Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

As I explained before in this thread (that is not a criticism of you as I know you just jumped in) starting with a living organism and modifying it with man-made parts is far from beginning with just the chemicals and getting to life.

Is it so far that you don't feel you need to answer my question about how it would affect your opinion if they did?

Also, a hypothesis does not prove that life can come from non-life. And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

It only proves that the statement 'there is no natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life' is unsupported. It's like if I told you that there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning. You don't have to prove that you DID drive to Columbia, SC this morning to prove that you could have.

And if you're interested, spontaneous RNA synthesis in the lab based on conditions believed to have prevailed at the time of the earliest detectable signs of life:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

I actually did include my answer which was: Beginning with something that is living and modifying it with manmade materials is far different from beginning with just chemicals and getting to life. I hope I answered the question you were asking.

Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:

"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."

and that is enough to support the claim:

"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."

That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.