"I'm going to disagree, Kevin. Abiogenesis has to refer to a process, where
non-living matter combines (somehow) to produce living matter (organisms, if
you will)."
Alright. First of all, we will need to define "living matter" and
"non-living matter". Biochemically speaking, "living matter" would include
biomolecules of all kinds, whereas "non-living matter" would not. This may
sound rather arbitrary at first, but it makes sense because, whatever
"living" truely means, you can't have a living organism without
biomolecules, whereas non-biomolecules have never been known to be involved
with any living system. Obviously there would have to be some exceptions,
such as certain inorganic minerals and small organic molecules. These are
certainly not perfect definitions, but they should be workable.
Next we would need to define "biogenesis" and "abiogenesis". Again,
biochemically speaking, "biogenesis" is the process by which biomolecules
are made by biological systems, whether from living or non-living matter is
irrelevant. As such, "abiogenesis" would be any process by which
biomolecules are made by non-biological systems, again from either living or
non-living matter.
"Using that definition, the Miller-Urey experiments qualify only as
'possible' abiogenetic events. The process involved might -- or might not --
work in a total abiogenesis situation."
There is good evidence that it can. However, I believe that your definition
is too narrow, and emphasizes the wrong characteristics. What matters is
how the biomolecules are made, not what they are made from. Using the
definitions I propose the Miller-Urey experiments are most definately
abiogenetic events, as is thermal copolymerization.
Kevin L. O'Brien