Return to Answer

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be (*). This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed has been proposed, but is it interpretable as a-bio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of a-bio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers. This is partially because life is a process, not a substance. This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside Earth. Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.

Life, Wikipedia (*)

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be (*). This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed has been proposed (**), but is it interpretable as a-bio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of a-bio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers. This is partially because life is a process, not a substance. This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside Earth. Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.

Life, Wikipedia (*)

The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.

Abiogenesis, Wikipedia (**)

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be. This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed has been proposed, but is it interpretable as abio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of abio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers. This is partially because life is a process, not a substance. This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside Earth. Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.

Life, Wikipedia

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be (*). This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed has been proposed, but is it interpretable as a-bio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of a-bio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers. This is partially because life is a process, not a substance. This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside Earth. Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.

Life, Wikipedia (*)

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be. This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed, but is it interpretable as abio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of abio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

My two cents opinion:

The matter of "abiogenesis" depends heavily on what we consider "life" or "living" to be. This is the main point.

In other words, genesis or transformation of this to that, has been observed has been proposed, but is it interpretable as abio-genesis, or rather as bio-transformation from one form of living to another (similarly to how energy is not created nor lost but only transformed)?

One can be equally well justified, from the same observations, to take the stance of bio-transformation instead of abio-genesis, simply extending the definition of "bio".

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers. This is partially because life is a process, not a substance. This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside Earth. Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.

Life, Wikipedia