"It appears we differ on definitions."
I'm trying to establish workable, definitive scientific definitions, not
ones based on subjective philosophical or emotional beliefs.
"You brought up 'biomolecules', not I!"
Because "biomolecule" is more accurate than "living matter". And it's a
term any biological scientist would instantly understand and accept.
"Living matter" has too much philosophical baggage, including vitalism, to
be of any use in a scientific discussion.
"I will agree that my definition (of abiogenesis) is much more oriented
towards a philosophical discussion than yours is."
That's were I believe our real difference lies. You want to have a
philosophical discussion (for whatever reason) and I want to have a
scientific discussion, since the ultimate questions of what is abiogenesis
and how it works are scientific questions, not philosophical ones.
"In mine, the words 'organic' and 'inorganic,' and the word 'biomolecule'
are of, at best, passing interest. It is the process, not the intermediate
stages, less still the components of the intermediate stages, that I was
focusing on."
But I don't see how you can discuss the process without discussing the
intermediate steps or the components. And to discuss them you have to know
the proper terms.
"Try this. Life, in the form of organisms, is assumed (scientifically) to
have arisen initially from non-living chemicals. We define this process as
aboigenesis(1). Life, in the form of organisms, might be possible to be
created in a laboratory from non-living chemicals. We also call this process
abiogenesis(2)."
You open up a major can of worms if you limit life to whole organisms. That
means that none of their individual parts are "alive", yet the organism as a
whole is. The only way to explain that is to claim that the organism is
more than the sum of its parts, which leads straight to vitalism.
Scientifically, you can't discuss vitalism, but you can discuss biomolecules
as "living matter" if you define living as being part of a bilogical system.
In any event, I see no difference between between your two definitions of
abiogenesis.
"The Miller-Urey experiments may, or may not, have anything to do with a
successful abiogenesis(2) experiment. Many scientists think they do. Some
think otherwise."
Only if you define life as a whole organism. If, however, you define life
as biologists routinely define it, then the Miller-Urey experiments most
definately do have something to do with abiogenesis, in any sense.
Kevin L. O'Brien