Don't give creationists the attention they crave

[Interbane]

Oh, I agree, we are "fortunate" consciousness arose from our primordial soup theory

A theory is a concept. Don't include me in your group if you think a concept gave rise to consciousness. The referrent, on the other hand, the phenomenon in action, is a link in the causal chain that eventually lead to conscious life. In some form it was inevitable. Do you believe the rise of consciousness is the same as abiogenesis?

Uh, yeah. Try saying ORGANIZED complexity. My guess is that you believe the complexity of a snow flake and the complexity of life are comparable. They are not.

They are comparable, of course. It depends on the reason you need to compare them. Here, the comparison fails. If we were talking about the timeline of self-organizing matter, a snowflake analogy is useful. If we're talking about categorical differences in complexity, the comparison is useful also, as a method of contrast. If you're talking about the degree of similarity between an organism and a snowflake, I'd agree that the two are worlds apart. Which straw man were you presenting me as?

The point is that useless, or disorganized, or non-semantic complexity arises continuously. It fails before it even starts. Only the winning ticket, an assembly that is sustainable, will last. The difference is a minor alteration of a sustainable assembly. If it is structured correctly to act as a template for other proteins to form, it can then be considered semantic complexity. Which is precisely the same as abiogenesis. I think what you mean is that you don't see how a replicator could have formed. The most simple replicator would be equivalent to the most simple form of semantic complexity. Same thing, different words.

Using concepts such as "semantic" to describe certain things is necessary if we are to understand our reality. But the unfortunate side effect is that we are "cutting nature at the knees", in making distinctions where there is actually only a smooth slope of increasing complexity. This applies to using the word "replicator" as well, since there is likely a spectrum of integrity that could be applied to replication. Starting with "infinitesimal chance to replicate" and making it's way to "sustainably perfect replication". We assign meaning to these things, not the other way around. The change from regular complexity to semantic complexity is as small as a single protein chain. As long as it possesses the ability to transfer information, it is semantic complexity, a replicator.

To me, it's a mystery that I ponder with a sense of reverence.

Same here, though the connotation of "reverence" I use is probably different. I don't see abiogenesis as a mystery though. I don't have the answer, but then, I don't have a lot of answers. It's not a dichotomy of "I know" versus "I don't know". It's a spectrum with differing levels of confidence. Nothing is at either extreme end of the spectrum, since absolute certainty(for or against) implies absolute knowledge.

With the vast number of constituents all mixing together, a sustainable assembly is bound to form. If the sustainable assembly allows other proteins to attach piecemeal, then detach as a fully formed "offspring" assembly, you have abiogenesis. Each stage of the process, no matter how rare, is likely given enough constituents and enough time. I find it strange that people reject the idea. Until I realize that people who reject the idea either can't see how simple and probable it is, or they have an ulterior motive.

All this theory indicates is that randomness rules.

That's not what it indicates. Randomness is necessary, as it results in randomly interacting matter. What rules, however, is the selection process after matter has interacted. Random combinations of constituent particles produces a massive population of "potential" candidates. An infinite number, if given enough time. Those very few combinations that last through the jostling have singled themselves out as sustainable. The rest are of course not sustainable, so break apart. Of the population of sustainable candidates, all that is needed is one that can replicate. Which is actually a very simple process if you understand what it implies. That is abiogenesis.

If you're truly interested in having a discussion, at least engage in the details. Blanketing entire chunks of the conversation with words like "semantics" forestalls deeper analysis. This reminds me of an argument from Stahrwe. He was always coming up with pseudo-hurdles that sounded good but would break down under critical analysis. The hurdles were endless. I realized it wasn't about the hurdles(they weren't), but that his method of understanding reality relied too much on the words we use to understand it, rather than focusing on what is objective. In his mind, if he could find the words that made it seem he was correct, the words ruled and he truly was correct.