Miller Experiment?

Question

Now, evolution goes ALL the way back to the primordial soup. But, does it cover not only how life changed, but how life started? If not, what branch of science would it fall under? Or, what theory so to say. The BB does not have anything to do with life, so I think evolution should have to cover this issue, since you can't evolve without having something come to life.

Now, if evolution does cover abiogenesis like I believe it does. And scientists cannot figure out how to do it yet, that it has faith involved? The Miller experiments had several flaws in them. It lacked any oxygen, only had one bolt of electricity (not like a lightning storm would just zap once), it produced mostly lethal materials, produced both right and left amino acids, and didn't produce enough amino acids to create even simple life. Since this experiment (although usually called a great success) obviously failed, and we have no explanation for how it happened, does that require faith to believe in it?

The Miller experiment only proved that you can't create life from non-life. Even under the conditions that they wanted (which goes against the idea of any lightning storm or the idea of an oxygen rich environment) any attempt at life starting would have died because of the lethal toxins produced and the pairs of amino acids (right and left). Just because you make some amino acids at all, doesn't mean anything. You have to consider all of the components with it.

It's a good thing.. Wow, aren't you open for critical and open discussion? I thought science was open to being critiqued and questioned, not just acceptance. You didn't even address the Miller experiment. Why, because I am right about the science and you can't argue against that? And just because scientists don't want to make the obvious link between life starting and life changing doesn't mean that evolution is bull, especially without explaining how life starts from non-life (major component of evolution).

Answer 1

Most text books are removing the miller info, due to its lack of logic. You mention some of is many faults, one thing you have wrong, is that it zapped elec. for a week not just a hit as would have occurred with a lightening storm. The logic of all the chemical being in one place at one time was another great joke.

You must remember, when some one sets out with the goal to disprove a creator, any thing that occurs, will be called a 'great success' simply to build up the hoopla. Anyone who would truly think that life started in such a way, either has far more faith than a Christian does, or is just plan stupid. I vote for the latter.

Answer 2

Abiogenesis makes occasional progress, however much needs to be learned about the original conditions on earth. I've recently read that the necessary amino acids form easily in space (weird!) so that may become a reasonable research path.

If you determine that the experiment failed, but other scientists that study life for a living consider it a success, I would still have to ask you for your credentials to determine the creditability of your opinion as from the research that I've reviewed there are several natural mechanisms that produce amino acids or RNA like structures, this tells me that formation of life is completely possible in nature.

As for the rest of evolution, I don't need faith in it as there is evidence to back it up.

Edit:
If you want to get down into science then you should be asking this in the science section.

Answer 3

No. The theory of evolution is about the diversification of life from a source. It is called a theory because it is sound and tested.

Creationists muddle in origin-of-life hypotheses, because they have not tested to the same extraordinarily high degree.

Your beliefs are rather meaningless, since you obviously are well fed on Creationist lies. Further, you cannot state any facts correctly.
1) The Miller-Urey apparatus sparked continuously for a week, not once.
2) The production of racemic amino acids means nothing. They were produced.
3) Oxygen does not belong in the system. Reactive oxygen compounds -- sulfur dioxide and nitric oxides -- do and were not in the original mix.
4) The purpose of the experiment was to show that the building block of life could form readily. The experiment demonstrated it. That is not a failure.

All you have demonstrated is that your faith is founded on lies.

Answer 4

Abiogenesis is the branch of science that covers life from nonlife. It's still in its infancy, but progress has been made nonetheless.

The purpose of the Miller experiment was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules can form spontaneously in the absence of life under the right conditions. No-one proposes that anything we might consider life would simply pop out of a beaker like that. instead, the proposition is that a simple self-replicating organic molecule might be the spark of life, and that such a thing can in fact form spontaneously under the right conditions.

Answer 5

You really have no idea about which you speak. Miller created the basic building blocks of life and yes there was no oxygen in his experiment since it was not a major factor until a billion years later. Also, life can exist under conditions that would destroy human life as we know it since life exists in acid pools in many areas. It did not "obviously" fail, but you obviously have Little knowledge about which you proselytize.

Answer 6

Theories cover what they cover. Evolution covers life changing over time, not abiogenesis. There may be a unifying theory that covers both some day, but I don't see any reason to claim that evolution isn't true because the theory doesn't account for something it doesn't address.

Answer 7

Abiogenesis likely did not start as shown in the Miller experiments. It started in stable environments where complex molecules could form. Deep oceans near steam vents appear to be good candidates. Extremophiles were unknown during the Miller experiments, they seem to be candidates for the first life, but its a certainty they would leave no fossil remains. Miller simply showed its comparably easy for building blocks for life to form. You are wrong in believing life couldn't form without oxygen.

Miller experiments are not scientific theory nor part of evolution theory. But you seem to want to promote your "God of the gaps" argument as to create a strawman. Sad.

Answer 8

Evolution is not an explanation of how life first arose. Abiogenesis not part of the theory. Evolution just addresses what we observe to have happened to life since it arose. There are several hypotheses about how life first arose but so far we just have interesting hypotheses. So that is not faith its merely saying we don't know yet.

Answer 9

Thankfully, what you think is not science's business.

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Answer 10

God, im still trying to wonder if there really is such a thing as a beggining, cause the Big Bang and God dont make sense without a beggining.