Khanzhoren

It is clear that some large scale phenomena like geological processes and formation of stars cannot be reproduced in a relatively limited space and time and they are still occuring so there are some other ways to observe/study them more or less directly. Regarding the origin of life, it is unique in the sense that it is a key step in evolution around which there are still many important unresolved questions. I naturally wonder about a possible reproducibility in the laboratory or not; I think it's an obvious question to ask.

What do you mean? Anyway, perhaps there are misunderstandings, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, but to be clear: my previous statement concerns solely, at its level, the problem of the experimental observation of the abiogenesis process.

It seems to me that there are some misunderstandings in our discussion. So, I will simply rephrase my question differently : Do you think it would be possible to observe the abiogenesis process in a laboratory and within a reasonable timeframe?

As a reminder, I asked this question because another person previously mentioned a long duration to conclude that direct observation (possibly in laboratory) would probably not be possible due to this . Then you spoke about duration in relation to chemical kinetics when i asked why He/she said that. May be you don't understand what I mean by direct observation Or perhaps I expressed myself poorly. Anyway I mean by it " an experimental observation of the transition of a non-living system to a living system in a laboratory or something like that ". Otherwise, as far as I know, modern physics also has an experimental aspect of this kind.

I understand your explanations very well and they are not really new things for me. But let's say typically, has anyone ever given a realistic quantitative estimate of the duration of the chemical process that could correspond to abiogenesis?

I know a little about chemistry but without being a chemist. If you can go in-depth into the explanations I can follow and it would be appreciated. Thanks

However, as well-known, a living organism can be microscopic, even with a relatively low number of constituent molecules.

why do you say that ? I asked Why do you think a seemingly molecular process would take so long?

Why do you think an apparently molecular process would take so long? Indeed, if it were a process on a larger scale (stellar, geological, etc.), it would be more understandable if it required so much time.

That's correct, but I'm referring to a direct experimental observation of the phenomenon (possibly in a laboratory), of course. This process is also probably rarer than we might have thought, given the fact that the existence of extraterrestrial life eventually seems to be very difficult to confirm.

What I simply wanted to say is that, if I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been any direct evidence or direct observation of the process of abiogenesis, so it remains theoretical. This statement is unrelated to the hypothesis of the existence or non-existence of a god

Thank you for your comment and the links. However, I didn't really say that the understanding of the (theory of the) mechanism is not advanced enough... Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

Thank you for your comment. Perhaps it would be better to reclassify this theory in the field of mathematics rather than physics? Until its capabilities in physics are truly proven? Indeed, some people say that this theory absorbs too many 'resources' and 'possibilities' that could have been used for more fruitful things (for physics).

Can there be more than one 'most powerful'? Even if there are several possible gods, there must be one who is the strongest? The God of gods ? the top of the pyramid ? I more or less agree with you on some points... But when I talked about a gap, I was thinking about the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) there has never been direct experimental proof for the passage from the 'non-living' to the 'living', for example? And the fact of flying or other things that distinguish animals from others are certainly big steps in evolution... But the fact that humans are able to 'reflect' on evolution itself, on the origin and global behavior of the universe, the meaning of existence, self-consciousness, etc., seems quite remarquable and still mysterious compared to any other differences.

Basically, if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings . But how can we define "power" when talking about gods? Anyway, If other more mysterious (higher?) beings than human exist, there must eventually exist more mysterious (higher ?) attributes that distinguish them. A question that can arises is the following: Are humans the pinnacle of self-consciousness and intelligence? Are there "things" deeper (higher ?) than "human consciousness" and "human intelligence"? Indeed, it seems that these are the main attributes that distinguish humans from other living beings, just as life distinguishes living beings from non-living things. But another mystery is that there seems to be a "big gap" between the non-living and the living, just as there seems to be a "big gap" between human consciousness and intelligence compared to those of animals, whereas from a physico-chemical and biological point of view, the differences do not seem to be big enough.