avidly interested one - but the ideas are very exciting and very plausible.

Link here: The Origin of Life

It's completely possible you're correct. Then again, when somebody like Ebon has never once said anything positive about me (that I can remember, at least) and said plenty of negative and insulting things, you gotta wonder. Perhaps I'm just committing the genetic fallacy.

Thumalumpacus,

My point is that no scientist, or scientifically-literate person, claims that life was made in a test-tube.

I can't speak on what I don't know. What I do know is I've never yet heard a person I would categorize as a scientist or scientifically-literate claim that life was made in a test tube.

M-U does indeed back the abiogenetic hypothesis;

Only analogously, unless you're okay with suggesting that racemic mixtures can sustain the necessary protein production as prescribed by nucleic acids. I'm not.

..you are right in modifying "theory" to "hypothesis".

Shame on Time Magazine! I'd expect that from a church tract.

What the quote above does not do is claim that M-U made "life in a test tube."

To be sure, exactly which "quote above" are you talking about?

Another claim that was made (Time Magazine, I think?) was "Test Backs Theory That Life Began as Chemical Act."

cl,

My point is that no scientist, or scientifically-literate person, claims that life was made in a test-tube.

Further, the quote above only states the fact of the matter. M-U does indeed back the abiogenetic hypothesis; you are right in modifying "theory" to "hypothesis". Of course, expecting a general-circulation magazine to properly distinguish between the two terms is, IMO, overly optimistic.

What the quote above does not do is claim that M-U made "life in a test tube." Unless the body of the article specifically states such, you are commiting a Strawman, and penalized ten yards and the loss of a down.

Thanks for that. It is often difficult to get a clear statement of position from some some people that post here. For what it's worth I think Ebon's hat-tip to your (valid) chirality comment was just illustrative and not meant to imply you personally subscribed to GOTG reasoning. But then again as the saying goes "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you" :)

Haven't heard from you in a while. Hope music has been enriching your life. Art has certainly been enriching mine.

Ebonmuse directly addressed my comment and implicitly labeled me a creationist who uses gaps in scientific knowledge to give up. I replied because it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Do you find Strobel's arguments convincing in a way that Ebonmuse obviously doesn't?

Not at all. I currently don't believe a successful ontological argument exists. The whole shebang seems misguided.

I don't think Adam was pointing the finger at you particularly. His comment was:

But Strobel and Wells are not merely sounding this note of caution; they are counseling surrender. They assert that they personally can't see any way to solve these problems, so we should give up and declare it a miracle.

Which would seem to be specifically directed at his critique of the book.
I guess my question to you would be "do you find Strobel's arguments convincing in a way that Ebonmuse obviously doesn't"