I stand Corrected: Biogenesis, which then leads down the road to Evolutionary thoughts and Concepts:
at the time
Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor, Nobel laureate Harold
Urey. Did he create the correct atmosphere or not? Nobody knows for sure, but the consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one
Miller used.
Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which is consistent with what many scientist thought back then. Issue: Scientist don't believe that anymore. In the 1960s the evidence for it was little, by the 70s, chemists--Marcel Florkin said the "concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere 'has been abandoned'. But IT IS STILL MENTIONED as though it were fact in the text books. TypeSAddict seems so convincing and convinced that it is True. Why? Two leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that
Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. In 1995 Science magazine experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because the "early atmosphere" looked nothng like the Miller-Urey simulation.
What's the best hypothesis today? That there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. They say that it probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. So why is Miller-Urey still presented since most since the 60s say NO! Good question.
So, let's replay and assume we have the correct atmosphere. What do we get? "Not amino acids" says Wells, "what we get are Formaldehyde and Cynaide! Chemicals certainly not conducive to bulding life, on the contrary, they destroy life and cells. Very toxic stuff.
Let's assume again that someday a scientists actually are successful at producing amino acids from a realistic atmosphere. Wells says "it's not chemically possible, but lets assume." How far would that be from creating a living cell?
"Very far, Incredibly far" he says. That would be the first step in an extremely complicated process. You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule--and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. "The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous."
Illustration: "Put a sterile, balanced salt soltion in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has alll the molecules you would need to create a living cell, right? You would already have accomplished far more than what the
Miller experiment ever could--you've got all the components you need for life."
The problem is "you can't make a living cell," he said. "There's not even any point in trying. It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards all the way to the moon. No biologist in his right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules and turn them into a living cell.
Point being, even if you can accomplish the thousands of steps between amino acids in the Miller-Urey "TAR"--which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway--and the components you need for a living cell--all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth--you're still immeasurably far from life. Period
"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." Blaise Pascal, The Art Of Persuasion
Carmack said:
That's evidence for abiogenesis, not evolution.
How has it been proven false?
