What do you think? Is abiogenesis a mere superstition?
1) “Author debunks claims of science and evolution.” What makes you think an author is a credible source to counter the arguments of 100+ years of scientific research?
2) Abiogenesis is quite different than spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation and other older theories indicated that things like rats come from old shoes and flies from rotting meat. That is what is ridiculous. Abiogenesis is more reasonable; it only refers to the first life-forms. It’s not saying that chimps can form spontaneously, only that what we consider “life” is made from otherwise non-living materials in its origin. The first protocell that stood on the border between life and non-life could have formed spontaneously.
3) Evolution doesn’t require abiogenesis to still be true. Evolution starts working once life is there, it doesn’t matter how it got there.
4) You have to detach yourself from emotional connections and biases toward what life means. On a physical level, we are composed of nonliving materials. There is nothing in life that isn’t just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons.
In other words, the life and non-life border is somewhat artificial. It’s a category that we invented because we recognized some differences between things in our reality, but that doesn’t mean that it objectively means as much as we feel it does.
Viruses are the best example of the haziness of the border between life and not life. On the one hand, they do lots of stuff that life does, including replicate from DNA/RNA. On the other hand, if they’re not infecting a host, they’re a lot like rocks: they do not grow, do not adapt, do not respond to stimuli, do not reproduce, hardly have homeostatic processes and do not metabolize.
5) Oh yes, and abiogenesis is certainly open to being changed once we find a better idea. That’s a key difference in why it’s not the same as following a myth.