[qqtt]

> Moreover, no one has succeeded in hatching living matter from non living matter and we must honestly say we do not know how this process came about or the faintest estimate of how likely it is to occur (despite much speculation

Just want to comment on this point. The research in this field is pretty esoteric. It doesn't really benefit us to understand how this process came about (ie, there is little practical gain here, no medical advancements or otherwise), and moreover it requires a simulation which can estimate behavior over hundreds of millions of years. The usefulness of cracking the early earth/life creation part of our history is really not immediately clear, and thus research is limited.

That said, the Miller-Urey experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) showed animo acids organizing over conditions similar to early earth, and a follow up experiment dubbed Planet Simulator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Simulator) was extended to show the organization of protocells as part of this early earth environment.

It seems only a matter of time before science can connect the dots along the rest of the hundreds of millions of years regarding this process to show the line between chemical young earth evolving to be biological.

As an aside, why do you think it is "important to remember" that we haven't found life or that we don't fully understand the process by which biology evolved from chemistry? Why exactly is it "important to remember" such things?

[superposeur]

It is “important to remember” precisely because these days people are not remembering this and speak with a sense of inevitability about discovering life elsewhere, which sense of inevitability is totally unsupported. I may gently point out, your own post says “it is only a matter of time before science can connect the dots”, reflecting this (in my view) distorted sense. The abiogenesis research you cite is absolutely worthwhile, but it is not even clear if it is in the right direction and certainly far, far from successfully sparking the sustained chain reaction of life. To my eye, equally consistent (as some different research may suggest) is that a combinatorial needle must be threaded to the tune of p < 10^-23 per exoplanet, making it unlikely to happen again in our observable universe.

Edit: to cite just the one “combinatorial abiogenesis” reference, see for instance https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0

[qqtt]

> It is “important to remember” precisely because these days people are not remembering this and speak with a sense of inevitability about discovering life elsewhere

Could you expand on this a bit. Whether someone speaks with a sense of inevitability or not, why is it important either way? Why is it "important" to remind people we haven't (yet) found life on other planets?

Why are the existing gaps in abiogenesis "important" to point out?

What is so "important" about these things?

[superposeur]

Well, first, I take it to be an axiomatic goal of science to believe that which is true, disbelieve that which is false and to be agnostic about things we have no evidence about; I.e to calibrate our model of world to the world as it is.

But, further, I’ve seen what happens when a subfield reports its findings in a way that misleadingly raises expectations of a titanic discovery just around the corner. When the discovery fails to materialize, over-optimism curdles into its opposite, over-cynicism. Better to calibrate expectations accurately — slow and steady wins the race.