Andrew William Henderson

9 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Abiogenesis?

No.

Of course no. Two drops of water was an expression. Sorry about that.

But a hydrogen atom will be the same with all hydrogen atoms. Each isotope being the same of each of them.

At what point in time will all the hydrogen atoms be identical ...,?

Just now, Kartazion said:

If you eliminated the life process from the universe, then there would be no life indeed.

What's  the life process  ...?

10 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Nothing happens the same. However, the molecule H₂O are all identical ... as two drops of water.

Are they distinguishable by Inspection....two drops of water are the same as two mountains .. everest and K2 

2 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The existence of extraterrestrial life forms may all be different. But that does not prevent it from being extraterrestrial life

If they are not the same prebiotic materials, they can also be extraterrestrial life.

Life  = biology  if can only be life if its biology ...surley ! What non biolgical traits would you place on a non biological lifeform to define it as life ....a hairy arse 🙂

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Okay. So we assume that is true. What does that prove to you? What is the point you are making with that?

If nature can produce the same thing twice why would we expect the exsitence of extraterrestrial lifeforms ..if it's not the same prebiotic materials it can not become Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis can only be Abiogenesis if it produces biology 

4 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

If nature can not produce the same thing twice why would we expect the exsitence of extraterrestrial lifeforms ..if it's not the same prebiotic materials it can not become Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis can only be Abiogenesis if it produces biology 

 ..

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I can’t produce something when something is as ill-defined as your parameters are

1. You only asked for this after asking for something else

2. If that’s what you want: there are multiple chemical reaction that will produce e.g. H2O - there is the familiar combustion of H2 and O2, but this will happen with hydrocarbons as well. 

CH3—COO—H + C2H5—OH → CH3-COO—C2H5 + H2O

CH₄ + 2 O₂ -> CO₂ + 2 H₂O

 

Multiple dissimilar reactions producing the same common product

<awaiting a moving of the goalposts in 3…2…1…>

 

Which is a narrow requirement for no legitimate reason. Why must stalagmites be identical? What scientific principle is at stake?

Nothing in nature happens the same again ....its basic . They are not my parameters they are natures 

Just now, Andrew William Henderson said:

Nothing in nature happens the same again ....its basic . They are not my parameters they are natures 

H20 is not H2o .....is it ! Are they distinguishable

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to address the questions that have been posed to you by other members, rather than continuing to quote yourself and repeat yourself over and over. Otherwise you are soapboxing, and that's not allowed in a discussion here. Especially address the non-mainstream aspects of your ideas, and support them with some kind of evidence, or be more rigorous in your reasoning.

 

I've addressed the questions .. I haven't moved the goalposts ...the point still stands .....I will word it so there is problems with semantics.. 

 Can show an example in nature where a process produces the same thing again ...

Same = exact....similar is not exact that's why it has a different name from same ...you can look yourself if you dont believe me but I can assure you there isnt ...there is theorys that explain why this is so ..entropy and the Lorenz effect   so with this established scientific fact why   would biology happen again ?

Happening again is producing the the same thing twice .....

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can’t produce something when something is as ill-defined as your parameters are

1. You only asked for this after asking for something else

2. If that’s what you want: there are multiple chemical reaction that will produce e.g. H2O - there is the familiar combustion of H2 and O2, but this will happen with hydrocarbons as well. 

CH3—COO—H + C2H5—OH → CH3-COO—C2H5 + H2O

CH₄ + 2 O₂ -> CO₂ + 2 H₂O

 

Multiple dissimilar reactions producing the same common product

<awaiting a moving of the goalposts in 3…2…1…>

 

Which is a narrow requirement for no legitimate reason. Why must stalagmites be identical? What scientific principle is at stake?

H2o is not H20......is it ? the posts haven't moved  your just not hitting the ball 

Just now, Andrew William Henderson said:

H2o is not H20......is it ? the posts haven't moved  your just not hitting the ball 

Can you distinguish one from another ...????

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

If you could, for once, make a single coherent point, I might be able to respond to it. As it is, I feel I am trying to have a conversation with a barking dog. 

All you do veer around all over the place, not even completing your sentences half the time, and repeating this demonstrably false assertion that nothing in nature is observed to "......become" twice (I assume you mean "happen" or "occur"). Several people, including me, have pointed out to you, quite politely, that this is obviously wrong, yet you continue to repeat it as if nobody had replied at all.

My patience is now exhausted. There is no point trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't listen and can't string two thoughts together.

 

You sound defeated....your the one claiming nothing of substance ..all your saying is I'm wrong because I am ....with no substance to counter anything I've said it's you that's changing goalposts with irrelevant replys and further questions when I've answered them with the weight of scientific fact ..if you're tired dont reply it is not required you understand 

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sure. Does that mean both are not stalagmites? I'm not sure why that matters. I didn't say an exact replica of a stalagmite can exist elsewhere, I only said a stalagmite can exist elsewhere.

Is you overall position simply that an exact set of humans do not exist elsewhere in the 

Yeah but it's just a stalagmite  as we are just humans but none are the same and they can not exsit again from other means  .no two same humans can exsit  that's an observed certainty   

Just now, zapatos said:

Life exist in the universe, as I'm sure you'll agree. That tells me life is possible. Not really a big stretch of the imagination.

Similarly stalagmites exist on Earth and while I have no evidence of them anywhere else in the universe, I'm convinced it is possible stalagmites exist elsewhere. I'm not sure why that seems so outlandish to you.

Copper exsits in the universe but it can not be made from another process .. stalagmites are formed by a lot less causation  and the forces that make them are a constant pressure as they still exsit and are been made as we speak ..but you would agree that there is no two exact stalagmites...they dont happen twice ..and falling  rocks in a river can not make one ..a stalagmite has only happened as much as a planet or a river or another human..they are just repeated processes of a process that can not happen again  and what they do produce is never an exact of the last  the current or the next 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same"

You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. 

But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic.

...

I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here.

Yes I did ...that's the essence of the argument ...you can not produce either so it doesn't matter  if you dont understand  what are the phenomena then ....what have I have  said that shows a lack of knowledge about chemistry evoulution or how science establishs current certaintys ....you haven't produced one example of anything happening the same twice or a dissimilar chemical reaction producing another same.. ....its not the goal posts shifting it's just theres  two goals you need to get threw at either end of the argument ....and have made no suggestion why or how another  chemical reaction has a   requirement to resemble life or function that can be construed as life ...anything you place on it would be a biological trait .....like the example  of eyes we call them eyes because we assume they are doing the same job ..when in fact they are just seperate evolved organs that exploit deviations of light that help  interpretate the enviroment ...a bat uses the the area of the brain we use to taste to interpretate its returning echo location  you could say it tastes sound threw its ears ..a octopus eye isnt a human eye or a blue bottles  ...eyes  (organs ) have happened twice but human or octopus eyes haven't..eyes haven't happened twice ....even the octopus can not produce the exact same eye ..which octopus and which eye would be the comparison....

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's kind of a wide open question. Which beliefs and assumptions of mine would you like to discuss?

You believe in the possibilty of extraterrestrial lifeforms  when there is very little scientific evidence to its suggestion ...a hypothesis on the exsitence of faireys would hold more scientific basis of  there  suggested and possible  exsitence.. 

 Faireys where actually a small hairless primate that like flying squirrel developed a mebrane of skin that enabled them to glide from tree to tree there rareitey and eventual extinction before early  zoology and its path into myth and folklore placed it into the realm of magic .....load of rubbish I KNOW  but more scientifically plausible that ETL ...

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

This is like watching the Hindenburg Disaster.

Of your held beliefs and assumptions ...wheres your science ?

7 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Some people think of a possible panspermia.

I can well imagine out  of solar materials  may have contributed  to the process or even vital ready made compounds   but the hypothesis of biology been seeded smells of intent or a purpose .and it avoids the question of how it formed here and takes it to another place ...its favoured by the exponents if intellgent design and some of its research is linked t ( it is said )to far 

right christian groups and churches .. not convinced  are you ?

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

To the OP,

Andrew,

Can you clearly define what you are arguing please. The title of the thread implies a question - Why Are We alone...

You then state that nothing ever happens twice (as Swansont pointed out to you). You then move on to try and defend the argument that nothing is ever created identical to anything else. ???

Are you are arguing that there is no reason to believe abiogenisis could repeat elsewhere in the observable universe, and this is why we are alone?

Assuming this to be the case, then my answer would be that, I don't personally believe anything. I think we don't yet know enough to make a judgement on abiogenisis either way.  As far as I'm aware, we have not been successful in replicating (based our current data and understanding) abiogenisis in the lab experimentally using the basic chemicals and environmental conditions present around 4 billion years ago.

However it appears that this is what happened here on Earth, so we are confident it has happened at least once (we are good evidence), given the right conditions there is no reason to believe it may not be possible to repeat elsewhere.

How rare life emerging is, how often it may occur and how complex it may become are further arguments we can extrapolate from this original one.      

Whatever a chemical reaction is it can not be prebiotic material until  it begins the process of Abiogenesis and that Abiogenesis isn't Abiogenesis  until it has produced biology...

 Biology is life ....another natural system can not replicate the mechanics of that to get even close ..why would it   your drawing a mysterious intent on life that  you can not put your finger on ..it just seems inconceivable that we( biology) are  not that  special to not happen again...yeah we are not special but we are totally unique  as unique as our solar system ..so to consider the possibilty of extraterrestrial lifeforms seems not only anthropomorphic humanist but also  lifecist...life doesn't need to exsit we are the only species of animal that can consider exsitence ...

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

The Earth formed ~4.5bn years ago. The earliest signs of life we have date from about 3.5bn years ago. So it took less than a billion years, apparently. 

I don't understand what point about entropy you are trying to make. The entropy of a given chemical reaction is a fixed thing. It is the same now as it was 3.5bn years ago.

How did it take take less than a billion years ...from when ..??? When it became a globe or as I have  said before ..the next bank holiday after the co2 level reach 78.8% ...its process cannot  be given a start point other than everything needed to happen first ....the planet forming was a vital part in its process but so where a monstrous number of other vital circumstance even before the birth of our star  ....

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based.

You didn't specify that it had to be the same water until after your argument was rebutted.

 

I'm not aware that worms evolved into humans. Certainly not any extant species of worm.

 

You can't possibly know if it was fast or not.

 

 

Worms ..... !   all vertebrate and non vertebrate are derived from  the basic body model of a worm ...we are just tubes  with different evolved  bits ..!  worms didnt evolve  into humans  we evolved from them ..there is no human DNA in a worm  but  there is worm dna in humans.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

@Andrew William Henderson I am as confused as intoscience (+1) as to your thesis.

 

I would therefore welcome your comment in this up to date research, excerpt from the book accompanying a BBC science series of the same name.

Life in Colour : How animals see the world.

Martin Stevens

Witness Books 2021

We call them eyes ...they dont they are seperate evolved organs that  help interporate reality using light sensitive cells  biology already had the material to make eyes ...the comparison of eyes is the same as legs or hair  they are not the same again ...a monkey with a human eye would be 

Just now, swansont said:

Still untrue, despite being repeated.

Prove it then ..or at least give an example.....we have done atomic particles   and compounds  electrons and nuclei...rivers ..suns ..ecosystems .....none the same never been produced twice despite been logically easy than gas rock and metal into the first biology 

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Er, well, I do have a degree in chemistry, in the course of which I learned a fair amount about chemical thermodynamics. So yeah I think I do have some understanding of the entropy of chemical systems, actually.

I do not assume anything "appeared from thin air". A lot of work has been done on the likely origins of the various building blocks of life. (I've read a bit of it, but it's a fast-moving field and I don't pretend to have kept up with it all.) 

But you are flailing around so wildly now that it is impossible to discern what point you are really trying to make.  

The fact is that chemical reactions are repeatable. So your original argument that nothing in nature repeats itself is patently false. 

If you want to argue that life can't have arisen anywhere else, you will need a far better argument than hogwash like that. 

It's easy....why would we expect life to happen on another planet again ..when nothing else in nature is observed to ...become twice ...happen again ...appear the same from different chemicals and causations ...its not hog wash it's a diamond bullet of reality to the forehead you can not answer it despite your training....not once have you asked how I draw my conclusions but just threw the same answered questions back at me ...or another question because you couldn't dismiss my point  and if you seriously believe the possibilty of extraterrestrial life your going to need more than the hog wash of probability and possibilty ....

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same"

You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. 

But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic.

...

I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here.

Yes it has from the start ....?

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to address the questions that have been posed to you by other members, rather than continuing to quote yourself and repeat yourself over and over. Otherwise you are soapboxing, and that's not allowed in a discussion here. Especially address the non-mainstream aspects of your ideas, and support them with some kind of evidence, or be more rigorous in your reasoning.

 

I'm trying to answer as fast as I can ..but I have to repeat my argument  to multiple replys ..it may not be mainstream but you know its built on stronger scientific hypothesis than your current understanding ..which I guess is why I'm experiencing hostility as well as a unusual amount of interest than some of the moderators posts  nothing in what I claim can not be backed up by scientific fact ...besides I have answered every question I have relied too ..its just not the answer they want ....🦖

9 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then   where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2  sun2  precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process  in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt  but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ...

Yeah I do ....?

On 6/28/2021 at 3:03 PM, swansont said:

No, it's not. Convergent evolution wouldn't result in identical species. But you didn't say anything about the same species emerging.

The claim that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " is not the same as saying some species would emerge twice. The former is very vague* and demonstrably false, while the latter is true and unsurprising, given what we know of evolution.

 

* "nothing" covers a pretty wide range of items and phenomena. All of them, in fact. So as exchemist notes, processes repeat all the time, even if the outcomes differ.

There outcomes differ because there process can not be identical or the product that began its process...if nothing covers a wide range give an example of a dissimilar natural process producing something  the same ..it should be easy !

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

I agree +1

 

@Andrew William Henderson

 

Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ?

 

Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then   where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2  sun2  precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process  in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt  but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ...

15 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The Earth formed ~4.5bn years ago. The earliest signs of life we have date from about 3.5bn years ago. So it took less than a billion years, apparently. 

I don't understand what point about entropy you are trying to make. The entropy of a given chemical reaction is a fixed thing. It is the same now as it was 3.5bn years ago.

You dont understand entropy...or you assume prebiotic chemicals and materials  just appeared  from thin air ... your deliberately ignoring the unique physical mechanics that placed the chemicals together  the quantity of available materials ..... these are unreatable due to the fluidity or stability of the  enviroment and time ...if other chemical reactions can form life where is it  then ...as I said earlier the chemical reactions of Jupiter's atmosphere could  be considered biology in that case  or do we need to stick a leg on it first ...

3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

No ...simply it needs to be biology or it's not life ...besides the first biology didnt use DNA or RNA  it too was a biological product   ..what biological trait would you expect a non biolgical lifeform to have to consider it life ? ..curly hair or a self replicating gene 

What other definition could we use ....for life other than a biology despite philosophical ideas ..biology/ life I  believe is a totally unique product of its unique exsitence in a universe where uniqueness is the norm .. what intent are you placing on another uniqueness to resemble life ....why would it do it how could it do it ...why would it want to do it  what's so special about life??? it doesn't do much  it's more dynamic than silica but wont last as long ... life isnt special as it's only as unique as jupiter but less likley ....well to us humans it is  !

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

I haven't seen you use scientific fact and reasoning yet in this thread

Again you have made a vague prediction. If the pattern holds, you will then move the goalposts when this is shown to be false, and you will apply a much narrower set of criteria to try and cover your error.

A sun doesn't have to be the same as ours for it to be a sun. Again with the intellectually dishonest reasoning.

 

 

Life would be biological, even if it were different that what was formed on earth.

 

How....?

Just now, swansont said:

Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based.

No ...simply it needs to be biology or it's not life ...besides the first biology didnt use DNA or RNA  it too was a biological product   ..what biological trait would you expect a non biolgical lifeform to have to consider it life ? ..curly hair or a self replicating gene 

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

"Biology" is just what biochemistry produces. There can be different "biologies", based on different biochemistries. For instance, there might be a different system for inheritance that didn't use a molecule like our DNA. It might involve different base pairs, or not use base pairs as a coding mechanism at all. Its metabolic biochemistry might not use ATP as a carrier of energy for reactions inside the cell. It could differ from our biology in countless ways. But, so long as it produced biochemical systems that replicated and passed on their characteristics to the next generation, you would get evolution....and then more complex life forms would come into being. 

As for chemical intent to become life, no, I do not suggest that. But life did arise here on Earth and there is no reason to think the conditions on the early Earth are unique in all the universe. A similar process, if not an identical one, can certainly have taken place elsewhere.

No it's not it has 12 billion years of causation to get threw before it gets to anything resembling pre biotic materials ....they are all there in your garden now ...what's not is repeatable physical enviroments at particular sequential times in its  entropy...are you suggesting a chemical intent to become prebiotic material that intends to become dynamic chemical reaction ...that looks lifelike ?

23 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Only as much as your assertion it was easy ...what from gas metal and rock ..we can make valid observations and make comparable... what did it take for worms to evolve into humans  to what it took for universal elements to produce biology  The first biology did all the work   it didnt happen fast ...what point of its process was the start ..the first bank holiday after co2 was 88.9 %...???  Its process must start  in the formation of our galaxy if not the cosmic start .. its process remains unknown but what we do know by logical deduction that those happenings where more than a dozen ..

Yeah but nature hasn't the same control of heat or ingredients....its like developing amino acids in a lab with hindsight of what they are made of and how they may be constructed ....nature did it once but time and circumstance dont allow it second time  ...besides the point is about disimilar complex processes producing the same thing twice .  .if we dont see   a Tin2 happening again  why would biolgy 2 happen ?

Why would that be a requirement....biology only needs to do that mostly when its evolved for 3.5 billion years ...you have to be biology to do most of those  biolgical things you mentioned .......the first ever biology was as much as biolgy as a goat is ...are you suggesting that what ever chemical reaction there is a chemical intent to become life ? Are we likely to find exteratestial lifeforms with beer bellys ... or big noses 

It's not personal ignorance...its based on scientific fact and reasoning .....lesser  complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice ...so how could a dissimilar but logically more complex of a reaction produce life twice .....

 The same forces that stop you happening twice are the same forces that don't allow another sun the same as ours ...its why mars doesn't look like earth ..you dont look me ...or a giraffe  (I hope 🙂) the planet 567000D can not produce life nor another Mount Everest....

 I'm not dealing in numbers of chances or probability  if I did  I'm sure the number of events that took biology to form gas metal and rock is more than  all the stars ....easy !

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true.

 

Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here?

 

I'm not understanding your point.

Asserted without evidence. (I'm sensing a pattern)

Abiogenesis might actually be relatively easy under the conditions of the the early earth. It might be that it only took a thousand years after the right conditions were met for it to occur. That's fast using the age of the earth as a scale. We just don't know. And if we don't know, you can't make a valid assertion one way or the other.

Only as much as your assertion it was easy ...what from gas metal and rock ..we can make valid observations and make comparable... what did it take for worms to evolve into humans  to what it took for universal elements to produce biology  The first biology did all the work   it didnt happen fast ...what point of its process was the start ..the first bank holiday after co2 was 88.9 %...???  Its process must start  in the formation of our galaxy if not the cosmic start .. its process remains unknown but what we do know by logical deduction that those happenings where more than a dozen ..

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why not ?

I could split water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them together to get water and then split the water to get hydrogen and oxygen... in an endless cycle.

It would require (generate actually) exactly the same heat each time I did it.

And the result is exactly the same every time I do it   -  Nature is more consistent and accurate that human ropemakers.

And you still have not responded to my much longer comment, do I need to report this rule breaking to get an answer ?

Yeah but nature hasn't the same control of heat or ingredients....its like developing amino acids in a lab with hindsight of what they are made of and how they may be constructed ....nature did it once but time and circumstance dont allow it second time  ...besides the point is about disimilar complex processes producing the same thing twice .  .if we dont see   a Tin2 happening again  why would biolgy 2 happen ?

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But, as I have said to you several times over now, it would not be the same thing twice. That life would most likely look different from ours, here. It would involve organisms that metabolise and reproduce, but there the similarities might end.

Your question about numbers of singular events is pointless. You will just get some telephone number or other, to set against other telephone numbers representing the number of potential worlds on which life could arise, and the time available for them to do so. That is a fruitless line of reasoning for something like this. It looks to me a lot like the notorious "Argument from Personal Incredulity".  

Why would that be a requirement....biology only needs to do that mostly when its evolved for 3.5 billion years ...you have to be biology to do most of those  biolgical things you mentioned .......the first ever biology was as much as biolgy as a goat is ...are you suggesting that what ever chemical reaction there is a chemical intent to become life ? Are we likely to find exteratestial lifeforms with beer bellys ... or big noses 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is getting tiresome. Repetition is not proof.

"Nothing" has to include all cases, and the only examples you can show are for very specific cases. You can't extrapolate from that to a general truth of the statement. 

 

Not reputable?

I'm not required to, in order to disprove your statement. You can't limit responses to a specific avenue of proof. It's an intellectually dishonest requirement.

We can't be sure life on another planet would be based on DNA. There's no requirement for the results to be identical, other than your artificial narrowing of the answer you will accept.

Well if it's not biolgy it's not biolgy it would just be something else...that assertion would allow you to claim any old chemical reaction life ....if it's not biology it's not life..you can not place biolgical traits on to a exterestial chemical reaction ...the trait of intellgence is often quoted which is a niche piece of biolgical evolution  why not a digestive system or kidney....or giant goggely eyes on a green head 

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since you have been rude enough to ignore my comment and question, I will be forthright.

 

This is a complete falsehood.

Every time I burn hydrogen in oxygen I get water.

Physics and Chemistry tell me that I cannot get any thing else.

 

However you are correct that some actions cannot be repeated.

For instance If I measure the breaking load of a particular piece of rope, by breaking it, I cannot repeat that exact measurement, but only make similar ones, just as you say.

It's not the same water as you couldn't have had the same heat or oxygen ...nice try ...sorry I took a while answering 👍🌍

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

So now you are asserting something quite different from the OP: you are saying that abiogenesis is too improbable to occur twice.  But you have no basis for saying that. The universe is a big place and has been going for a long time. There is plenty of room, and plenty of time, for all sorts of low probability events to have come up, somewhere. 

It's not big enough ..if Abiogenesis produces biology on another planet it would be the first time two dissimilar chemical and physical reactions have made the the same thing twice ...how many singular events did it take to process gas metal and rock into a giraffe  against the amounts of singular events it took to form a worm into a giraffe .... how many ..????