Doesn’t change the fact that the question of abiogenesis and evolution are not dependent on one another. Someone testing abiogenesis is not testing evolution. You are simply wrong about that.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:20, topic:36540”]
The question is: what kind of science is this where there’s only one hypothesis and it is declared true before any proof?
You can only test one hypothesis at a time.
If you don’t like this hypothesis, then please describe the scientific hypothesis that you think Szostak should be testing, and the experiments he should use to test that hypothesis. It seems to me that lipid bilayers and a bit of nucleotide bases is a valid place to start. From the article you linked:
This first, simple “protocell,” which Szostak is trying to recreate in the lab – nothing but a curl of genetic material surrounded by a fatty skin-- started copying itself with minor variations, and these variations conferred advantages on some cells. This variety led to the competitive process of Darwinian evolution, Szostak says, and eventually to the tree of life as we know it today.
"The key thing," Szostak says, “is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene.” This moment of “getting started” is the focus of Szostak’s research: to discover the first “living chemistry”, or, as Szostak puts it, “that transition from chemistry to biology”: when a clump of molecules first became a living thing.
What do you think Szostak should start with? Lipid bilayer and amino acids? What exactly?