Again... these are very controlled experiments which isn't realistic in the natural world. And then you have the issue of it going from amino acids to producing life from that point... verifiable and empirical.Wow.
The presences of organic matters that you mentioned in some meteorites, and some experiments that you yourself mentioned (eg the Miller-Urey experiment where some inorganic molecules reacted into organic compounds (eg amino acids in the M-U experiment), and you are still demanding for “empirical and verifiable evidence”!
how dumb is that demand.
those were some of the evidence, @Kenny .
Clearly you don’t know what “evidence” means, and you don’t know what it mean by “empirical” and “verifiable”.
Evidence are physical objects that can be OBSERVED, Kenny.
And from those observations, you can acquire a number of “information” about the evidence. These information are what we called DATA. And data are parts of evidence and part of the observations.
Just look at Miller-Urey experiments as an example of physical evidence.
They started with 4 physical evidence - the inorganic chemicals: hydrogen (H2), water (H2O), ammonia (NH3) & methane (CH4).The electrodes are used, to cause electricity to start chemical reaction. Other method of starting chemical reaction is applying heat to the chemicals, but in this experiment, they used both heat and electricity.There are actually over 500 different types of amino acids. But using these 4 inorganic chemicals, Miller and Urey didn’t just make only 1 type of amino acid, the chemical reaction resulted in identifying 9 types of amino acids, back in 1952. That’s 9 evidence, not 1.The chemicals were stored away in sealed vials until Stanley Miller passed away. When vials were examined in 2007, another 11 types of amino acids on top of the original 9 of 1952, hence 20 evidence that inorganic molecules can chemically alter into organic compounds.The reasons why amino acids are important, because we know that amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Of the 500 different types of amino acids, only 22 types are naturally occurring in proteins and the only ones that appear in genetic coding of all life.
The word “empirical” means have “multiple” evidence.
Having empirical evidence is important to physical & natural sciences, because it allows for comparisons between one evidence against the other evidence. The comparisons and tests will show if they have the “same”, “similar” or “different” properties.
Because you have 20 identified types of amino acids, you therefore have 20 empirical evidence.
But you can also Miller-Urey test results against experiments by other scientists using different inorganic chemicals.
As the Earth early atmosphere would have no free oxygen, but plenty of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, plus the frequencies of volcanic activities would have expelled other gases in the atmosphere, like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), these produce even more types of amino acids.
Joan Oró did his experimen in 1961, using water, ammonia and hydrogen cyanide (HCN). It not only produced amino acids, but also one of the 5 nitrogenous bases found nucleotide of DNA & of RNA - adenine.
So multiple different types of experiments were capable of producing amino acids. And 22 of those amino acids are capable of being chained together to form different types of protein molecules.
Proteins are essential, as they are found in every different types of cells, and many of the tissues are mainly made of proteins, eg muscles, connective tissues, skins, organs, nerve tissues, etc. Proteins can also be found in enzymes, important chemical that accelerate chemical reaction, such as those in metabolism.
Anyway, these experiments verified the importance of amino acids as organic compounds that are building blocks of proteins. And as proteins are found in every cells, proteins are one of 4 essential biological macromolecules. Those other essential molecules are nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA), carbohydrates, & lipids.
My point is simple... there are a LOT of assumptions going on here and that is why they say "possible", "maybe", "potentially" et al. if it was "definitely", those other adjectives would not be used.
After they make these faith assumptions and begin building on those faith assumptions with additional faith assumptions until they start talking like it is all verifiable and go from there to what is verifiable and empirical.
