Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation (evolution) on a prebiotic Earth.
There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.
Take a frog and put him in a blender until frothy. Leave it in the sun for a million years. Do you have a frog? No, still frog soup.
David T
2007-01-02 11:10:42 · 8 answers · asked by David T 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."
In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!
2007-01-02 11:11:22 · update #1
Thank you for posting this, however I advise you not to expect any sort of recognition from the "superior intellects" of evolutionists; they only accept information that supports their beliefs, as everything else is "unreliable".
2007-01-02 11:18:55 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
the creation of life is different than the FACT of evolution
evolution describes the development of life on Earth
Evolution has been proven, apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, chromosome 2 in humans was found to be the fused set of chromosomes
and if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, at least pay respect to man's intelligence and wait for them to advance further in science, unlike faith, answers in science take time
I'm not saying faith is bad, I don't care if you believe in Creationism, but stop trying to disprove evolution and science, science is not TRYING to disprove faith, it is only a result of individuals driven by curiosity and human intelligence
science has led to medicines and breakthrough cures, why doubt science here?
2007-01-02 12:09:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, what a very "earthy" experiment. I am impressed that you can recreate and analyze the primordial "soup". It makes me wonder if one reached this conclusion by automobile or by broom. Primordial soup is best served with animal crackers.
2007-01-02 11:28:14 · answer #3 · answered by metoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kind of implies that evolution means a random reshuffling of genes, doesn't it?
I don't think you understand evolution in the slightest.
2007-01-02 11:57:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you ever here of the insemination theory?
Perhaps we were implanted here, at least the building blocks of life got here via meteors...
Where they came from God only knows.....
2007-01-02 11:16:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
frog soup doesnt reproduce. hello...
2007-01-02 11:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by Pisces 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does that mean that before we knew how electricity worked, it wasn't real? I don't think so. Just because we can not reproduce it yet, doesn't debunk anything.
2007-01-02 11:14:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It does make ya wonder, doesn't it?
2007-01-02 11:16:16 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋