"Apparently you are unaware that the same word is often defined differently in different fields."
Which is irrelevant, since abiogenesis is a biological/biochemical phenomenon, so therefore the biochemical definition is the only one that matters.
"Ellington also wrote an excellent piece for t.o several years ago entiltled: <Origins of life: A redefinition>....In particular his statement: 'Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is not.' Now, if the Miller-Urey experiment is an example of abiogenesis as used in the origin of life community then abiogenesis is
obviously a fact, wouldn't you agree?"
Yes, I would. But you have to understand, Ellington was writing a simplified piece for a lay readership, not a rigorous scientific review for his colleagues. As such, he used abiogenesis in a less rigorous fashion (which I believe he was wrong to do). For that paper he meant it as you do: the origin of life. In that respect I would agree that it is not a proven fact that life arose naturally. However, ask him if abiogenesis in the proper rigorous sense is a fact and I'm sure he would agree.
"Note the word necessarily. More on this below."
You didn't answer my question, though. If "life is not metabolism based on biomolecules, then please define
>"life".
"Apparently, Fox does not agree:"
I meant the part about " prebiotic material concentration followed by solid-phase catalysis". As I have already pointed out, however, Fox and Miller were (Fox is dead now) friendly rivals, each promoting his own model. The fact that both models could be working together was not something they were willing to entertain, but contemporary abiogeneticists are.
"So that's the state of the debate when I last looked at it several years ago."
It still has its proponents, but the majority are moving back to Miller/Fox because the problems of hydrothermal vents have not yet been solved. However, I hope they will be, because otherwise we can't get life on Europa.
"Well, this is very interesting, but also beside the point I was trying to make. If you look through the references below you will find examples of experiments which qualify as abiogenesis according to your definition. Let me turn the argument around from my previous statement. If the origin of life occurred a la Miller, then most perhaps all of these examples would not have anything to do with the origin of life. This is why I said that abiogenesis (as you've defined it) does not *necessarily* have anything to do with the origin of life on earth."
Since abiogenesis has nothing to do with "the origin of life" as you describe it (whatever that phrase means), your point is relevant. However, if I may play Devil's advocate for a moment and argue from your point of view, since life itself is complex, we should not be looking for a single, simple origin. A number of abiogenetic mechanisms might have been working simultaneously -- atmospheric gas reactions, hydrothermal vent reactions, cometary/meteoric impacts, thermal copolymerization, solid-state catalysis, etc. -- in a number of different ways to create first biomolecules, then metabolic systems, then replicating systems and finally life. To claim that only one mechanism could do it all is like claiming that only natural selection or only genetic drift or only saltationist events are needed to explain the whole of evolution.
By the way, thanks for the references.
Kevin L. O'Brien