In this section you have this rather curious observation: "imagine a rudimentary penis hanging around for aeons, unable to perform, and of course waiting for a suitable, self-made vagina to insert itself into"! - According to P.Z.Myers penises have evolved several times independently. He goes into quite a degree of detail on the subject: - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/penis_evolution.php - Although you claim to have read Darwin's "Origin of Species" you don't seem to have comprehended his thesis that it proceeds "By Means of Natural Selection" rather than by mere chance.

I have responded to Peter P's diatribe in a new thread "Postulation of a Designer", since it doesn't seem to bear any relation to "Origin of Life".

Dear, dear, dear! - This ad hominem point about the personal religious faith of scientists is immaterial to this discussion. Besides, many of the scientists you mention lived in a time that was extremely hostile to atheism and agnosticism. Wasn't it a crime to espouse atheism in Newton's day? And, anyway, who cares what Heisenburg thought about God when all that matters is that we have his uncertainty principle? - If you must make an ad hominem point, you would do better to refer to the faith position of contemporary "giants" or even your ordinary scientist working today. But as this would probably reveal most to be atheistic or apatheistic (I can't remember the exact stats but it's a proportion far higher than the background population), I don't think it would be one that would go to your argument, such that it is.

The Telgraph article mentioning clay, does indeed show that research is ongoing and clay has been a favored subject since it allows molecules to stick together and try to replicate. Robert Shapiro (I previously mentioned his book, Origins) has been favorable toward that possible approach. But the Telegraph does support the point I'd like to make in later communication. Origin of Life research has only accomplished knowledge of what will not work. And I doubt the answer will be found. But first, let's agree on a definition of what is simple life. Mine: a single cell, fully independent in function, with integrated parts (organelles) that can absorb nutrients to allow the utilization of energy to maintain itself in a continuous form or shape, to excrete wastes, and to reproduce itself in the same form, shape and organization. This excludes viruses which must act as parasites in other independent organisms, utilizing operating parts of that host organism that the virus lacks. Please comment on whether this definition is acceptable.

George Jelliss draws our attention to Steve Jones's comments on the failure of the latest clay crystal theory of abiogenesis. "But he mentions that several other hypotheses are still in the running....'Some say that it all started in boiling oceans, others on icecaps, and everyone disagrees ... loudly.' This is a good sign that research is vigorous." Yes indeed, and it is also a sign that so far it hasn't made much progress. - George writes: "The research being undertaken in abiogenesis is trying to analyse the natural processes that could have led to the evolution of self-replicating systems. If this can be shown...intelligence will have shown that no pre-existing intelligence is needed." Is trying...could have led...If... From an atheist point of view, you might just as well say: "The research is trying to find a way to prove that life and reproduction could have originated without the intervention of any kind of intelligence. If this can be shown, it will prove that life and reproduction could have originated without any kind of intelligence." Put that way, however, it doesn't sound quite so impressive. Why can't you just wait until the proof is there before you sneer at those who have not committed themselves to unproven hypotheses and so are prepared to consider alternatives? I am strongly reminded of the following comment made earlier on the forum: "The speculations, like those of the string theorists, are certainly interesting and might have something in them, but so far lack definite results." A good enough reason for that particular writer not to commit himself to belief. The comment was not aimed at abiogenesis, though. It was George Jelliss brushing off Pim van Lommel's research into the nature of consciousness and near death experiences.

Here's the latest news. I just read it on the Richard Dawkins net, and thought I should share it here.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
> 
> It's a simulation of what a "protocell" might have been like. And it works, despite being much simpler than the more evolved cells that exist now. Looks like a great step towards explaining the early evolution of life. - I went to the article George suggested as a 'great step' noted above; from the article: "Szostak's team carefully analyzed vesicles comprised of different fatty acid molecules and identified particular features that made membranes more or less permeable to potential nutrient molecules. They found that, while large molecules such as strands of DNA or RNA could not pass through fatty acid membranes, the simple sugar molecules and individual nucleotides that make up larger nucleic acids easily crossed the membrane. - To further explore the function of a fatty acid cell membrane, the researchers used activated nucleotides they developed for this study that will copy a DNA template strand without needing the polymerase enzyme usually required for DNA replication. After placing template molecules inside fatty-acid vesicles and adding the activated nucleotides to the external environment, they found that additional DNA was formed within the vesicles, confirming that the nucleotide molecules were passing through the fatty-acid membranes." - Please note the enormous amount of intelligent design by the scientists. Just making some activated nucleotides involves strands of about 15-20 nucleotides, literally a very small RNA-like strand. Just having nature make such a strand is an enormous accomplishment, the odds against which are stupendous. - George's note to us is wonderful wishful thinking. Copying what nature has shown us doesn't really tell us how it happened, and in doing the copying we have to use the molecules nature gave us. We have no experimental findings to tell us how RNA started, how the complicated coded information arose. Using passive fatty acid micelles is one of the older unproven theories that has been around for many years. As the authors of the article point out, current living membranes are very different, using chemical pumps to get chemicals in and out of the cell. The authors, by using micelles, make the assumption that life 'had' to start simply. We don't know that.