So you think humanity is fully aware of the problems involved with forming life? Seriously?
yes, science is fully aware of why it hasn't solved the riddle of life.
a number of these has been spelled out in the post i mentioned.
Even if we fully understand all of the problems, that doesn't distract from the fact that the formation of life is immeasurably more complicated to solve than flight.
would you expect that from a naturally occurring process?
science doesn't even know how the first proteins came together.
it could also be that science is working from the wrong assumption of replication first, but after 60 years science has probably tried every conceivable angle, even to the point of taking parts from "freshly dead" cells and combining them.
Yet you argue that the riddle of life should be solved in only 60 years while flight took virtually all of human history.
i think you are phrasing the question wrong.
how long did it take after humanity discovered all of the problems?
Don't feel too bad. No one has yet come up with a way to measure, or even define, biological information.
but yet it exists in regards to abiogenesis, and this must be accounted for somehow.
Does this simplify the problem of life, or does it add to the issues that must be dealt with?
the information bit is relevant, yes.
consciousness is an entirely different animal than abiogenesis, and this too must be explained in higher lifeforms.
the sudden appearance of animal phyla is again entirely different from the first two, but must also be dealt with.
the "gradual accumulation" bit is not the answer.
it's quite possible that by the time eukaryotic super groups arrived on the scene that transposons and epigenetics was already operational, and i would guess that transposons was here from the very beginning.
Seems to me most of the objections you raise simply serve to reinforce my initial point ..... that life is vastly more complex than flight. Why should it be surprising that after only 60 years, the riddle of life has not been solved?
because we know what the problems are and we have a functioning specimen to work from.
we have no clue how a group of proteins could come together in the right amounts before they are destroyed by such things as UV and water (among others)
That certainly is a possibility. I've read that the most recent research points toward multiple "original" life forms.
this comports well with the biblical accounting, does it not?
with this in mind, we can conclude that the ark needn't carry a member of every single species, but just members of each phyla.
BTW, I don't expect the riddle of first life to ever be solved. The evidence science would need to find that has long since been destroyed.... by life itself.
maybe, maybe not.
the fact remains that my post 6 in the abiogenesis thread doesn't even mention this fact, so it's apparently irrelevant.