"All such speculations have never been observed and every experiment has failed."
This is true of speculations based on mysticism and divine intervention, but not hypotheses based on known physiochemical processes. The Urey-Miller experiment, Fox's proteinoids, the RNA universe, even the modern recombination biotechniques I described earlier, are all based on abiogenical theories which are in turn based on known physiochemical processes. None of these experiments have failed, though we still have a lot of gaps to fill in.
"Therefore, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the stuff of fiction, not science."
This from a man whose idea of scientific debate is to challenge people to rigged bets.
"One may add that in keeping with evolution's fictional foundation and tradition, Ernst Haeckel's famous Fundamental Biogenetic Law, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," was a fraudulent misrepresentation perpetuated in biology textbooks for 130 years."
On the contrary, Haeckel's law (which would be better called von Beer's law) is very much alive and well. In a basic fashion, ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny. What needs to be understood is that Haeckel was trying explain how ontogeny worked. At the time, ontogeny was a totally mystery, so anyone's guess was as good as anyone else's. Haeckel claimed that ontogeny occurred because the embryo passed through, or recapitulated, each phase of the adult species' phylogenetic evolution. We now know that that is not true, but we also know that chordate embryos at the same stage of development share many structural features that then develop differently. For example, they all share bronchial arches that in fish become gills but in mammals become the larynx and the vocal cords. The situation is more complex that either Haeckel or von Beer could ever imagine, yet the basic statement that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is true, and is still observed today.
"...he falsified the drawings of the embryos and his long-lived contribution to evolution has become known as one of the most famous fakes in biology."
This claim is an out-right lie. Haeckel committed no fraud. Nothing has ever been proven and his contemporary accusers were mostly other scientists jealous of his success. The most he did was in fact a common practice before the development of photomicroscopy, and in fact is still common practice today. Finely detailed drawings were necessary only in educational texts; otherwise microscopic objects can be so detailed that to show everything would have been confusing. As such, it was (and still is) common practice when drawing microscopic objects to emphasize important details and de-emphasize or ignore unnecessary details. Haeckel not only did nothing wrong, he did exactly what a professional biologist of his time was expected to do.
The fact that Haeckel committed no fraud can be easily verified by anyone in this group, even Joseph. If you look through a microscope at embryos in various stages of development, you will see exactly what Haeckel saw, which is what developmental biologists still see. It's a little hard for Haeckel to perpetrate a fraud when his observations can be directly verified or refuted by anyone with a microscope.
Kevin L. O'Brien