Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

“Give me one example that can falsify the theory and your job is done.�

So, essentially, you are asking me to disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist? Since common ancestry has not been proven to exist, you want me to prove that it doesn’t exist? It already doesn’t exist. If it did, we all would have read about it in a landmark article since it would be the breakthrough that so many have been hoping for. There would be a Nobel Prize awarded, etc…. The details would be carefully recorded and we would be teaching the specific details in our schools, the biography of the scientists, etc…. But, such details don’t exist….just more theories of those connecting dots, just hoping……with too much exclusion. And so, Congress now allows alternatives to the theory of evolution to be taught in our schools as mentioned in earlier posts.

And, I’ll consider simple logic: modus pollens. If p, then q. p (your stated fossil and genetic analyses) has not been proven as valid support for life evolving as discovered & written, therefore q, (common ancestor) cannot be true based upon p. It’s really quite simple. It doesn’t mean the factoids carefully selected, ignoring many other factoids, to support the theory of evolution are individually false, only that they collectively, no matter how aligned, do not conclusively support a common ancestor. The literature is full speculation on this. There are no intermediates. Transitional forms have not been found and successfully proven. If they existed, again, we would not be having this conversation. We all know Newton’s laws of motion and accept them because they have been proven; they are not the theories of motion. (Now, I’m excluding quantum mechanics and relativity.) The theory of evolution still remains a theory no matter how hard one chooses to push it, and a common ancestor continues to remain elusive. The evidence is just not there using our current Newtonian math & sciences.

My point on the human chimp DNA studies is mainly the part about leaving out that the studies are done on only 2% of the DNA. Has a deceptive, misleading look to it. Wouldn’t that be an important part to mention in many of these science articles that choose to leave it out. Most clinical medicine articles include this information. And the DNA catalogues with the complete genomes comparing the sequences by computer have their own unique set of problems. But, they certainly bring the complementary identity between chimp and human much, much higher. But the discussions of the conclusions fail to mention if a higher number is, indeed, significant. How much of a DNA difference is needed to allow human function to excel above all the animals? Since we are all made of “the dust of the earth,� that is, the same molecules, we would expect a lot of close similarities in muscle, tendon and bone, and similarities in DNA to maintain the anatomy and support the life contained therein. So, essentially, no percentage would prove the existence of a common ancestor by comparison using the computer methods that are currently available and the DNA genomes constructed by current methods. It would support genetically what we already know phenotypically about humans and apes and the like.

And, you are right, “it is the best we have,� but that doesn’t make it all proven. And your notations on the number of articles certainly supports the popularity of evolution, …and the findings of the congressional investigation I’ve mentioned early, that found scientific journals guilty of excluding articles that didn’t favor their beliefs and understandings of science. So, the “gigantic� volume of papers you exclaim don’t include valid scientific criticisms that, indeed, do not support evolution…the papers exist, but were not allowed to be published. And there has not been that big of a change since congress found them guilty as charged.

Also, you should look into the accuracy and reproducibility of many scientific articles you are mentioning. It is not very high. Research it out. And you need to do this on your own to know for yourself if you are truly objective. May I suggest that you see what the financial side of the house has to say first, since, for example, the US gov’t applies over $30 billion annually to the NIH for scientific research funding. And their reviews and others finds up to 90% or so of their money is not being used on reproducible research projects and reproducible and accurate publications. Some reviews have 30-50% for reliable publications though. Still doesn’t look good. And biology articles, if I recall correctly, are the worse in terms of reliability. So, there is a bigger picture that clouds all the supposed scientific support, and it even appears in clinical medicine …it exists none-the-less.

So, things may not be as fundamentally solid as many are led to believe in the wonderful world of scientific research and education. And folks write articles, publish books and make documentaries that leaves all this honesty out of the layman’s awareness in reading and watching. And a lot of the authors of best sellers are not even scientists. They data mine the literature and cherry pick the controversies into books that sell, to make money. Kinda reminds me what I was taught about fishing lures. There are 2 kinds of lures: ones that actually catch fish and those that catch the eye of the fisherman (the buyer). With all the high tech that has emerged during my career in the fields of science, one would think that high tech reasoning would follow in what is put out for public consumption. But, this is, indeed, not the case.

So, I have “look[ed] at the entire body of evidence from the fossil record and genetics analyses,� as you suggested, for over 40 years and have asked questions of many professors and philosophers, and it is clearly the overall review that clearly shows that it doesn’t add up, hence, evolution remains a theory and should stay so for now.

And your appeal to religion follows the pattern. The science should be solely based upon scientific merit, not religion or personal beliefs, typically used to discredit folks. Religious folks should be allowed to preach evolution isn’t true and why as much as evolutionists preach it is true and why. Two worlds that should not honestly be in collision, but is maintained as such by a small minority.

More humility may lead one to the truth of these matters, to enlighten others, while sojourning upon this earth. So, religious merit may, indeed, be helpful.

Lots and lots of claims like I use to hear in church, but no evidence provided to show that he speaks the truth.

Perhaps some people have never heard of the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory.
They are just 'theories' after all!

If only it was the hypothesis of evolution, then you would have a point.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to Clownboat]

"Lots and lots of claims like I use to hear in church, but no evidence provided to show that he speaks the truth.

Perhaps some people have never heard of the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory.
They are just 'theories' after all! icon_evil_laugh

If only it was the hypothesis of evolution, then you would have a point."


The religion or personal belief pattern again, …used to discredit and easy to say, and often said to preface what is to follow: “no evidence provided� …and it is easy to state that when there is no evidence in the first place. Argumentum ad Hominem actually, with a misconstrued flavor of argumentum ad ignorantiam, perhaps.

You think the well-established and proven germ theory where specific organisms have been matched up with specific disease is comparable to the findings of the theory of evolution?? You are placing delicious red apples with plastic oranges in a bowl for all to compare, to say the least. Your example querying the theory of gravity demonstrates your understanding perhaps.

Are you talking about Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of gravity…or are you pointing out the hard-sought problems of Einstein’s general relativity’s concepts of gravity with the fundamental forces of quantum mechanics? Please clarify, these “theories after all!�

If you could explain: 1) are you referring to gravity in a way to describe the actual observed attraction between two defined objects? Or 2) are you referring to gravity in a way to describe specifically why two defined objects attract each other? 1 and 2 are definitely not the same and should not be confused. Are you thinking the same way about the theory of evolution as your remark suggests?

The theory of evolution certainly contains many, many different types of facts, including scientific laws, selected facts, demonstrated testing and myriads of other evidence that more than adequately fulfill its designation as a theory, but the collection of data does not contain the proven existence of a common ancestor.

It appears that you may wish to elevate and glorify the ‘theory’ term in the theory of evolution, but it doesn’t do that to the contained data. To attempt to derail certain comments as applying them to hypotheses, is clearly to misinform, and supports earlier specifics statements made in that regard.

I appreciate your comments about what you have heard in church. What have you heard from folks in a scientific or professional venue discussing what is in the literature and their opinions about the theory of evolution?

[benchwarmer]

There are no intermediates. Transitional forms have not been found and successfully proven. If they existed, again, we would not be having this conversation.

This sounds like a great argument until everyone realizes that every time an intermediate is found, the deniers simply move the goal posts and ask for the intermediates between this newly found specimen and the next known specimen.

They fail to realize the absurdity of this debate tactic because it eventually means they want every single fossil from every single life form that ever lived displayed in front of them or they won't believe it.

I applaud the skepticism, but surely you must realize the futility of this reasoning.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Benchwarmer: "This sounds like a great argument until everyone realizes that every time an intermediate is found, the deniers simply move the goal posts and ask for the intermediates between this newly found specimen and the next known specimen."

You remind me of a well-known paradox. An engineer, physicist and mathematician were presented with the following situation: A number of boys were lined up on one side of their high school gym for a dance. The same number of girls were gathered on the other side of the gym. The boys and the girls start walking toward each other at a constant rate. The 3 specialists were asked to analyze the advances ¼ of the distance between the boys & girls every 10 seconds. Essentially, total distance at time 0, d/2 at 10 secs, d/4 at 20, etc…. and to determine when the girls and boys would meet in the center of the gym. The physicists stated at time infinity; the mathematician opined never because the series is infinite; the engineer nodded his head noting that in less than 1 minute they would be close enough for all practicality.

Actually, the transitionals disappear on their own.

So, tell us about Archaeopteryx, the transitional: the intermediate between….the missing link! “The first bird.� Pieces of 8 -11 of "specimens"..and a feather were found. It is no longer considered a transitional specimen according to quite a few reviews. With all the other feathered dinosaurs specimens later found, it faded into the background….didn’t it? So, more new theories or ideas were brought forth to cover the error……waiting for the next transitional form…and the same result…..becoming just another of the many different dinosaurs after its “kind� with feathers. These supposed transitional specimens end up being a related species, a relative within a “kind� and not of ancestral origin.

Pakicetus small land mammal with 4 legs and a whale have a similar body part relating to a region of the ear. That’s it! And a transitional specimen is born folks….the missing link. Think about it.

We all should be aware of the various theories out on what the definition of a transitional form is. My favorite one is that they are rare and didn’t exist that long because they evolved into something else. So, long lists and different lists exist as a result of the differing views of evolution. So, it would seem then that sea lions, seals and the like are transitional forms that didn’t evolve based on descriptions of land to water transitional forms….or maybe they, and all their dino-like fossils, are all members of the same seal-like “kind.�

What did Darwin say later in his life? “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.� And the evolutionists will disclaim that these are his words, but after their arguments are done, after the fighting over the words and brackets, it is clear that this was, indeed, Darwin’s view of the problem of a lack of transitional forms from the multitudes of fossils in his day. Today’s fossil collections have increased and show no proven transitional forms as well…only repeated redefining in the literature what a transitional form should be to create obvious possibilities….so its has become, in this case, the fossil bound evolutionists who are evolving and not so much at all in the findings and the evidence of the fossils.

Ernst Mayr, a staunch evolutionist, one of the godfathers of evolution wrote:
“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?� What is evolution? (NY 2001), pg 14. But, he adds at the end of a paragraph later: Fortunately, occasionally a rare fossil is found that fills the gap between ancestors and modern descendants.� But, he doesn’t quality it with a fossil reference. So, he maintains the same belief Darwin had, that transitional forms should be found eventually.....and we can wait.

In another reference Mayr states: “there is no clear evidence of any change of species into a different genus for the gradual emergence of any evolutionary novelty.� Toward a new Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge, MA 1988), pp 529-530. Point here, with just 2 references is, he (and some other prominent paleontologists as well) honestly acknowledged the problem during his career.

Clownboat: "They fail to realize the absurdity of this debate tactic because it eventually means they want every single fossil from every single life form that ever lived displayed in front of them or they won't believe it."

Sounds a lot like the Nirvana fallacy of reasoning to me. The goal is to find proven examples for consideration to fulfill the existence of transitional forms, not to prove it for 100% of all life forms that have ever existed upon this planet. No one is saying proven examples are not good enough unless it is 100%.


I appreciate your comments. But the specific reasoning that is present from the fossil record noted from the literature is not futile as you suggest. All the evidence and reasoning needs to be put forth for all to judge, but it all has to be honestly read first.

[DrNoGods]

The 3 specialists were asked to analyze the advances ¼ of the distance between the boys & girls every 10 seconds. Essentially, total distance at time 0, d/2 at 10 secs, d/4 at 20, etc…. and to determine when the girls and boys would meet in the center of the gym.

If the problem weren't stated so ambiguously I'm sure all three groups could have arrived at a correct answer. If both sides were moving at a constant rate (v = velocity) towards each other, then the time they would meet would simply be t = 1/2*(x/v) with x the initial distance between them (1/2 because as stated they are moving towards each other at a constant rate, so would meet in the middle which is 1/2 of the initial separation, x). Arriving at t requires knowledge of x and v, but it isn't stated if either of these is known. Since you have one equation and two unknowns, you need to find either x or v to get t. If you can measure the separation of the two groups at two different times, then the problem is easily solved. If you can only measure the distance traveled by one side from their starting point then you can't solve it as you don't know the initial separation and there is no way to get at it.

What makes it a "paradox" is the mixing up of distance and time in an intentional way to confuse the reader ... "analyze the advances 1/4 of the distance between the boys and girls every 10 seconds." This doesn't make any sense. I think you probably meant to state the problem to invoke a nonconverging series, but this is the same kind of ambiguous reasoning you're using with the fossil record and transitional forms. If you take your own advice and analyze the entire body of evidence that supports evolution, there isn't a better explanation of what we see in nature to explain the diversification of life on this planet, including the evolution of humans.

No genus homo fossils had been identified in Darwin's time (I think one Neanderthal fossil had been found during his lifetime, but it was thought to be a deformed ape at the time). And he was concerned about the lack of transitional fossils as were others at the time. But fast forward 150 years and that situation has changed dramatically. You can't cherry pick a few old examples and discredit the mountains of evidence for evolution. If new fossils are found which fill in a gap, or change a prior interpretation, that is how science works. But the entirety of the fossil record supports an evolutionary theory, and the story is too compelling to refute with a few examples of reinterpretations.

[Clownboat]

The religion or personal belief pattern again, …used to discredit and easy to say, and often said to preface what is to follow: “no evidence provided� …and it is easy to state that when there is no evidence in the first place. Argumentum ad Hominem actually, with a misconstrued flavor of argumentum ad ignorantiam, perhaps.

I literally learned nothing from these words.
What does this have to do with you siting claim after claim without evidence to show that you speak the truth?

You think the well-established and proven germ theory where specific organisms have been matched up with specific disease is comparable to the findings of the theory of evolution??

Just hoping you will understand the actual meaning of the word 'theory'. In science, theory is not some minor thing. You speak about theories as if you are talking about a hypothesis.

You are placing delicious red apples with plastic oranges in a bowl for all to compare, to say the least. Your example querying the theory of gravity demonstrates your understanding perhaps.

Over here! Come back to us!

Are you talking about Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of gravity…or are you pointing out the hard-sought problems of Einstein’s general relativity’s concepts of gravity with the fundamental forces of quantum mechanics? Please clarify, these “theories after all!�

Neither. Gravity is a fact and we have a tested theory that explains it.
Just like how evolution is a fact, and we have a tested theory that explains it.
'Theory' is not the small thing religious folks wish it was.

If you could explain: 1) are you referring to gravity in a way to describe the actual observed attraction between two defined objects? Or 2) are you referring to gravity in a way to describe specifically why two defined objects attract each other? 1 and 2 are definitely not the same and should not be confused. Are you thinking the same way about the theory of evolution as your remark suggests?

See above.

The theory of evolution certainly contains many, many different types of facts, including scientific laws, selected facts, demonstrated testing and myriads of other evidence that more than adequately fulfill its designation as a theory, but the collection of data does not contain the proven existence of a common ancestor.

And germ theory does not prove big foot. Do you have a point?
What mechanism, if not evolution better explains the diversity of life forms we witness both now and in the fossil record?

It appears that you may wish to elevate and glorify the ‘theory’ term in the theory of evolution,

And rightfully so, unless of course you were able to describe a different mechanism that better explains the diversity of life forms we witness both now and in the fossil record. If you have done that, perhaps I will need to amend my thinking.

I appreciate your comments about what you have heard in church.

To clarify, your words on evolution were what reminded me of what I use to hear from my church and school about evolution many years ago.

What have you heard from folks in a scientific or professional venue discussing what is in the literature and their opinions about the theory of evolution?

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains this fact. You, like anyone else is free to offer up a better theory, but it must be testable and falsifiable.

Do you have a better theory that explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record?
If you don't, perhaps you can complain about the currently accepted and tested theory that has made predictions that have been shown to be true.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Right. Since all living things are made up entirely out of non-living atoms and molecules, life IS nonlife.

So basically, there is no difference between you and a tree stump outside? If you don't see/understand the intrinsic difference between animate/inanimate objects, then I don't know what to tell you.

Actually, I do believe you understand the significance. It is just that when it comes to the "G" word, it is time to be overly objective and put on our super-skeptic cape.

The chemicals were essential for life to begin.

Alright then, so go in the lab and take all of those non-living chemicals, and create sentient life from scratch. If you can't do it, then you, my friend, are speculating.

You cannot conduct any experiment to corroborate and/or falsify your hypothesis. So you aren't really doing science, are you?

That doesn't mean that the chemicals changed in any way.

So no amount of change is necessary, eh?

The laws of the universe didn't stop working or affecting those molecules.

All talk and no corroborating evidence to back up the theory. SMH.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That is not what I said. Please read more carefully.
"If populations of animals change over time, please point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point."

Actually, I believe I got the right interpretation of what you said. When you challenged me to "point to the mechanism that is in place that stops these changes at some point"...what you are implying is "given enough time, anything can happen".

That is pretty much the implication. And my point is, there are limits to the changes, at least as far as we can tell after 5,000 years of human existence (or more).

And whatever answer you give, I will use that same answer to answer your question in the above quote.

There is no mechanism that would stop such a thing from happening that I'm aware of. You seem to think that their is, so I'm asking you (twice now) to describe this mechanism that stops little changes from accumulating into large changes.

It could happen sure (not that it would be an actual pig, but it could resemble one)

You've just left science and took a dive right into religion. That isn't what the scientific data says, that is what your presupposition says. The science doesn't tell us that a snake can evolve into something that would resemble a pig, but your unproven naturalistic religion (evolution) does.

, but there is nothing driving snakes to evolve into pigs.

So what drove reptiles to evolve into birds? The need to fly? The need to peck? What?

No idea where you pulled that from. Evolution is changes, not something that has some end goal in mind.

I believe in changes over time. However, based on OBSERVATION AND REPEATED EXPERIMENT (you know, actual science), I believe that there are limits to these changes, which is why throughout mankind's history, we've only observed dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish...and I am only lead to believe that a million years from now, there won't be any exception to this.

These kind of responses tell me that you know you have lost this point of debate and that you cannot describe a mechanism that would stop micro changes from accumulating into larger changes.

LOL. Asking you will you evolve wings is actually a legitimate question. I mean after all, you are the one on here implying that anything is possible under the right circumstances and given enough time.

Hell, reptiles evolved wings, right? Well, why can't humans? And if you even BEGIN to give any kind of answer as to why humans can't/won't evolve wings, then you realize that there are in fact LIMITATIONS to the changes, which was my point in the first place.

And there we have it folks. He limits himself to only look at thousands of years of observations while analyzing a process that takes millions of years.

And your "it takes millions" spiel is assuming that evolution (macro) occurred in the first place. If you can't prove that it occurred in the first place, suggesting a time-frame at which it occurred is to beg the question, and essentially put the cart before the horse.

A human cannot run a mile in 30 seconds, and that is basically what you are trying to do here.

We can if we evolve to run faster, right?

"I have watched you run for 30 seconds and you have not ran a mile, therefore you cannot run a mile".

Yeah, but given enough time, I will eventually see you run a mile. But given enough time, I will never see a reptile-bird transformation.

You mean like evolving to digest nylon? Yes, I do in fact want to believe this fact. Why do you choose to ignore it is the real question.

?

'Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that are capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium sp. KI72, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known[1] as nylonase.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

?

I think you mean I am entitled to acknowledge this fact. Yes, I acknowledge this fact that there are organisms that can now do things that they couldn't in the past.

I have no reason to believe that a million years from now, that dogs will cease in producing more dogs and instead begin to produce something that can be considered a non-dog.

But hey, that is just me.

Your words have just been proven to be false. What have you to say about your folly?

I say dogs produce dogs. Prove me wrong there.

Notice readers that he knows he cannot refute the fact that micro changes will eventually add up to macro changes.

I can't deny or confirm whether or no these macro changes will occur. However, I don't have any reason to believe that they WILL occur, in fact, I have evidence on the contrary.

Will he amend his thinking? Not if his religious beliefs have anything to say about it. Yeah religion!

Newsflash....macroevolution = religion.

I propose that there is no mechanism in place that stops small changes from adding up to large changes over time.

But yet when I asked will a human evolve wings, you implied that such a question was absurd. But if there is no mechanism that will stop it from happening, why was the question absurd?

Hmm.

Seems logical to me at this time, but if anyone can at least allude to this mechanism, I would be all ears.

Again, what is the mechanism that stops a human from evolving wings? If anyone can allude to this mechanism, I would be all ears.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Given enough time and the right selective pressures, cold blooded vertebrates evolve into warm blooded vertebrates. Fur and feathers evolved from scales.

Do you have any observational/experimentative data to support this? And "No, but this is what I believe occurred hundreds of millions of years ago" won't cut it.

Maybe. If I am a wingless creature that survives measurably better with whatever is the next step towards having wings is. Evolution is always about the next step, never about the long term goal.

A hamster is a "wingless creature that survives measurably better" with wings. Why aren't they evolving wings?

But there is strong evidence that at one time, long ago, there were fish but no dogs.

And?

Fifteen hundred years ago, there were no speakers of English. But both common sense and observation show that everyone who speaks English learned it from someone else who speaks English.

I agree.

Similarly other languages. Greek speakers beget Greek speakers; Latin speakers beget Latin speakers; Hebrew speakers beget Hebrew speakers. No one gets up and says, "I'm going to speak a language that no one else speaks." How does a new language emerge? When everyone speaks a language indistinguishable from whatever language they were taught, how can a new language arise? Was there ever a first person to speak English? Answer those questions and you will understand evolution better.

The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, so you agree that at least some animals "behind" humans in the evolutionary chronology have consciousness.

Why would I have an issue with that, when even my own religion tells me that animals were created first (with consciousness) and humans thereafter.

So we have a lineage of animals that clearly do not have consciousness (bacteria, sponges, etc.), then a group that might (worms), then fish and mammals that do.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Since consciousness is produced by the brain, can't you see that it was brain development that produced consciousness?

False, Consciousness is not produced by the brain. Consciousness correlates with the brain, just like a remote control correlates with a tv..but the remote doesn't produce the tv, nor does the tv produce the remote.

There is a chicken and egg problem with the brain and consciousness, a problem that the naturalist is unable to resolve.

Or are you arguing that consciousness is not produced by brain activity?

Exactly. It is impossible for consciousness to be produced by the brain...at least three problems with the idea that consciousness is produced by brain activity.

1. Chicken/egg problem
2. Intentionality problem
3. Argument from identity

Three distinct, independent problems that even if you were to adequately address one, there is still the other two.

If so, what else is producing it?

The origin of consciousness is truly a miracle, bruh.

Only animals with brains have it, and death ends it.

That is the way the designer designed the game to be played.

Is it just a coincidence that consciousness appeared in animals only when brains had developed sufficiently to create awareness, etc.?

Only when brains developed? Ok, so tell me what is the "spark" that will allow a brain to go from unconscious, to consciousness? You can get all of the brain matter in the WORLD, and assemble the perfect human brain, but where would you get that consciousness from?

The consciousness is a separate entity from the brain. They are not the same thing.

Consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity

Correlation.

, and brains are made up of nonliving molecules organized in complex structures that carry out complex functions when interconnected as they are in a brain.

You are explaining what they are, but you aren't explaining the origins of either.

The result is the ability to think, be aware, etc., and this capability is purely the function of a brain.

Yeah, it is just that simple, isn't it?

No argument there ... either you create life in the lab or you don't if your experiment has as its goal to create life. But if your experiment has as its goal to test a hypothesis that complex organic molecules necessary for life might be produced, and some complex organic molecules that are necessary for life are produced, then this does in fact lend support to the idea that life could possibly have formed in a similar way. It does not prove it, but the Miller experiment was not done to create life in a flask from nonliving materials as you keep claiming. It was done to test a hypothesis and it did not get a negative result, thereby lending support to the original idea that prompted it. It remains to be proven how life originated on this planet, but so far an abiogenisis event cannot be ruled out and the Miller experiment was just one simple test done 65 years ago that did not eliminate it as an option.

I deem this all irrelevant now. I mean, after all, it is only June 19, 2016..and sentient life has yet to be proven to come from nonliving material. So, if that is the case, what happened in 1952 becomes quite irrelevant, doesn't it?