dhw, - > First of all I'd like to thank both George and David for constantly updating us with interesting articles and the latest research.
> 
> I've only had time so far to read the "Lies, Damned Lies..." article. David has given us a scientific response, but I must confess the warning signals were already beginning to flash when I read such statements as: "[...] in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler [...] one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems." Simple, simple, simple. If it's so simple, how come we're still struggling to fathom it all out? 
> 
> "Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. [...] Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories." The word "spontaneous" always seems to raise the hackles. But the word means: "resulting from internal or natural processes with no apparent external influences". Isn't that precisely what abiogenists are hoping to prove? Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that the word is associated with chance, and the idea that the theory of abiogenesis demands faith in chance is anathema to such writers. 
> - I think the "spontaneous" they refer to is the remnant of "Spontaneous Generation" which was the prevailing theory before Darwin. - > But it's the conclusion that puts the whole argument in perspective, with phrases such as: 
> "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps of life except the first two."
> 
> "...but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm." 
> 
> "...the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown." 
> 
> "However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying." 
> 
> So now we know...what exactly? - We know we need to know more, lol.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Have I posted this one before?
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm-
I don't think you posted the article but I had seen it before, and analyzed it as the usual needed experimentation involving, of course, much human manipulation to get a necessary result to fit the theory, showing how the odds against this theory are so high. On the other hand here is a new approach:- http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html

George has referred us to another article detailing research into abiogenesis.-Once again, many thanks for this reference. No doubt science will gradually come closer and closer to understanding how life began, but as usual the conclusion puts things in perspective:- Although Libchaber and Lehmann point out that the analysis certainly does 
 not provide a full picture of the problem, the work nonetheless brings us 
 one step closer to understanding how life first began. "The dream of 
 physicists is to create elementary life," Libchaber says. "Then we would 
 know that we understand something."-The problem for someone uncommitted like myself is that the more difficult these intelligent scientists find it to understand the code (and to fulfil their dream), the more difficult it is for me to believe that it could come into being by sheer chance in the first place. However, we've been over this point a hundred times, and I remain very grateful to you and David for continuing to update us. -Thank you also for pointing out the websites on brain research. I'll look into these in the next day or so.

George has drawn our attention to an article by Dr. Vinod K. Wadhawan explaining the process of autocatalysis, which appears to offer an important contribution to the theory of abiogenesis. I'm in no position to comment on the science, which is way over my head, but for anyone who hasn't read it I'm reproducing the conclusion, which I think offers a clear summary for us non-specialists.-"The probability is next to nil that highly complex molecules like RNA, DNA and proteins got created spontaneously through purely random or chance processes. However, the nearly-impossible became possible, i.e. the unlikely set of events became likely, through the mechanism of autocatalysis. As John Avery has pointed out in his book Information Theory and Evolution (2003), 'A notable feature of autocatalysis (apart from providing a credible mechanism for the origin of life) is that it has the seeds of natural selection at the molecular level: The precursor molecules and the energy-rich molecules are 'food'. And the alternative autocatalytic systems compete for this supply of food. The efficient ones have a better chance of dominating and winning (through faster reproduction). Supply of free energy, of course, was/is the prerequisite for all this to become possible.'
Once a set of autocatalytic reactions had established itself, it went on incrementally evolving into still more complex sets of molecules. Chance events and/or new external conditions resulted in the emergence of a slightly more complex version of, say, one of the molecules in the autocatalytic set. A further round of chemical Darwinism and evolution of a new set of autocatalytic set of molecules followed. And so on, till molecules as complex as RNA, DNA and proteins emerged on the scene, which have life-sustaining and life-propagating properties.
This explanation is an important milestone in our quest for understanding in a rational manner the origin, or origins, of life on Earth. But what is life? I shall address this question in the next article in this series."-"The more we learn about the unbelievably complex, immensely varied, and yet simultaneously simple origin and development of life on earth, the more it looks like a miracle, and one that is still unfolding. The miracle of evolution." Sharon Moalem-Whether our descent from physical materials through physical processes is programmed or not, it's good to be reminded that the scientific "quest for understanding" goes on. Thank you, George, for a timely nudge. The fact that scientists are discovering more and more about these processes is exciting in itself, though I must confess I'm not so keen on Sharon Moalem's oxymoron. I'd be grateful if you would let us know when Dr. Wadhawan's next article appears.