• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New discoveries of 'missing links.'

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"Evolution does not provide evidence for chemistry evolving into biology. There is no explanation needed for that."

Can you objectively refute that statement? How is that as you said "not supported by scientific evidence"?

Easily objectively refuted, no problem with science. Yes, evolution has been falsified by scientific methods beyond any reasonable doubt by tens of thousands peer reviewed discoveries and research and accepted by 95%+ of the scientists in the related fields to evolution.

You have provided absolutely nothing in terms of scientific evidence and your assertion cited is "not supported by scientific evidence." As I said, "All you have left is a religious agenda, without any education nor peer reviewed research."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Easily objectively refuted, no problem with science. Yes, evolution has been falsified by scientific methods beyond any reasonable doubt by tens of thousands peer reviewed discoveries and research and accepted by 95%+ of the scientists in the related fields to evolution.

You have provided absolutely nothing in terms of scientific evidence and your assertion cited is "not supported by scientific evidence." As I said, "All you have left is a religious agenda, without any education nor peer reviewed research."

Irrelevant. You are refuting someone else, or something else. I think you are just looking for something to refute.

"Evolution does not provide evidence for chemistry evolving into biology. There is no explanation needed for that."

Can you objectively refute that statement? How is that as you said "not supported by scientific evidence"?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, evolution has been falsified by scientific methods beyond any reasonable doubt by tens of thousands peer reviewed discoveries and research and accepted by 95%+ of the scientists in the related fields to evolution.

To substantiate your 95% + number can you quote all the scientists in the field of evolution, and quote the ones who "falsified evolution by scientific methods" to make that percentage?

I think thats a simple sentence you could understand right?

Lets say there are (as an example) 1,000,000 scientists in the field of evolution, you are saying 950,000 of them "falsity evolution".

So quote the names and the numbers please to substantiate your claim.

Cheers.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Irrelevant. You are refuting someone else, or something else. I think you are just looking for something to refute.

"Evolution does not provide evidence for chemistry evolving into biology. There is no explanation needed for that."

Can you objectively refute that statement? How is that as you said "not supported by scientific evidence"?

I guess you are referring to 'arguing from ignorance' with the assertion there is no evidence for abiogenesis, which is false. There is abundant evidence for abiogenesis, but of course there are unanswered questions, but not presenting an alternative explanation 'based on the objective evidence' is a problem on your part.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
To substantiate your 95% + number can you quote all the scientists in the field of evolution, and quote the ones who "falsified evolution by scientific methods" to make that percentage?

I think that.s a simple sentence you could understand right?

Lets say there are (as an example) 1,000,000 scientists in the field of evolution, you are saying 950,000 of them "falsity evolution".

So quote the names and the numbers please to substantiate your claim.

Cheers.
Actually 97% at least.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

Level of support for evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]

There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their beliefs, and who therefore reject it: in the United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] South Africa,[10] India, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Israel,[11] Australia,[12] New Zealand,[13] and Canada.[14]

Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance,[15][16] including a document produced by the United States National Academy of Sciences.[17]
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What's the evidence?

I know you have an up front religious agenda rejecting science. Do you have the education to understand the articles cited?

I just googled 'abiogenesis research' and found over a hundreds references to peer reviewed published discoveries and research. Have you done your homework to understand the science behind abiogenesis?

Example:

Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth

MIKE MCRAE
7 NOVEMBER 2017
Carbon might be the backbone of organic chemistry, but life on Earth wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for another critical member of the periodic table – phosphorus.

Transforming run of the mill hydrocarbons into the kinds of molecules that include this important element is a giant evolutionary leap, chemically speaking. But now scientists think they know how such a vital step was accomplished.

Researchers from The Scripps Research Institute in California have identified a molecule capable of performing phosphorylation in water, making it a solid candidate for what has until now been a missing link in the chain from lifeless soup to evolving cells.

In the classic chicken and egg conundrum of biology's origins, debate continues to rage over which process kicked off others in order to get to life. Was RNA was followed by protein structures? Did metabolism spark the whole shebang? And what about the lipids?

No matter what school of abiogenesis you hail from, the production of these various classes of organic molecules requires a process called phosphorylation – getting a group of three oxygens and a phosphorus to attach to other molecules.

Nobody has provided strong evidence in support of any particular agent that might have been responsible for making this happen to prebiotic compounds. Until now.

"We suggest a phosphorylation chemistry that could have given rise, all in the same place, to oligonucleotides, oligopeptides, and the cell-like structures to enclose them," says researcher Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy.

Enter diamidophosphate (DAP).

Combined with imidazole acting as a catalyst, DAP could have bridged the critical gap from early compounds such as uridine and cytidine. That might not seem overly exciting, but phosphorylating nucleosides like these is a crucial step on the road to building the chains of RNA that could serve as the first primitive genes.

Some DAP in room-temperature water also managed to phosphorylate amino acids, as well as assist in their linking into short protein chains.

Even better than that, the researchers demonstrated the same agent could also marry phosphoryl groups with glycerol and fatty acids, producing the kinds of phospholipids that line up into cell membranes.

"With DAP and water and these mild conditions, you can get these three important classes of pre-biological molecules to come together and be transformed, creating the opportunity for them to interact together," says Krishnamurthy.

This isn't proof positive of DAP's role in the origins of biology, of course. For one thing, it's yet to be demonstrated that diamidophosphate was present in Darwin's 'warm little pond' some 4 point something billion years ago.

But there are some suspicious DAP-like fingerprints left on today's biochemistry.

Transforming run of the mill hydrocarbons into the kinds of molecules that include this important element is a giant evolutionary leap, chemically speaking. But now scientists think they know how such a vital step was accomplished.

Researchers from The Scripps Research Institute in California have identified a molecule capable of performing phosphorylation in water, making it a solid candidate for what has until now been a missing link in the chain from lifeless soup to evolving cells.

In the classic chicken and egg conundrum of biology's origins, debate continues to rage over which process kicked off others in order to get to life. Was RNA was followed by protein structures? Did metabolism spark the whole shebang? And what about the lipids?

No matter what school of abiogenesis you hail from, the production of these various classes of organic molecules requires a process called phosphorylation – getting a group of three oxygens and a phosphorus to attach to other molecules.

Nobody has provided strong evidence in support of any particular agent that might have been responsible for making this happen to prebiotic compounds. Until now.

"We suggest a phosphorylation chemistry that could have given rise, all in the same place, to oligonucleotides, oligopeptides, and the cell-like structures to enclose them," says researcher Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy.

Enter diamidophosphate (DAP).

Combined with imidazole acting as a catalyst, DAP could have bridged the critical gap from early compounds such as uridine and cytidine. That might not seem overly exciting, but phosphorylating nucleosides like these is a crucial step on the road to building the chains of RNA that could serve as the first primitive genes.

Some DAP in room-temperature water also managed to phosphorylate amino acids, as well as assist in their linking into short protein chains.

Even better than that, the researchers demonstrated the same agent could also marry phosphoryl groups with glycerol and fatty acids, producing the kinds of phospholipids that line up into cell membranes.

"With DAP and water and these mild conditions, you can get these three important classes of pre-biological molecules to come together and be transformed, creating the opportunity for them to interact together," says Krishnamurthy.

The diagram below gives you some idea of just how all-singing, all dancing this fancy compound is.
Krishnamurthy Lab

This isn't proof positive of DAP's role in the origins of biology, of course. For one thing, it's yet to be demonstrated that diamidophosphate was present in Darwin's 'warm little pond' some 4 point something billion years ago.

But there are some suspicious DAP-like fingerprints left on today's biochemistry.

"DAP phosphorylates via the same phosphorus-nitrogen bond breakage and under the same conditions as protein kinases, which are ubiquitous in present-day life forms," says Krishnamurthy.

"DAP's phosphorylation chemistry also closely resembles what is seen in the reactions at the heart of every cell's metabolic cycle."

The next step will be to work with geochemists to identify a potential non-biological source of DAP, if not find something similar.

For the better part of a century, researchers have hunted for ways non-living chemicals could potentially self-assemble into complex systems based on simple rules.

It's likely that there will always be gaps in our knowledge on the origins of life. DAP helps fill one aching void, at least.

This research was published in Nature Chemistry.

Learn More
  1. Effect of Pazopanib on Survival After Metastasectomy in Metastatic RCC
    The Doctor's Channel, 2019
  2. Note to Self: What I wish I knew when I was diagnosed with kidney disease
    Healio
  1. Biomarkers could help identify children with cancer at risk for cognitive impairments
    Healio
  2. CARMENA Trial: Should Nephrectomy Be Standard for Metastatic RCC?
    The Doctor's Channel, 2019
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So now you are saying 97% support evolution! Earlier you said 95%+ falsify evolution. Strange isnt it?

So tell me. How is this 97% who support evolution have anything to do with "no evidence for abiogenesis"?
No, not strange at all. 95%+ is equivalent to some figure greater than 95% such as 97%.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I know you have an up front religious agenda rejecting science. Do you have the education to understand the articles cited?

I just googled abiogenesis research and found many many pages of references to discoveries and research. Have you done your homework to understand the science behind abiogenesis?

Example:

Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth

MIKE MCRAE
7 NOVEMBER 2017
Carbon might be the backbone of organic chemistry, but life on Earth wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for another critical member of the periodic table – phosphorus.

Transforming run of the mill hydrocarbons into the kinds of molecules that include this important element is a giant evolutionary leap, chemically speaking. But now scientists think they know how such a vital step was accomplished.

Researchers from The Scripps Research Institute in California have identified a molecule capable of performing phosphorylation in water, making it a solid candidate for what has until now been a missing link in the chain from lifeless soup to evolving cells.

In the classic chicken and egg conundrum of biology's origins, debate continues to rage over which process kicked off others in order to get to life. Was RNA was followed by protein structures? Did metabolism spark the whole shebang? And what about the lipids?

No matter what school of abiogenesis you hail from, the production of these various classes of organic molecules requires a process called phosphorylation – getting a group of three oxygens and a phosphorus to attach to other molecules.

Nobody has provided strong evidence in support of any particular agent that might have been responsible for making this happen to prebiotic compounds. Until now.

"We suggest a phosphorylation chemistry that could have given rise, all in the same place, to oligonucleotides, oligopeptides, and the cell-like structures to enclose them," says researcher Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy.

Enter diamidophosphate (DAP).

Combined with imidazole acting as a catalyst, DAP could have bridged the critical gap from early compounds such as uridine and cytidine. That might not seem overly exciting, but phosphorylating nucleosides like these is a crucial step on the road to building the chains of RNA that could serve as the first primitive genes.

Some DAP in room-temperature water also managed to phosphorylate amino acids, as well as assist in their linking into short protein chains.

Even better than that, the researchers demonstrated the same agent could also marry phosphoryl groups with glycerol and fatty acids, producing the kinds of phospholipids that line up into cell membranes.

"With DAP and water and these mild conditions, you can get these three important classes of pre-biological molecules to come together and be transformed, creating the opportunity for them to interact together," says Krishnamurthy.

This isn't proof positive of DAP's role in the origins of biology, of course. For one thing, it's yet to be demonstrated that diamidophosphate was present in Darwin's 'warm little pond' some 4 point something billion years ago.

But there are some suspicious DAP-like fingerprints left on today's biochemistry.

Transforming run of the mill hydrocarbons into the kinds of molecules that include this important element is a giant evolutionary leap, chemically speaking. But now scientists think they know how such a vital step was accomplished.

Researchers from The Scripps Research Institute in California have identified a molecule capable of performing phosphorylation in water, making it a solid candidate for what has until now been a missing link in the chain from lifeless soup to evolving cells.

In the classic chicken and egg conundrum of biology's origins, debate continues to rage over which process kicked off others in order to get to life. Was RNA was followed by protein structures? Did metabolism spark the whole shebang? And what about the lipids?

No matter what school of abiogenesis you hail from, the production of these various classes of organic molecules requires a process called phosphorylation – getting a group of three oxygens and a phosphorus to attach to other molecules.

Nobody has provided strong evidence in support of any particular agent that might have been responsible for making this happen to prebiotic compounds. Until now.

"We suggest a phosphorylation chemistry that could have given rise, all in the same place, to oligonucleotides, oligopeptides, and the cell-like structures to enclose them," says researcher Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy.

Enter diamidophosphate (DAP).

Combined with imidazole acting as a catalyst, DAP could have bridged the critical gap from early compounds such as uridine and cytidine. That might not seem overly exciting, but phosphorylating nucleosides like these is a crucial step on the road to building the chains of RNA that could serve as the first primitive genes.

Some DAP in room-temperature water also managed to phosphorylate amino acids, as well as assist in their linking into short protein chains.

Even better than that, the researchers demonstrated the same agent could also marry phosphoryl groups with glycerol and fatty acids, producing the kinds of phospholipids that line up into cell membranes.

"With DAP and water and these mild conditions, you can get these three important classes of pre-biological molecules to come together and be transformed, creating the opportunity for them to interact together," says Krishnamurthy.

The diagram below gives you some idea of just how all-singing, all dancing this fancy compound is.
Krishnamurthy Lab

This isn't proof positive of DAP's role in the origins of biology, of course. For one thing, it's yet to be demonstrated that diamidophosphate was present in Darwin's 'warm little pond' some 4 point something billion years ago.

But there are some suspicious DAP-like fingerprints left on today's biochemistry.

"DAP phosphorylates via the same phosphorus-nitrogen bond breakage and under the same conditions as protein kinases, which are ubiquitous in present-day life forms," says Krishnamurthy.

"DAP's phosphorylation chemistry also closely resembles what is seen in the reactions at the heart of every cell's metabolic cycle."

The next step will be to work with geochemists to identify a potential non-biological source of DAP, if not find something similar.

For the better part of a century, researchers have hunted for ways non-living chemicals could potentially self-assemble into complex systems based on simple rules.

It's likely that there will always be gaps in our knowledge on the origins of life. DAP helps fill one aching void, at least.

This research was published in Nature Chemistry.

Learn More
  1. Effect of Pazopanib on Survival After Metastasectomy in Metastatic RCC
    The Doctor's Channel, 2019
  2. Note to Self: What I wish I knew when I was diagnosed with kidney disease
    Healio
  1. Biomarkers could help identify children with cancer at risk for cognitive impairments
    Healio
  2. CARMENA Trial: Should Nephrectomy Be Standard for Metastatic RCC?
    The Doctor's Channel, 2019

Not evidence. Its hypothesis based on experimentation that proposes a final possibility of a replicator.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, not strange at all. 95%+ is equivalent to some figure greater than 95% such as 97%.

I think you should read sentences and write them better.

Read this again about three times for you to understand.

So now you are saying 97% support evolution! Earlier you said 95%+ falsify evolution. Strange isnt it?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I think you should read sentences and write them better.

Read this again about three times for you to understand.

So now you are saying 97% support evolution! Earlier you said 95%+ falsify evolution. Strange isnt it?

I think you need a primer in evidence. The sentence is correct English again in basic English and elementary school level statistics. .

No, not strange at all. 95%+ is equivalent to some figure greater than 95% such as 97%.

By the way the + means greater than, and 97% is greater than 95%.

I said this, "Easily objectively refuted, no problem with science. Yes, evolution has been falsified by scientific methods beyond any reasonable doubt by tens of thousands peer reviewed discoveries and research and accepted by 95%+ of the scientists in the related fields to evolution."

In science to falsify a hypothesis or theory means to support that theory or hypothesis. .In this case to believe in the falsification of evolution and support evolution means the same thing.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Not evidence. Its hypothesis based on experimentation that proposes a final possibility of a replicator.

Your ignorance in science is appallingly apparent. First you are confusing the terms hypothesis and evidence. The hypothesis is abiogenesis. The research in this case resolves one of biochemistry problems in the steps of abiogenesis. The evidence is referred to in the text. I seriously doubt you read it nor understand it. What is your expertise to make the assertion above concerning a peer reviewed research article. How about an intelligent response with proper terminology and actually addressing the content of the peer reviewed research article.

Still waiting . . .

There are over 100 peer reviewed research articles on abiogenesis, and you have failed to respond to anything with references on your part.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This ia an example of how evolution is through a continuous transition through a variety related species or sub-species, and not step wise progression form one species to another,

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/navajoceratops-sullivani-terminocavus-sealeyi-08505.html
Two New Species from New Mexico Help Fill Gap in Evolution of

Horned Dinosaurs
Jun 5, 2020 by Enrico de Lazaro

Two new transitional species of plant-eating horned dinosaurs have been unearthed in New Mexico, the United States.


Navajoceratops sullivani and Terminocavus sealeyi. Image credit: Ville Sinkkonen & Denver Fowler.

The newly-discovered dinosaurs roamed the Earth approximately 75 million years ago (Cretaceous period).

Named Navajoceratops sullivani and Terminocavus sealeyi, both species belong to Ceratopsidae, the same family as famous horned dinosaurs Triceratops, Centrosaurus, and Styracosaurus.

Their fragmentary skulls were uncovered from the Hunter Wash Member of the Kirtland Formation in New Mexico.

The specimens are intermediate in age between two previously known ceratopsid dinosaurs Pentaceratops and Anchiceratops.

Pentaceratops lived 75.3 million years ago in New Mexico and had a distinctive deep notch on the back border of the frill, and a pair of spikes at the center of the frill that turn outwards like the wings of a butterfly.

Anchiceratops had no notch in its frill and lived 3.8 million years later in what is now Canada.

In the 1990s, Texas Tech University paleontologist Thomas Lehman proposed that Pentaceratops might have been the ancestor of Anchiceratops.

Navajoceratops sullivani and Terminocavus sealeyi are intermediate in shape between these two dinosaurs and show how the notch in the frill became even deeper through time and eventually closed in on itself, explaining the lack of a notch in Anchiceratops.

“The two intermediate skulls form important links in a 5 million year lineage stretching from Utahceratops through Pentaceratops, to Anchiceratops,” said study authors Dr. Denver Fowler and Dr. Elizabeth Freedman Fowler from Badlands Dinosaur Museum and Museum of the Rockies.


The parietal frills of Navajoceratops sullivani (top) and Terminocavus sealeyi (bottom). Image credit: Fowler & Freedman Fowler, doi: 10.7717/peerj.9251.

The new specimens revealed a splitting event deep in the evolutionary history of long-frilled ceratopsids (chasmosaurines), after which a Pentaceratops lineage evolved a progressively deepening notch in the frill, contrasting against its sister group, the Chasmosaurus lineage, which evolved a progressively shallower notch.

“The origin of this evolutionary split occurred during the Late Cretaceous period, when a vast interior seaway flooded the lowlands of North America dividing it into eastern and western subcontinents,” the paleontologists said.

“A short period of especially high sea level 85-83 million years ago brought the edge of the sea very close to the young Rocky Mountains.”

“For hundreds of miles across what is now central Utah to southern Alberta, the coastal plain would have been as little as 5-10 km wide, providing very little habitat for dinosaurs.”

“This would have effectively cut off northern and southern populations, which then probably evolved in isolation into two distinct lineages. However, after 83 million years ago, the sea receded from the mountain front, allowing northern and southern populations to mix again.”

The team’s paper appears in the journal PeerJ.

_____

D.W. Fowler & E.A. Freedman Fowler. 2020. Transitional evolutionary forms in chasmosaurine ceratopsid dinosaurs: evidence from the Campanian of New Mexico. PeerJ 8: e9251; doi: 10.7717/peerj.9251

This article is based on text provided by Dickinson Museum Center.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think you need a primer in evidence. The sentence is correct English again in basic English and elementary school level statistics. .

No, not strange at all. 95%+ is equivalent to some figure greater than 95% such as 97%.

By the way the + means greater than, and 97% is greater than 95%.

I said this, "Easily objectively refuted, no problem with science. Yes, evolution has been falsified by scientific methods beyond any reasonable doubt by tens of thousands peer reviewed discoveries and research and accepted by 95%+ of the scientists in the related fields to evolution."

In science to falsify a hypothesis or theory means to support that theory or hypothesis. .In this case to believe in the falsification of evolution and support evolution means the same thing.

I think you are trying your hardest to find things to insult others and use some form of ad hominem by hook or crook.

Again, you have not understood the sentence. Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Your ignorance in science is appallingly apparent. First you are confusing the terms hypothesis and evidence. The hypothesis is abiogenesis. The research in this case resolves one of biochemistry problems in the steps of abiogenesis. The evidence is referred to in the text. I seriously doubt you read it nor understand it. What is your expertise to make the assertion above concerning a peer reviewed research article. How about an intelligent response with proper terminology and actually addressing the content of the peer reviewed research article.

Still waiting . . .

There are over 100 peer reviewed research articles on abiogenesis, and you have failed to respond to anything with references on your part.

"The hypothesis is abiogenesis" you said.

Sorry mate. If you think you found a path to insult people you are very wrong. Find some solace in something else, not looking for an opportunity to insult someone all the time like a very hard working thriving individual.

Mate. This article you cut and pasted is not providing evidence for abiogenesis. Also, you are mixing up abiogenesis and evolution and trying to prove evolution which is irrelevant. Strange, since I never said "evolution is false". Maybe you need some kind of argument about evolution to insult people and thrive on it. Find some happiness in life mate, not trying your best to degrade someone and use that to thrive.

What your article speaks of is an experiment that provides evidence that Catabolism can occur under certain conditions in Like an aerosol environment. And as a hypothesised essential component of abiogenesis, prebiotic molecules going through catabolism or phosphorylation in hydrated environments in which conversions of uridine for example can occur. Murthi doest claim this is "evidence for abiogenesis". Hope you understand.

What I said was that evolution does not provide evidence for abiogenesis. It was based on someone's wrong understanding of evolution mixing it up with abiogenesis which you yourself have done so far. I don't have a problem with evolution, and I don't have a problem with abiogenesis either. The problem is you assumed I do because you thought I have a "religious agenda" because you have a tribalistic nature of making "your kind vs my kind" arguments and making assumptions based on your prejudice, so that's why you immediately resorted to create "agendas" in me and various other things trying your best to degrade people and insult them which is kind of pathetic.

Cheers.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"The hypothesis is abiogenesis" you said.

Yes the hypothesis is abiogenesis, and yes you misused the terminology of hypothesis and evidence in your previous confusing post.

Sorry mate. If you think you found a path to insult people you are very wrong. Find some solace in something else, not looking for an opportunity to insult someone all the time like a very hard working thriving individual.

Mate. This article you cut and pasted is not providing evidence for abiogenesis. Also, you are mixing up abiogenesis and evolution and trying to prove evolution which is irrelevant. Strange, since I never said "evolution is false". Maybe you need some kind of argument about evolution to insult people and thrive on it. Find some happiness in life mate, not trying your best to degrade someone and use that to thrive.

What your article speaks of is an experiment that provides evidence that Catabolism can occur under certain conditions in Like an aerosol environment. And as a hypothesised essential component of abiogenesis, prebiotic molecules going through catabolism or phosphorylation in hydrated environments in which conversions of uridine for example can occur. Murthi doest claim this is "evidence for abiogenesis". Hope you understand.

What I said was that evolution does not provide evidence for abiogenesis. It was based on someone's wrong understanding of evolution mixing it up with abiogenesis which you yourself have done so far. I don't have a problem with evolution, and I don't have a problem with abiogenesis either. The problem is you assumed I do because you thought I have a "religious agenda" because you have a tribalistic nature of making "your kind vs my kind" arguments and making assumptions based on your prejudice, so that's why you immediately resorted to create "agendas" in me and various other things trying your best to degrade people and insult them which is kind of pathetic.

Cheers.

Very very confusing response. You have not made yourself clear on your objections to abiogenesis. Actually the boundary between evolution and abiogenesis is not clear, and many of the concepts of organic evolution of life apply to the chemical evolution of the pre-life forms in abiogenesis. Viruses and their primitive forms are a classic examples which would be transitional from pre-life chemical beginnings to living organisms

I notice that you acknowledge as bolded that the research does 'provide evidence' for abiogenesis, as do the hundreds articles you can read simply going a google search.
 
Top