Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

[sayak83]

I have noticed that faith based creationists here often take recourse to the inability of evolution to account for the origin of first life when all other arguments fail. Thus I thought it would be good to start a thread on the science of abiogenesis to complement all the evolution threads that have been going on .

First point I will note. It takes a lot to get to a well established scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is near the pinnacle of what it means to be an established science (second only to Quantum Theory and General Relativity taking the third spot).

The science of abiogenesis is instead, a scientific project aimed at developing a comprehensive theory about how life can originate from non-life processes of ancient earth specifically and other potential planets in general. For those familiar with technology, if evolution is like computational sciences in its level of establishment then abiogenesis is like the program to develop quantum computation. Both abiogenesis and quantum computation has had its successful breaks enabling the projects to move forward, but a fully developed matrix of well-established models of how to make everything work has not yet happened.

Yet, and I will underline this point, even an ongoing and promising scientific project is far far more securer a footing to ground one's worldview than the idle ignorance masquerading as nonsense speculation that goes for the views commonly expressed by creationism and ID in general.

A promising scientific project shows progress, i.e. over the decades it should show that its ability to throw more and more light on the phenomena it seeks to explain has grown. I will show that abiogenesis research project has shown excellent progress over its relatively short time period. I will show what progress has been made in discerning how life began and what remains to be learned and how scientists are developing specific research programs to address these topics.

Hope this will help. At least creationists will know what is it they are supposed to reject.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Good luck counselor @sayak83 in your effort to teach the pigeons how to play chess.

 

[sayak83]

I have noticed that faith based creationists here often take recourse to the inability of evolution to account for the origin of first life when all other arguments fail. Thus I thought it would be good to start a thread on the science of abiogenesis to complement all the evolution threads that have been going on .

First point I will note. It takes a lot to get to a well established scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is near the pinnacle of what it means to be an established science (second only to Quantum Theory and General Relativity taking the third spot).

The science of abiogenesis is instead, a scientific project aimed at developing a comprehensive theory about how life can originate from non-life processes of ancient earth specifically and other potential planets in general. For those familiar with technology, if evolution is like computational sciences in its level of establishment then abiogenesis is like the program to develop quantum computation. Both abiogenesis and quantum computation has had its successful breaks enabling the projects to move forward, but a fully developed matrix of well-established models of how to make everything work has not yet happened.

Yet, and I will underline this point, even an ongoing and promising scientific project is far far more securer a footing to ground one's worldview than the idle ignorance masquerading as nonsense speculation that goes for the views commonly expressed by creationism and ID in general.

A promising scientific project shows progress, i.e. over the decades it should show that its ability to throw more and more light on the phenomena it seeks to explain has grown. I will show that abiogenesis research project has shown excellent progress over its relatively short time period. I will show what progress has been made in discerning how life began and what remains to be learned and how scientists are developing specific research programs to address these topics.

Hope this will help. At least creationists will know what is it they are supposed to reject.

What is Life?

Before looking at the science of the origins of life, it is useful to be able to identify those characteristics of life that make them distinguishable from non-life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Encyclopedia Britannica has a good definition and provides a starting point.

Life :- living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. Although a noun, as with other defined entities, the word life might be better cast as a verb to reflect its essential status as a process. Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts.

In this definition, the word metabolism may be a bit uncommon. So here is the definition from the same source

Metabolism:- the sum of the chemical reactions that take place within each cell of a living organism and that provide energy for vital processes and for synthesizing new organic material.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a way to make this into a succinct definition:-

Living systems are characterized by an inner activity that sustains, regenerates and rebuilds its own components and often replicates itself by taking matter and energy from the outside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that in the last definition we have abstracted life from the specific modes by which it does this inner activity on earth. There is no mention of carbon, genes, water or evolution. One, at the outset, has to be open to the possibility that the methods by which the process of life happens on earth may be a contingent rather than a necessary feature of life. Could life have happened otherwise? Can life be occurring otherwise in other planets? These are questions that the science of the origin of life also seeks to answer.

One final note. It has been said that life cannot be defined. Well, it did not seem that difficult at all ! It is a little appreciated success of the abiogenesis research program that studies the processes that occur at the margins of life and non-life so carefully, that today one has a much better grasp on how to identify the essential distinguishing marks of life than was the case 50 years ago.

 

[George-ananda]

Now, I think nature spirits and other non-physical intelligences and the primacy of consciousness can someday become a part of science. Time will tell. I believe these things are involved and will be accepted for a complete and fully satisfying understanding of life, evolution, abiogenesis and the nature of consciousness. Materialist science is only seeing the densest level of reality.

 

[sayak83]

Now, I think nature spirits and other non-physical intelligences and the primacy of consciousness can someday become a part of science. Time will tell. I believe these things are involved and will be accepted for a complete and fully satisfying understanding of life, evolution, abiogenesis and the nature of consciousness. Materialist science is only seeing the densest level of reality.

Religion is supposed to be doing that. The natural world exists and it needs to be investigated properly. Science, an outgrowth of naturalistic and analytical strands of Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophy is doing that very well. What religion has done instead is to break people up into ideological silos. Instead on focusing on how to advance its research program into the human experiences that hint at supra-natural phenomena, all it does today is apologetics, proselytization and fighting political or actual wars on religious ideologies. When Classical Mechanics got replaced by Quantum Mechanics..as revolutionary change in thought as any I can conceive...there is something we did not see. We did not see the Classical Mechanical faction and the Quantum Mechanical faction break themselves up into warring camps, proselytize to the public to make converts (think of the possibilities:- Free will vs Determinism, Chaos vs Order!!) and then fight wars or persecute the other group. Far more violent wars have been fought in religion regarding relatively trivial differences (should Bible be translated in other languages, is Jesus actually God or divinely appointed messiah only). Even moderate religions have no plan in motion that seeks to progress in understanding of the nature of the divine beyond asserting their doctrinal differences. Every group thinks they have the truth and seeks to win consensus by eliminating other views either through peaceful conversion or by violent means.

The problem is with religion, not with science. Scientists do not feel scientifically accomplished by blowing up opponent scientists labs, while many religious people feel accomplished by blowing up temples, mosques and churches or passing laws that oppress opponent religious folks. If we assume (and this is debatable) that religion began as a way to systematically investigate and make sense of the transcendental experiences of man, then modern religion has fallen far far far of the track.

 

[George-ananda]

The natural world exists and it needs to be investigated properly.

I agree with that statement completely. My point was science doesn't yet know the limits of nature and its thinking can get stuck inside a box. For example, because science has no instruments today to detect astral matter does not mean astral matter can not be part of the natural world that science investigates in the future. I was speculating about the future of science and how things currently dismissed by science, like paranormal phenomena, can someday become part and parcel of science's expanded understanding.

Science, an outgrowth of naturalistic and analytical strands of Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophy is doing that very well. What religion has done instead is to break people up into ideological silos. Instead on focusing on how to advance its research program into the human experiences that hint at supra-natural phenomena, all it does today is apologetics, proselytization and fighting political or actual wars on religious ideologies. When Classical Mechanics got replaced by Quantum Mechanics..as revolutionary change in thought as any I can conceive...there is something we did not see. We did not see the Classical Mechanical faction and the Quantum Mechanical faction break themselves up into warring camps, proselytize to the public to make converts (think of the possibilities:- Free will vs Determinism, Chaos vs Order!!) and then fight wars or persecute the other group. Far more violent wars have been fought in religion regarding relatively trivial differences (should Bible be translated in other languages, is Jesus actually God or divinely appointed messiah only). Even moderate religions have no plan in motion that seeks to progress in understanding of the nature of the divine beyond asserting their doctrinal differences. Every group thinks they have the truth and seeks to win consensus by eliminating other views either through peaceful conversion or by violent means.

The problem is with religion, not with science. Scientists do not feel scientifically accomplished by blowing up opponent scientists labs, while many religious people feel accomplished by blowing up temples, mosques and churches or passing laws that oppress opponent religious folks. If we assume (and this is debatable) that religion began as a way to systematically investigate and make sense of the transcendental experiences of man, then modern religion has fallen far far far of the track.

Unfortunately much of what you say about religion is true but that is not relative to my post. But I will say so-called paranormal phenomena can suggest areas for scientific investigation.

 

[Skwim]

I have noticed that faith based creationists here often take recourse to the inability of evolution to account for the origin of first life when all other arguments fail. Thus I thought it would be good to start a thread on the science of abiogenesis to complement all the evolution threads that have been going on . . . .

. . . Hope this will help. At least creationists will know what is it they are supposed to reject.

Nice objective; however, don't expect creationists to pay much attention. From my experience very few care to know anything more about abiogenesis, or evolution, than it takes to make stones to throw at the two. Simply note how many insist that abiogenesis is necessarily linked to evolution, one RF member even insists the two are one in the same. Thing is, you're not dealing with students here who care to learn, but Christians determined to save their faith from the reason of science. They can't afford to listen to reason, and they know it---but carry on. I like what you're doing and the way you're presenting it. If nothing else it will serve as good source to link to when the ignorance of creationists needs to be stifled.


.

 

[Animore]

I put this thread on watch. Interested in learning.

 

[sayak83]

I agree with that statement completely. My point was science doesn't yet know the limits of nature and its thinking can get stuck inside a box. For example, because science has no instruments today to detect astral matter does not mean astral matter can not be part of the natural world that science investigates in the future. I was speculating about the future of science and how things currently dismissed by science, like paranormal phenomena, can someday become part and parcel of science's expanded understanding.
Unfortunately much of what you say about religion is true but that is not relative to my post. But I will say so-called paranormal phenomena can suggest areas for scientific investigation.

In general scientists are willing to investigate anything provided you give them grant money. But you will have to agree to the fact that their results will be honest to what they find and not what you want to hear. There is absolutely no reason at all why religious organizations cannot invest in grants that investigate problems they are interested in (just like pharma, chemical or engineering companies as well as the govt does). So if the rich religious organizations (and many are rich from the money they get from their believers) wish to investigate something properly, lend us the money and we will do it for you. Just let a religious organization declare that they will fund a tenure position in a university provided that the researcher investigate some claims it believes to be true by the scientific method, and you will see how quickly scientists line up for the opportunity.

 

[George-ananda]

In general scientists are willing to investigate anything provided you give them grant money. But you will have to agree to the fact that their results will be honest to what they find and not what you want to hear. There is absolutely no reason at all why religious organizations cannot invest in grants that investigate problems they are interested in (just like pharma, chemical or engineering companies as well as the govt does). So if the rich religious organizations (and many are rich from the money they get from their believers) wish to investigate something properly, lend us the money and we will do it for you. Just let a religious organization declare that they will fund a tenure position in a university provided that the researcher investigate some claims it believes to be true by the scientific method, and you will see how quickly scientists line up for the opportunity.

Point is the technology for such investigations does not exist yet. Money is not the problem. At this time no amount of money is going to find a soul floating above a body during a near death experience as it is not posited to be within the three-dimensional physical world that current science is limited to. Parapsychologists have already uncovered some incredible stuff with careful and controlled experiments, but they are attacked by those attached to materialist science. As I said earlier, time will tell.

As for abiogenesis, evolution , life and consciousness, I do not believe science even knows the essential constituents as they include components outside the box of their current ability to explore. They are behind Vedic knowledge in many areas.

 

[gnostic]

Point is the technology for such investigations does not exist yet. Money is not the problem. At this time no amount of money is going to find a soul floating above a body during a near death experience as it is not posited to be within the three-dimensional physical world that current science is limited to. Parapsychologists have already uncovered some incredible stuff with careful and controlled experiments, but they are attacked by those attached to materialist science. As I said earlier, time will tell.

Parapsychology is not science; it is pseudoscience.

That's the only reason why science community don't accept parapsychology. It is no better than astrology and Intelligent Design.

Parapsychology is only useful in plots of fiction and very profitable in the movie industry.

 

[George-ananda]

Parapsychology is not science; it is pseudoscience.

That's the only reason why science community don't accept parapsychology. It is no better than astrology and Intelligent Design.

Parapsychology is only useful in plots of fiction and very profitable in the movie industry.

On that, we totally disagree.

 

[David T]

Well a dog is an evolutionist so it's a rather unimpressive theory really rooted in European intellectual development rather than reality. Evolution from a religious perspective was already coined in Christianity by St francis of assisi 600 years before darwin, he called it family of God. Oh lookie it just so happens to align with contemporary evolutionary understanding. To go a bit further, assisi treated death as a part of that family too sister death is what he called death. so your animate inanimate duality is rather evangelical in understanding not actually even biblical like the vast majority of christians. To take it a bit further, if evolution is true then evolution is dictating the narrative of evolution itself. Therefore the narrative created is not evolution but a narrative about it. That again aligns with the bible not surprisingly, but religion as much as science trends towards hyper REDUCTIONISM, or all truth starts with the human idea or CRANIUM COG COG COGNITIVELY. That's absolutely self delusional and rather non scientific nor even biblical.

 

[gnostic]

On that, we totally disagree.

You can disagree all you like, that won't change parapsychology from pseudoscience into science.

Parapsychology involved in the studies of "paranormal" and "supernatural" phenomenon, which themselves are pseudosciences, but the studies and research involved are only interested in validating their belief, and that's not science.

Science is not about validating belief.

Any statement made in hypothesis or theory, required it to be falsifiable.

If you understood falsification, then you would know that the statement made, a scientist should be able to prove it (statement) is false, and the only way that to prove it, is to subject the statement through rigorous tests.

The tests are used to, not just to verify it is "true", but more importantly, the ability to refute the statement, if it is "false".

Another name for falsifiability is "refutability" or "testability".

1. If it is falsifiable (or testable), then it is "scientific".
2. And if it is unfalsifiable...in another word - untestable...then it is unscientific.

Any scientist worths his or her salt, would let the tests decide if the statement presented is "true" or "false", or even "inconclusive", before reaching its conclusion.

Inconclusive test results shouldn't be considered as "true".

And here lies the problem with those who worked in the field of parapsychology, in what they called "controlled experiments":

And a lot of tests and experiments carry out by these parapsychologists, turn out to be largely "false" and "inconclusive", and yet parapsychologists would conclude those that were deemed as "inconclusive" as if they were "true", thereby fudging the results.

That's the mark of lack of integrity among parapsychologists, committing frauds. Parapsychologists don't care about if their results were wrong, they will continue to believe as they will.

Frauds are rampant in the paranormal industry, and parapsychologists have no interests in refuting those claims of paranormal or supernatural phenomena, because that's where their money are coming from.

 

[George-ananda]

You can disagree all you like, that won't change parapsychology from pseudoscience into science.

Parapsychology involved in the studies of "paranormal" and "supernatural" phenomenon, which themselves are pseudosciences, but the studies and research involved are only interested in validating their belief, and that's not science.

Science is not about validating belief.

Any statement made in hypothesis or theory, required it to be falsifiable.

If you understood falsification, then you would know that the statement made, a scientist should be able to prove it (statement) is false, and the only way that to prove it, is to subject the statement through rigorous tests.

The tests are used to, not just to verify it is "true", but more importantly, the ability to refute the statement, if it is "false".

Another name for falsifiability is "refutability" or "testability".

1. If it is falsifiable (or testable), then it is "scientific".
2. And if it is unfalsifiable...in another word - untestable...then it is unscientific.

Any scientist worths his or her salt, would let the tests decide if the statement presented is "true" or "false", or even "inconclusive", before reaching its conclusion.

Inconclusive test results shouldn't be considered as "true".

And here lies the problem with those who worked in the field of parapsychology, in what they called "controlled experiments":

And a lot of tests and experiments carry out by these parapsychologists, turn out to be largely "false" and "inconclusive", and yet parapsychologists would conclude those that were deemed as "inconclusive" as if they were "true", thereby fudging the results.

That's the mark of lack of integrity among parapsychologists, committing frauds. Parapsychologists don't care about if their results were wrong, they will continue to believe as they will.

Frauds are rampant in the paranormal industry, and parapsychologists have no interests in refuting those claims of paranormal or supernatural phenomena, because that's where their money are coming from.

I disagree strongly with your assessment of parapsychology and parapsychologist. Your comments make me question your familiarity with the subject as they are so off. So you really think they consider inconclusive results as true?? OK.

 

[gnostic]

So you really think they consider inconclusive results as true?? OK.

No. I am saying that "inconclusive" results should be treated as "inconclusive"; it should never be treated as "true".

But parapsychologists don't treat "inconclusive" as "inconclusive". They make excuses, and "inconclusive" treated as the were positive results.

I cannot trust parapsychologists if they are going to be so dishonest with the results.

 

[George-ananda]

No. I am saying that "inconclusive" results should be treated as "inconclusive"; it should never be treated as "true".

But parapsychologists don't treat "inconclusive" as "inconclusive". They make excuses, and "inconclusive" treated as the were positive results.

I cannot trust parapsychologists if they are going to be so dishonest with the results.

What would make you think parapsychologists treat 'inconclusive' as 'true'?? Have you studied the work of any parapsychologist?

 

[sayak83]

@Jumi
@Mestemia
@Daemon Sophic
@Sapiens
@Kirran
@Animore
@beenherebeforeagain
@Skwim

One of the major features of modern life is that it encodes information in its gene (DNA), which acts as a software that directs the hardware of the cells (the amino acids) on what to do (how to make proteins, when and in what concentrations.) One question that faces scientists is then how did this division between the information storing DNA and the hardware it directs arose via natural means.

The most well established idea here is that in ancient life another molecule called the RNA did double duty as both the carrier of information and as hardware that did stuff like catalyzing reactions and replicating itself in the cell. This is called the RNA world hypothesis.

There are several reasons why RNA is considered the molecule that was there at the beginning of life before life incorporated DNA and proteins.

Firstly RNA is very similar to DNA having 4 bases (A,T,C,U) that can act as information carriers just like DNA's 4 bases (A,T,C,G).

In modern cells RNA is the bridge molecule between the software (DNA) and the hardware (amino acids), transcribing the DNA letters into its own letters and then migrating to translation cites where RNA letters are translated into amino acid chains (the proteins and enzymes). Thus it is easy to posit an earlier stage when DNA was not there and single stranded RNA itself was the carrier of information that was translated into amino acid chains.

Finally RNA itself can do many of the things that proteins do today. Sidney Altman won the Nobel Prize in 1989 when he discovered that RNA, by itself, is able to catalyze many crucial reaction occurring within the cells...something that scientists before him thought only proteins (i.e. amino acid chains) could do. These catalytic RNA strands have since been shown to participate in many many reactions and are called Ribozymes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme

Thus RNA proves to be the key molecule capable of acting both as information carrier and active participant in the reactions of life. Furthermore, since it has genetic structure, it is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution through mutation and selection over the generations. That RNA can do so has been amply demonstrated in the lab. This is called in vitrio RNA evolution and is a growing field of molecular biotechnology.
In 2009, in a landmark achievement, RNA that can self replicate without the need of any proteins or enzymes was evolved in the lab for the first time
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication.

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.

Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that is a very efficient replicator, something that many research groups, including Joyce's, had struggled for years to obtain. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication.

The replicating system actually involves two RNA enzymes, each composed of two subunits and each functioning as a catalyst that assembles the other. The replication process is cyclic, in that the first enzyme binds the two subunits that comprise the second enzyme and joins them to make a new copy of the second enzyme; while the second enzyme similarly binds and joins the two subunits that comprise the first enzyme. In this way the two enzymes assemble each other — what is termed cross-replication. To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits.

"This is the only case outside biology where molecular information has been immortalized," says Joyce.

The idea is simple. Suppose X and Y are the two RNA strands and x, y are the subunits out of which these strands are made of. Then
X + y → Y + X (X acting as a catalyst for making Y)
and
Y + x → X + Y (Y acting as a catalyst for making X)

Not content to stop there, the researchers generated a variety of enzyme pairs with similar capabilities. They mixed 12 different cross-replicating pairs, together with all of their constituent subunits, and allowed them to compete in a molecular test of survival of the fittest. Most of the time the replicating enzymes would breed true, but on occasion an enzyme would make a mistake by binding one of the subunits from one of the other replicating enzymes. When such "mutations" occurred, the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture. "To me that's actually the biggest result," says Joyce.

The recombinant RNA strands are hybrids that are made of x-y pairs rather than x-x and y-y. The spontaneous arising and evolution of hybrid self-replicating RNA strands is a case of emergence of new information through the evolutionary process.

The research shows that the system can sustain molecular information, a form of heritability, and give rise to variations of itself in a way akin to Darwinian evolution. So, says Lincoln, "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

I believe I have made an adequate case for believing as to why RNA was a key molecule in the evolution of early life, capable of evolution as well as catalytic activity and self-replication.

Next I will providence evidence to show that RNA can indeed arise through natural chemistry in early earth. Stay tuned

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The recombinant RNA strands are hybrids that are made of x-y pairs rather than x-x and y-y. The spontaneous arising and evolution of hybrid self-replicating RNA strands is a case of emergence of new information through the evolutionary process.

This is really awesome stuff. I was at a point where I only grasped the possibility of the natural processes by which matter could/would adhere to other matter and felt that this could, indeed, produce more complex/varying chains of matter, and reading this really transforms that "apparition" of suspected knowledge into something much more cemented/tangible.

Just reading the successful discoveries made by letting matter do what matter will do is really something. In trying to find an analogy that does justice to the spin this type of revelation puts on one's perspective, I settled on analog vs. digital signals. Where the digitization of a thing means it is broken up into fragments, "on"/"off", "pixelated", etc., the analog signal is clean, progresses through all possible moments and points of existence, relies only on the immutable laws of the universe to which it owes its behavior, etc. To the point that, instead of my view being as pixelated or fragmented as it was, I feel I am one step closer to that analog/real-time/true representation of the thing.

I honestly also feel a bit sad, to tell you the truth. There are so many people who would read this and either intentionally think nothing of it, or to whom the implications are simply lost.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have noticed that faith based creationists here often take recourse to the inability of evolution to account for the origin of first life when all other arguments fail. Thus I thought it would be good to start a thread on the science of abiogenesis to complement all the evolution threads that have been going on .

First point I will note. It takes a lot to get to a well established scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is near the pinnacle of what it means to be an established science (second only to Quantum Theory and General Relativity taking the third spot).

The science of abiogenesis is instead, a scientific project aimed at developing a comprehensive theory about how life can originate from non-life processes of ancient earth specifically and other potential planets in general. For those familiar with technology, if evolution is like computational sciences in its level of establishment then abiogenesis is like the program to develop quantum computation. Both abiogenesis and quantum computation has had its successful breaks enabling the projects to move forward, but a fully developed matrix of well-established models of how to make everything work has not yet happened.

Yet, and I will underline this point, even an ongoing and promising scientific project is far far more securer a footing to ground one's worldview than the idle ignorance masquerading as nonsense speculation that goes for the views commonly expressed by creationism and ID in general.

A promising scientific project shows progress, i.e. over the decades it should show that its ability to throw more and more light on the phenomena it seeks to explain has grown. I will show that abiogenesis research project has shown excellent progress over its relatively short time period. I will show what progress has been made in discerning how life began and what remains to be learned and how scientists are developing specific research programs to address these topics.

Hope this will help. At least creationists will know what is it they are supposed to reject.

.

Yes, credit where it is due, science has come a long way in unraveling the mysteries of life

After 40 years it conceded that Piltdown man was a fake.
It has finally begun to acknowledge that the gaps in the fossil record are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record as once predicted
What Dawkins describes as fossils appearing 'as if planted with no evolutionary history' was once considered pseudoscience.
Many fossils once considered 'transitionals' 150 years ago in Darwin's time have been correctly identified as distinct species.

Just as cosmology, in it's infancy, favored simple static,eternal, steady state (no creation = no creator) models of the universe.
Just as physics once favored simple immutable laws leaving no room for God..
So to the study of natural history- once relient for some on mere random chance and natural selection, increasingly supports ID as it matures.
Abiogenesis- the first replicator- as you touched in above is looking more and more akin to the Big Bang- the singularity, a very well engineered 'seed' specifying precisely what will develop from it.

Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo"