You do know you can search for all posts from one member in a thread, right? And that my very first post in this thread answered the OP? Too lazy, huh? No trying involved in discrediting your tenuous grasp of the science you ignorantly tout. LOL! You just keep posting science you clearly don't understand. "Geobiology is, in part, about looking for life or life's graffito - and finding it - in unusual places: deep in ancient rock, in super-heated waters of undersea volcanic vents, and beneath the ice of Greenland."Yep, finding existing life or evidence of life. Nothing about life from the inanimate. "But geobiology can also be about fashioning crude "proto-cells" from chemical goop resembling primeval ooze, work done recently in the Harvard/Massachusetts General Hospital laboratory of geneticist Jack W. Szostak to study how lifelike entities might have arisen in the extreme environment 3.5 billion years ago. The emergent field rests on the idea that the dividing line between life and nonlife is blurrier than science has long believed. And that the minerals and chemicals of the earth are constantly interacting with living things in unexpected ways."Protocells are not alive and we have not been able to make living cells from them. Interactions with "living things" does not make the distinction between life and the inanimate any "blurrier". You need to learn to distinguish between actual science and speculation. "That means the origins of life can only be understood as shaped by the larger environment, and - by the same token - the nonliving environment can be understood only in the context of the fast-multiplying organisms that shaped it right back."And? This non sequitur doesn't make any point you may imagine it does and really only further illustrates your ignorance of the science. Interactions between living organisms and the environment are trivial and do not evidence life from the inanimate. "Evolution is not something that happened solely to organisms," said Robert Hazen, a research scientist with Washington's Carnegie Institution. "There has been co-evolution of the geosphere and the biosphere." Again, and? Another non sequitur that does nothing to address your central claims about abiogenesis. "Said geobiologist Lisa M. Pratt of Indiana University: "Turns out, establishing where geochemistry ends and life begins isn't always so easy. We know surprisingly little about the origin, evolution, and limits for life on earth. But we're on the cusp of dramatic new understandings.""LOL! She's literally saying we don't know how, or even if, chemistry leads to life, because we "know surprisingly little about the origin...of life on earth". Her optimistic speculation just feeds your blind faith. Her own admission contradicts her optimism. "Twitches of life are showing up where life shouldn't exist. In southern Africa, for example, scientists burrowed 2 miles beneath the earth's surface, discovering bacteria that feed on radioactive rocks."Incredulity about extremophiles also doesn't tell us anything about life from the inanimate. "In the minds of some geobiologists, including Pratt, the existence of these "extremophile" microbes hints that life is such sturdy stuff that it might seed itself on any planet possessing a bit of water."That literally says that life could come from elsewhere, not that it comes from the inanimate. No, you've repeatedly proven that what you believe you know is due to blind faith, not comprehension. We would know if we created life in a lab. Biochemistry is just the chemistry utilized by living organisms. There is no "transition" of the chemical. It's just sometimes utilized by living organisms. And since there is no "transition", there is no mechanism. It's just living organisms using what's available in the environment. Your nonsense like "'fully' alive" is unscientific twaddle. Again, pure speculation without any actual, scientific evidence. Hell, you just listed a whole host of attributes of living organisms virus do not have. "But crucially, quasi-life forms are able to replicate themselves by pirating the machinery of living cells. Since they cannot survive independently, they are technically non-life structures." "The virus replicates itself by invading taking over the translation mechanism in living cells."You keep emphasizing bits that contradict your own claims. If virus can only subsist on living cells, it logically follows that living cells had to be around first, and viruses cannot, then, be a stepping stone from the inanimate to life. posit - assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument.IOW, speculation. Too bad you don't understand the science you blindly tout enough to separate speculation from fact. Are you starting to understand how easy it is to refute your claims, by using your own citations? Not hard when I obviously understand the science way better than you do.