why, even after the urey-miller experiment, do creationists still deny the possibility of chemical evolution?

Question

the proof is there for evolution, but not for creationists...

Answer 1

Ah, the infamous Urey-Miller dilemma...

This is the great thing about science. While there was a few things wrong with their original experiments, and creationists love to grab a hold of this fact, most of them won't look at the continued research that has come about as a direct result of those initial experiments. What researchers are finding out is that there are many conditions in which these early biochemicals could have come about.

Not that it's going to break the back of the theory of evolution anytime soon if it this research doesn't pan out. The theory is based on mutation and natural selection and allele frequencies and speciation, not where life came from. There are actually a few different ideas about the life origins that could fit with the theory of evolution. Even Miller titled one of his early papers "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" (may have been the original experiment...I'm not sure). At least scientists are open to the possibility that they might be wrong, given future empirical evidence.

As for your question--several good answers above. I particularly like Odd Little Animal's analogy.

EDIT: Jon R--get some information from a scientifically worthy, unbiased site. And the statement that evolution has no predictive value is complete and utter nonsense. Go see this page, with good source citation not taken out of context, to see some of the predictive power of evolution.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

The 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with closed systems and overall entropy in the system. A living organism, or a population, or an ecosystem, or a biome, are hardly considered closed systems. And even though the entropy in any closed system (the universe, possibly) will decrease, pockets within the system (organism, population, ecosystem, biome, planet) can show increases in entropy.

Finally, nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that we should see an abnormal number of extinctions or new species arise unless changing environmental factors force extinction or speciation.

EDIT: faithlocket--come on. As I stated above, the theory of evolution rests on mutability of genes and allele frequencies forced by nature, not on any one hypothesis on the origin of life.

Answer 2

Because it doesn't show the emergence of life, just some of the molecules necessary for making it.

Jon R, about one thing you are correct: there are more gaps in the fossil record today. Some creationist scored big when he discovered how to twist that bit of information to their advantage. Let's say J fossil is believed to be a descendent of A. How many gaps? One. Then we find F. How many gaps? Two. Then we find C and H. How many gaps? Four. Yes, there are more gaps today. The more we find, the more gaps there are. Slick piece of deception.

Still using the thermodynamics argument, huh? Creationists' interpretation of the 2nd Law is a bit like using the expression, "What goes up must come down," as proof that the general theory of gravity means that Voyager and Pioneer don't exist. They will never come down, as they have reached solar escape velocity.

Evolution does predict the emergence of new kinds and we see it in the fossil record, not all at once, but in thousands of stages where whole ecosystems are replaced. And then replaced again. This, of course, really IS contradictory of creationism. You seem to ignore the enormous amounts of time here and how short a couple centuries are in comparison to it. Common creationist error.

Evolution has not been disproven. Fundies keep making that claim because they are trying to convert people with lies. God loves that, apparently.

Answer 3

I'm not going to comment directly on the question that you ask because you have some very good answers already. I would just like to add that the Urey/Miller experiment fall short of producing anything beyond simple organic compounds and amino-acids because several important factors were not present at the time of the experiment: 1. long period of time conducting the experiment; 2. some important factors were left out of the experiment like; varying magnetic fields, hot/cold simulated change in seasons; acoustic pulsed energy and sound; UV/IR radiation, just to name a few variables. If these parameters had been included in the first studies, I highly suspect that much more than simple organic molecules would have been the end product.

Answer 4

Say you, for whatever reason, believed the Earth was flat.
And you went to schools claiming the Earth was flat. One day I week you went to "The Earth Is Flat" meetings where everyone there ranted and raved about how flat the Earth is. And before eating you make sure to say how great it is that the Earth is flat. And you and your friends discuss the flattness of the Earth, and you even may go door-to-door to tell others that the Earth is flat.

Then, one day...you find out it's actually round.

Wouldn't you deny it, claim that it being round was made up?

If you accepted that the Earth is round, that would prove that your entire belief system is wrong, that you have never once been right and others who knew it was round all along now know you're an idiot for believing it was flat.

That is why creationists still deny the possibility of evolution, they don't want to accept and can't handle the fact that they're wrong.

Answer 5

Ha ha, I see what you did there. You ask how do I feel, not what do I think. Very funny. Obviously I am more impressed with your humor than with the experiments. There is still a long stretch to go from creating amino acids in a lab to creating life. Amino acids are not life. How would you like to pay for a car and receive a load of steel and plastic ingots? A nice little do it yourself project, eh? Put them in a blender for a billion years and see if they turn into a car. Good luck with that.

Answer 6

The creation of organics in the Urey experiment is suggestive, but the overall environment of the time was not conducive to making life as we know it today out of such organics. But DNA life was probably preceded by RNA life, which was preceded by something else, and we know nothing of the details. Once life began, evolution could kick in to produce the panoply of life that we see today. In any event, creationism is useless as a theory because it can predict nothing, and evolution is now a proven fact. (Proof details are available on request; please provide an e-mail address.)

Answer 7

The reason is that ideologically-driven people are very good at ignoring and discrediting things that contradict their ideology.

Science welcomes change, as long is there is proof that the change in thinking is correct. Religious ideologies generally strive to eliminate change, and do not require proof. Thus they are often in conflict with each other.

Answer 8

Read this...!!! http://www.icr.org/article/3140/ Evolution is now proven FALSE!!!

"Finally, no theory of evolution has true predictive power. Darwin predicted that innumerable transition fossils would eventually be found to fill in all those nasty “missing links.” Today, there are more gaps in the Fossil Record than were known in Darwin’s time. The Fossil Record is now known to show many things contradictory to evolution theory. The Fossil Record contains many “bushes,” not one “tree of life.” All phyla are known to exist back to the “Cambrian Explosion.” Even complex vertebrates and invertebrates have been found in Pre-Cambrian layers."

“9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multi-cellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.”

"12. If evolution were true, we should see more and more new kinds coming into existence. If creation is true, we would expect to see extinction of previously existing kinds, and no new kinds coming into existence. The current state of measurable extinction is a “proof” for creation."

- http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=38

Answer 9

Certainly, because faith doesn't require justification, just blind faith.

I consider that experiment of the amino acids in the jar, (if that's what you are talking about) sufficient.

There is talk now that space is full of amino acids, and life is potentially everywhere.

Answer 10

I have studied both sides and both are full of holes, neither is scientifically sound, and both require loads of faith to adhere to the theories.

As far as the abiogeness experiment you referred to... no scientists will promote that anymore. The way he did that was wacky and then there was a cover up. To create the amino acid, a NO OXYGEN environment was used, then immediately it must be in a OXYGEN RICH environment or it will perish.

That has never happened in history, and is never going to happen. It is one of the biggest jokes in the history of science.

The truth is no one will ever *KNOW* cause none of us were there.