Sure there is. What a pity their “good model” can’t be proven correct.
Meanwhile, in the real world, science is not even remotely close to figuring out how abiogenesis occurred. The only way science can prove that it knows how abiogenesis occured is by actually producing a viable organism from inanimate matter … which will never happen … mainly bcoz humans can’t perform miracles.
Scientists have as much chance of proving they know how life started as they have of proving they know how life evolved … which is zero.
Empty words which you will no doubt repeat no matter what we discover.
What happens if you google this question? The AI summary is nothing close to your claim.
Abiogenesis research has seen significant advancements, particularly in understanding the potential for early life-like networks and the plausibility of reproducing micelles. Recent findings suggest that life may have emerged earlier than previously thought, potentially 4.1 billion years ago. Key areas of progress include research into the RNA world hypothesis, the role of catalytic RNA, and the potential for self-replicating systems.
Here’s a more detailed look at the progress:
Early Emergence of Life-like Networks: Research suggests that early life-like networks, like those in the GARD model, can form and progress towards self-reproduction. Simulations show that reproducing micelles, formed from lipids, could have been abundant in Earth’s oceans.
Evidence for Earlier Life: Geological evidence suggests that life may have existed as far back as 4.1 billion years ago, pushing back the timeline for abiogenesis.
RNA and the RNA World Hypothesis: The discovery of ribozymes (RNA molecules with catalytic properties) has been crucial. This supports the RNA world hypothesis, which proposes that RNA, not DNA, was the primary genetic material in early life. Research has focused on how RNA could have been generated prebiotically on early Earth.
Self-Replication and Darwinian Evolution: Once self-reproduction begins, mutations and natural selection become possible, potentially leading to early Darwinian evolution. This highlights the importance of understanding the mechanisms that allow for self-replication in early systems.
Key Players in Abiogenesis:
Miller-Urey Experiment:
This classic experiment demonstrated that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could be synthesized under conditions thought to be present on early Earth.
Hydrothermal Vents:
These vents, spewing chemicals from the Earth’s interior, are considered potential sites for the emergence of life due to the energy and chemical gradients they provide.
Systems Chemistry:
This field explores the chemical principles underlying the organization of complex systems, offering insights into how non-living matter might have transitioned to living matter.
Chirality:
The homochirality of life (the preference for one form of chiral molecules) is a puzzle in abiogenesis. Research explores how this preference might have arisen from the interplay of electron spin and molecular chirality.
Defining Life: The definition of life itself is being refined through abiogenesis research. Understanding the transition from non-living to living matter requires a deeper understanding of the underlying physico-chemical principles.
Ongoing Challenges: While significant progress has been made, key questions remain about the specific mechanisms of how non-living matter can yield the building blocks of life and how the transition from simple to complex life occurred.
In essence, abiogenesis research is painting a more detailed picture of how life may have originated, highlighting the potential for early self-replicating systems, the importance of RNA, and the underlying chemical and physical principles involved.
Covered that already above. Science is not about proof. It is about living in the real world where the sun rises every day without any proof whatsoever.
I didn’t say anything about “nothing in between”. Science is effectively clueless about how a double-circulation heart could evolve from a single-circulation heart. The very idea screams, “Impossible!”. Unsurprisingly, the best explanation science can offer is, “Evolution done it.”
How does the ToE explain how the venom gland in a venonous snake come to be connected to it’s fangs?
How did a venomous snake evolve hollow fangs? (A random hollow-fang mutation, perhaps? )
Fish have a single-circulation heart, whereas amphibians have a double-circulation heart.
How did you prove that amphibians evolved from fish?
How did you prove that the evolutionary ancestors of mammals were amphibians?
Scientific models are never proven correct. Equations are proven correct. Science is not math. Scientific models are either supported or contested. You insisting on using the discourse of mathematics for science doesn’t make science less reliable, it just makes it pointless to have a conversation with you.
The point of a model is modeling a process. The point of a proof is showing the math works. I don’t know how to say it any simpler. It is not a model’s function to prove.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”
Stephen Jay Gould
What percentage of the all prehistoric organisms that existed is recorded in the fossil record? No one knows … it could be just a tiny fraction … in which case, a nested hierarchy based on the fossil record is a completely useless guide to reality.
The truth is, the history of life on earth is unknowable, so endeavouring to know what biological process was responsible for the unknowable history of life is a fool’s errand. Going further by claiming to know what that process was is way beyond foolish.
No. Here’s an analogy. If we were talking about transportation (instead of evidence) and you said “What is the point of a boat for transportation, it can’t fly?” I would look at you like you are dumb. Both boats (scientific models) and planes (mathematical proofs) can make use of engines (math). But it doesn’t matter how well the engine on the boat (the math in a scientific model) works, it’s never going to fly (prove things). Because it’s a boat, not a plane. It’s whole job is to float (model processes). The conversation is about whether it is leaky or not or fast or not or able to keep passengers safe or not (i.e. a good model that makes sense of empirical evidence and reliably predicts future outcomes), not about whether or not boats (scientific models) are a form of transportation (evidence) or whether it is a bad boat for not flying (proving things).
I am sorry, but I think you are missing the point.
The point is not whether the scientific theory is plausible, or logical, or the result of diligent research. The point is that it is still a fools errand because ultimately we cannot prove anything and, if God is involved, science cannot/will not see it. Nevertheless we humans like to think we know things or can discover things and be right.
ToE is taught/considered as fact, or at least a good theory. but, if it is challenged defences fly up. Scientist are so (vulnerable or arrogant or defensive, or over confident) that they defend the theory with every innuendo, or guilt trip or justification they can muster. it is science and scientist know what they are doing!
Why can’t they admit the fact that it is beyond their reach to get it certain? Yes, it is the best that science can muster, but that does not make it right, or perfect.
There is never a caveat, or inkling of uncertainty or doubt when ToE is presented. And there is never a condescension that Religion could have a point.
Theistic Evolution does not have to be the adoption of the scientific view.
)