What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong

#11
Syne Offline
(Nov 23, 2021 12:00 AM)C C Wrote: Life constantly arises from “nonliving matter”
https://thelogicofscience.com/2018/03/13...ng-matter/

"Creationists often argue that scientists’ lack of knowledge about how the first cell arose is evidence that life could not have arisen “spontaneously from nonliving matter.” Namely, the fact that it isn’t actually true. Life arises spontaneously from “nonliving matter” all the time. Creationists simply frame the argument in a deceptive way that ignores the chemical nature of living organisms. Every time an organism reproduces, life is arising from nonliving matter. Now, creationists will, of course, object to that claim because that new life came from the reproduction of another living organism, but that is actually entirely irrelevant. As I will explain in detail, life itself is simply a product of highly complex chemistry, and the process of reproduction consists entirely of chemical reactions among nonliving atoms. The living organism simply provides the environment in which that chemistry can take place."
That's called equivocation, where you use a more vague term, like "spontaneously from nonliving matter," when anyone who actually understands the science knows that example has nothing to do with abiogenesis. To justify this obvious fallacy, the author has to make ridiculous claims, like "There is no such thing as living matter." Moron atheist making moronic arguments out of their own faith and from an ignorance in science.


(Nov 23, 2021 12:42 AM)confused2 Wrote: All chemical reactions proceed at a rate determined by their probability. I'm fairly sure catalysts don't actually make an impossible reaction possible but they can drastically change the probability of it occurring. The result is that methane, ammonia, and hydrogen might take much longer to make a goo without the borosilicate test tube but it will still happen though possibly not at a rate that works as a school lab project.  It would be surprising if volcanos didn't make borosilicate glass along with other silicate glasses so nature could easily supply the same ingredients as the controversial test tube.
Doesn't matter, as the results still "did not combine to form more complex proteins or anything resembling primitive life."
Reply
#12
Magical Realist Offline
Living matter at the atomic level looks the same as non-living matter. It's just protons and neutrons and electrons doing their chemical thing. Life only appears at the higher cellular level as a particular state of dynamic order and energy. Which means it is an emergent phenomena. And if life can be emergent from inanimate matter now by eating and breathing what's to keep it from being emergent back 3.5 billion years ago?
Reply
#13
Leigha Offline
If only we could test this. . .
Reply
#14
Magical Realist Offline
(Nov 23, 2021 09:35 PM)Leigha Wrote: If only we could test this. . .

Seems they could do it with a computer simulation, running the scenarios of charged macromolecules and their interactions at high speed to see what happens. But I don't know if that would qualify as a reproduction of abiogenesis since the process is being enabled by laboratory conditions. It's hard to account for the element of pure chance over very long periods of time.
Reply
#15
Syne Offline
(Nov 23, 2021 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Living matter at the atomic level looks the same as non-living matter. It's just protons and neutrons and electrons doing their chemical thing. Life only appears at the higher cellular level as a particular state of dynamic order and energy. Which means it is an emergent phenomena. And if life can be emergent from inanimate matter now by eating and breathing what's to keep it from being emergent back 3.5 billion years ago?

More ignorant twaddle.
Reply
#16
Magical Realist Offline
(Nov 23, 2021 10:34 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 23, 2021 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Living matter at the atomic level looks the same as non-living matter. It's just protons and neutrons and electrons doing their chemical thing. Life only appears at the higher cellular level as a particular state of dynamic order and energy. Which means it is an emergent phenomena. And if life can be emergent from inanimate matter now by eating and breathing what's to keep it from being emergent back 3.5 billion years ago?

More ignorant twaddle.

So where did life come from then, assuming you aren't seriously attributing it to some magical skydaddy.
Reply
#17
Syne Offline
(Nov 24, 2021 12:18 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Nov 23, 2021 10:34 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 23, 2021 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Living matter at the atomic level looks the same as non-living matter. It's just protons and neutrons and electrons doing their chemical thing. Life only appears at the higher cellular level as a particular state of dynamic order and energy. Which means it is an emergent phenomena. And if life can be emergent from inanimate matter now by eating and breathing what's to keep it from being emergent back 3.5 billion years ago?

More ignorant twaddle.

So where did life come from then, assuming you aren't seriously attributing it to some magical skydaddy.

The point is that you can't claim something is scientifically true that science cannot demonstrate. Abiogenesis is merely a belief. You can accurately say that science doesn't know where life came from, or you can admit your own conclusions are only beliefs, as I do mine. But claiming an unsupported hypothesis is scientific fact is either ignorance or a lie. And all your justifications for believing in abiogenesis just further reinforces your ignorance.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)