I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

You're being disingenius, illiterate, or incoherent, and I can't decide which it is, and here's why:

Let's start off by repeating what you said:

Now, this was in response to this:

Which was my response to this:

Which was in response to this:

Which was referring back to this post:

Which brings us back to the full circle, and asking whether you're a liar or a moron.

Observe.

First let's break down the post in question:

Okay, that's fine, here I mention that meteorites have, for a long time been known to have an excess of one enatiomer over another, and it happens to be the same enantiomer that earth bound life forms use, then I suggest that a number of explanations have been proposed, one of which is cirularly polarized high energy photons from a supernova. Which I clarify again later in response to one of your posts:

And then I continue:

Oooh, exciting, here I'm discussing new science, recent discoveries - in these meterorites, which display this excess, we find that the areas that have the greatest enrichment, also show the greatest amount of alteration by water - NOT alteration by high energy photons such as those found in a supernova, but alteration by water.

Then I explain, in the most succinct fashion I can think of why this is important:

It's important because the enantiomer that life doesn't use, is more soluble in water than the enantoimer that life does use. Incidentally, we're not talking an enrichment of a few percent here, we're talking a thousand fold enrichment. Note that I'm talking about solubility in water, not rates of photodissociation by circularly polarized light.

You'll also note the use of some weasel wording in there, I know, for a fact, that it's true of isovaline, because I took the time to exercise due dilligence and looked up the solubility of isovaline on solubility tables, and found that one is slightly more soluble in water than the other.

Both are soluble in water, so as you deplete one, you deplete them both, however you deplete the more soluble one more than you deplete the less soluble one.

Here I provide a link to a two year old paper, that IIRC goes somewhat in depth into various amino acids, but only looks at a couple of meteorites - this is important, because it extrapolates the findings beyond isovaline, and pre-empts the argument 'But it's just the one, it could be special in some way'. Note that the title of the paper says 'aqueous alteration' not 'photodissociation'.
Aqueous: a term used to describe a system which involves water.

Here I provide a link to a press release that discusses a new finding that is related to the 2009 paper, that studies a wider range of of meteorite types, and finds an excess in those, and finds the same correlation between the degree of water alteration, and the degree of enrichment. Again, that's water alteration, not photodissociation, and not irradiation.

Here I suggest that the 'asteroid seeding' hypothesis has (or should have) an added level of appeal to it, because it solves more than one problem with a single hypothesis - implicit in this is the assumption (or explicit context in the original thread) that the reader is smart enough to figure out for themselves that if the amines found on earth came from asteroids, and the amines on asteroids have an excess of one enantiomer over another, then it stands to reason that the earth should have the same excess. The significance of which requires the prior knowledge that with one or two exceptions, none of which IIRC are relevant here, the rate of a reaction is dependent on the concentration of the reactants (as well as, in some cases, the concentration of the products), which has the corrollary that if there is an excess of one enantiomer over another in the initial mixture, then one reaction will 'out compete' the other.

Now, getting back to your post, which I will repeat again:

An again, but this time with the added context of nested quotes:

The PDF I provided had nothing to do with circularly polarized light. The PDF has to do with the alteration of amino acids by water, not the photodissociation of amino acids by circularly polarized light, or to do with supernovae.

Now before I go any further, I do have one confession to make - I may have inadvertantly conflated two seperate theories, however, we come back to the same point - if I had been intending to illustrate supernova initiated refractory processes leading to enantiomeric enrichment, I would have linked to one of Boyd et al's papers - eg this one or this one, or if I was wanting to discuss 'one handed' enrichment of DNA or RNA by circularly polarized light I would have linked to Michaelin's paper.

But I didn't, I linked to things discussing the evidence for enrichment by preferential dissolution in meteorites. Which leads us back to my opening question, given that the material I linked to discusses enrichment of seeding material by preferential dissolution, why are you asking me if photodissociation by circularly polarized light is applicable to all amino acids because (And here I quote you, and paraphrase you) "...the PDF mentioned... ...didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body." Are you inept and unable to express youself clearly? I.E. Am I somehow supposed to infer that even though we've been discussing photodissociation, and the context the statement was made in was one of a discussion of photodissociation, that you now wish to discuss enrichment by preferential dissolution, but you're unable to formulate a clear statement such as 'one question about the water thing'? Are you illiterate, or do you have some kind of short term memory issue that means you're unable to retain the context of a dicussion for the duration of the discussion, even though you have only recently looked at the initial post in question? Or are you dishonest and forwarding an allegation or hypothesis that you know to be untrue, or engage me in a 'bait and switch' by engaging me in one topic, and then suddenly, without anything approaching an indication, changing subject in the hope to trick me into making some kind of gaff?

 

And I need a cure for arthritis. All of these things will surely come, but perhaps not during our lifetimes.

There is enough evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of abiogenesis, to make it the only hypothesis that is in the running. This is no guarantee that it will ultimately be proven true, but it means that all current competing hypotheses have already been proven false.

"Creationism," for example, fails quite simply and quite dismally, on the fallacy of recursion. The "god" who is given credit for creating all life is obviously alive, which requires him to have created himself. And these folks think the Big Bang makes no sense?

Religious assertions are so boneheaded that their falsification requires almost no advanced education, merely a good solid grounding in common sense.