[InTheDark]

- Note - InTheDark is not now and has never been a biologist or even very good at biology.

I'm currently reading 'Life' by Richard Fortey and he states with little equivocation that life on earth began only once. I can see why this might be assumed and how it might be close to proven thanks to modern gene research. We lack any second, dissimilar life model that may have started at some other time and followed some different chemical organizational structure. If I've got this wrong please jump right in, but I assume that abiogenesis occured once and all earth life is some descendent of this prime event. I'd prefer to exclude the panspermia theory from consideration at this time.

If the prime event is a one time only affair then it makes perfect sense the we have been unable to duplicate such a thing in the lab. The odds against abiogenesis must be huge indeed but there was quite a long stretch of time for random events pull together the first self-replicating, endothermic organism. Still, I wonder.

Is there some level of human technology that you would assume the following: We have failed to create life in the lab and we should have, given the power of our technology. And if you assume such, where does that lead you?

I think we're damn close to that point. All our technological prowess is unable to replicate what most assume to be a random hook up of random amino acids with no outside guidance. Sadly, I doubt I'll ever get any answer to this question. This from the man that insisted on attempting to duplicate the Miller-Urey experiment in high school.