Not sure what you are trying to say.
Living things fit all the bits together well and we know where they come from.
Living things are very good at making protein from amino acids. Chemists also are able to make proteins...
In 1869 we knew that did we? Or did we just have a microscopic substance in pus. My point is not whether it was there but the fact we once knew nothing about it.
Are you suggesting that Miescher had a clear conception of the structure of that microscopic substance or a clear idea of how it operated? Are you suggesting we always knew how DNA worked and gave the nobel prize to Crick and Watson for sharp suits? Are you really not understanding my argument - which is that just because we don't know something does not falsify it? Just cos we do not know yet how the first life arose doesn't mean it didn't happen. We knew nothing about DNA once, that didn't mean it wasn't there.
So what I am trying to say is that there are lots of things we have discovered. But before they were discovered we did not know about them. That did not mean, as you seem to suggest with abiogenesis, that they didn't exist/happen. There was a point in our history where we did not know anything about DNA. Now we are at a point where we do not yet
know fully about abiogenesis.
Just cos we once did not know or have any conceivable notion of what Mieschers microscopic substance was did not mean it was therefore impossible. Just because we didn't know it was a double helix at some point does not mean it wasn't. So just because we do not yet have a complete picture of the origin of life - that does not mean it is impossible, or didn't happen or has been falsified. It means we are at a point where we don't know! Do you understand that? It's a new thing to be discovered like DNA once was.
Not even the first steps have been found...
Even if you were remotely correct - look above. At some point in our history we did not have any idea that DNA was the mechanism by which traits were passed on, didn't have the remotest clue what the first steps in heritability were. At that point we would have been in the dark and possibly exploring many, many avenues. That was not falsification tho was it. It was a gap in knowledge. Just llike abiogenesis is, a gap in knowledge. And you are squeezing God into that gap in knowledge. And he will be squeezed out.
As for abiogenesis - we know somehow somewhere that it happened.
Correction... we know that living things come from living things.
For quite some time living things have come from living things so what is your point? I assume you're trying to suggest life from non life or partial life is impossible which really screws up genesis as well. I believe even there living things came from non living dust and words.
We know that living things come from living things now but at some point there was no life, now there is. So that stupid comment that living things come from living things has not always been correct has it? Even genesis obsessed creationists accept that life began. Do you understand that? Scientists are looking for that point not what happens now! Understand?
Have you understood the arguments now. Basically at some point things we know well now we did not know - got that. The example I used was DNA cos you'd used it - it could have been anything.
Just cos we did not know those things - like the structure of DNA - did not mean they didn't exist, were impossible, were falsified. It just meant not known yet. Got that?
Many false starts and errors would have paved the road to knowledge eg Crick and Watson built some seriously dodgy models. That did not mean DNA was impossible or falsified. No matter how many false starts it was the same we just didn't know - understood that?
Lots of prior knowledge was required to get to that point of understanding. Hundreds of years of chemistry for example or biology. Darwin and Mendal as well.
Now try to understand that abiogenesis is just at the point where we are unclear how it progressed or began as of yet, so lots of starts are possible. Yes there will be false starts. But like DNA that does not make it impossible or falsify it or anything else you claim. It is like we are closer to Meischer than Crick and Watson. Now do you understand the point? I cannot explain it in a simpler way - not knowing something does not mean its impossible. And we know it happened cos we have life where once there was none.
And none of that answers my question - what in know chemistry proves it impossible? Nor the point that it has no bearing whatsoever on what came after life began, evolution.