Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

So? How is the Miller-Urey experiment, wrong?

Biology, what the cells and every components within in each cell (eg the membrane, the plasma, proteins, nucleic acids like DNA, etc, are basically made of atoms, molecules and compounds, hence it is all chemistry, but more complex than inorganic chemistry, but chemical reactions are still chemical reactions, regardless if these are organic or inorganic.

We have better understanding of proteins and DNA than a decade ago, half a century ago, a century ago, and so on.

And you are stuck on, because it was a chemical reacction?

You do realize chemical reactions just about everyday, in our bodies. Whenever we breathe, chemical reaction are happening, chemically turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, because it go through every system in our tissues, because it turn the oxygen intake that provide energy to each cells. It is the same with the food we eat, we break the down into the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, but especially the glucose or sugar, which are the main energy sources for all living organisms, not just for humans. These chemical reactions are called metabolism, whether it come air used respiratory system, or food used in digestive systems.

Metabolism are essential for all living organisms, without them, the cells and tissues would die, the bodies don’t repair damages or injuries, we don’t grow, etc.

Much of what occurred in our bodies, happened without thinking, many of the bodily functions occurred without conscious directions from our minds. The eyes, ears, digestive system (stomach, intestines, etc), circulation system (heart, blood vessels), and many others, all work without us to directing it to the work.

Likewise, plants draw water by its roots, through the stem, branches to the leaves. While the leaves draw in carbon dioxide, and the cells in the leaves, also capture sunlight in which the cell’s chloroplast, the light energy generated the heat required for chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch (sugar or carbohydrate) and oxygen. The starch, like the glucose that are broken down from food animals eat, the starch is the energy source that keep plants alive, healthy and growing.

So yeah, the Miller-Urey experiment used inorganic chemicals to produce organic compounds of different amino acids, but you needs to remember that chain of more than 1 amino acid is required to produce protein, and proteins themselves are building blocks for tissues for every multicellular organisms, like humans.

Without amino acids, there can be no protein. Without proteins, there can be no tissues. Without tissues, there would be no animals (including humans), no plants, and no fungi.

Other experiments, like that by Joan Oró (1961), used different chemicals to produce amino acids as well as adenine, one of the 4 base molecules that exist in both DNA & RNA.

The Abiogenesis is just about the origin of life, but also the origins of every organic molecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that are essential for cellular life form, whether it be multicellular organisms (like fungi, plants or animals), or unicellular organisms (like protists, bacteria or archaea).

One thing is certain, human cannot be made from dust of the earth, which I would assume Genesis 2:7 mean “soil”. Soil type, which are broadly catalogued into 3 main types - sand, silt & clay - are all mainly based on silicon-based minerals, like quartz or feldspar. Well, nothing in human biology have any mineral of silica (sand) or silicate (feldspar, mica). This is why the creation of Adam is nothing more than myth & fiction.

You cannot chemically turn any silicon-based minerals into carbon-based cell and tissues.

"Yet one of the most obvious big questions—how did life arise from inorganic matter?—remains a great unknown." https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was there an answer there? I didn't see one.

"The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" University of Chicago. The origin of life on Earth, explained.
"We know how life, once it began, was able to proliferate and diversify until it filled (and in many cases created) every niche on the planet. Yet one of the most obvious big questions—how did life arise from inorganic matter?—remains a great unknown." https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So? How is the Miller-Urey experiment, wrong?

Biology, what the cells and every components within in each cell (eg the membrane, the plasma, proteins, nucleic acids like DNA, etc, are basically made of atoms, molecules and compounds, hence it is all chemistry, but more complex than inorganic chemistry, but chemical reactions are still chemical reactions, regardless if these are organic or inorganic.

We have better understanding of proteins and DNA than a decade ago, half a century ago, a century ago, and so on.

And you are stuck on, because it was a chemical reacction?

You do realize chemical reactions just about everyday, in our bodies. Whenever we breathe, chemical reaction are happening, chemically turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, because it go through every system in our tissues, because it turn the oxygen intake that provide energy to each cells. It is the same with the food we eat, we break the down into the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, but especially the glucose or sugar, which are the main energy sources for all living organisms, not just for humans. These chemical reactions are called metabolism, whether it come air used respiratory system, or food used in digestive systems.

Metabolism are essential for all living organisms, without them, the cells and tissues would die, the bodies don’t repair damages or injuries, we don’t grow, etc.

Much of what occurred in our bodies, happened without thinking, many of the bodily functions occurred without conscious directions from our minds. The eyes, ears, digestive system (stomach, intestines, etc), circulation system (heart, blood vessels), and many others, all work without us to directing it to the work.

Likewise, plants draw water by its roots, through the stem, branches to the leaves. While the leaves draw in carbon dioxide, and the cells in the leaves, also capture sunlight in which the cell’s chloroplast, the light energy generated the heat required for chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch (sugar or carbohydrate) and oxygen. The starch, like the glucose that are broken down from food animals eat, the starch is the energy source that keep plants alive, healthy and growing.

So yeah, the Miller-Urey experiment used inorganic chemicals to produce organic compounds of different amino acids, but you needs to remember that chain of more than 1 amino acid is required to produce protein, and proteins themselves are building blocks for tissues for every multicellular organisms, like humans.

Without amino acids, there can be no protein. Without proteins, there can be no tissues. Without tissues, there would be no animals (including humans), no plants, and no fungi.

Other experiments, like that by Joan Oró (1961), used different chemicals to produce amino acids as well as adenine, one of the 4 base molecules that exist in both DNA & RNA.

The Abiogenesis is just about the origin of life, but also the origins of every organic molecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that are essential for cellular life form, whether it be multicellular organisms (like fungi, plants or animals), or unicellular organisms (like protists, bacteria or archaea).

One thing is certain, human cannot be made from dust of the earth, which I would assume Genesis 2:7 mean “soil”. Soil type, which are broadly catalogued into 3 main types - sand, silt & clay - are all mainly based on silicon-based minerals, like quartz or feldspar. Well, nothing in human biology have any mineral of silica (sand) or silicate (feldspar, mica). This is why the creation of Adam is nothing more than myth & fiction.

You cannot chemically turn any silicon-based minerals into carbon-based cell and tissues.

So, an important step into fundamental understanding of how life could have formed naturally.

1. Natural amino acid genesis.

Another would be

2. the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayers. An important and fundamental structure in the cells of all living things.

If a natural pathway to nucleic acid synthesis is demonstrated, then a natural origin of living organisms would be in much greater reach than I think literalists would be comfortable with. Since they are clearly uncomfortable with discoveries that happened 70 years ago. It doesn't even have to be the actual mechanism that lead to existing life. Though I don't know of any way to determine that one way or the other.

3. We already know of ribozymes. RNA that can catalyze biochemical reactions with the potential of being a critical step in the development of living organisms.

There is a lot more that has been discovered since the Miller-Urey experiment. Including the development of synthetic genomes and semi-synthetic cells by scientist like Craig Venter.

Literalist creationists always seem to be stuck in the past, hypercritical of some long ago experiment or scientist. Poor Darwin. Forever beaten on while science has progressed well beyond his valuable, significant and basal contribution. Just as science has moved on from the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment. But creationists continue to beat on these past successes as if that is critical to refuting abiogenesis or evolution in any modern sense. And always demeaning the science, while never demonstrating some alternative they tout.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unverified, no. If there were no verification whatsoever, then there would be zero evidence, and no experiments at all.

it “needs more works”, then yes. That’s why Abiogenesis is still ongoing and active hypothesis.

They have found meteorites , especially the larger ones, like the Murchison Meteorite & Allende Meteorite, containing large numbers ogf organic molecules & compounds, so biological matters could certainly arrived from earlier asteroids or meteorites or even from comets.It

But other scientists have explored chemical properties and chemical reactions on Earth, that the origins of biological matters could happen on Earth, like through deep sea hydrothermal vents or much much shallow waters.

So what there are “various answers”? It doesn’t means it is unverified. And it is worth exploring as many possible avenues that life could have occurred.

Exploring answers through sciences, is not the same as being stuck in the dogma that a fully formed and grown human male can magically become alive from dust or soil (like Genesis 2:7)…that’s definitely not the answer, because the creation of Adam is the most ridiculous and unrealistic fantasy.

It may seem that way to you -- I find the idea that God made Adam from the ground and took Eve from Adam's rib a better explanation than first primordial soup, maybe a meteor, then emerging evolution from that to now.

 

[ppp]

"The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" University of Chicago. The origin of life on Earth, explained.
"We know how life, once it began, was able to proliferate and diversify until it filled (and in many cases created) every niche on the planet. Yet one of the most obvious big questions—how did life arise from inorganic matter?—remains a great unknown." https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life#:~:text=The Origin of Origins&text=They showed that organic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.

While American Scientist is a well respected magazine for reviews and educational articles by scientists and engineers, it is a casual publication. It lacks the rigor of peer review. Could you reference a peer reviewed scientific journal as support for your position. Preferably something from within the last decade.

 

[Jimmy]

So, an important step into fundamental understanding of how life could have formed naturally.

1. Natural amino acid genesis.

Another would be

2. the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayers. An important and fundamental structure in the cells of all living things.

If a natural pathway to nucleic acid synthesis is demonstrated, then a natural origin of living organisms would be in much greater reach than I think literalists would be comfortable with. Since they are clearly uncomfortable with discoveries that happened 70 years ago. It doesn't even have to be the actual mechanism that lead to existing life. Though I don't know of any way to determine that one way or the other.

3. We already know of ribozymes. RNA that can catalyze biochemical reactions with the potential of being a critical step in the development of living organisms.

There is a lot more that has been discovered since the Miller-Urey experiment. Including the development of synthetic genomes and semi-synthetic cells by scientist like Craig Venter.

Literalist creationists always seem to be stuck in the past, hypercritical of some long ago experiment or scientist. Poor Darwin. Forever beaten on while science has progressed well beyond his valuable, significant and basal contribution. Just as science has moved on from the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment. But creationists continue to beat on these past successes as if that is critical to refuting abiogenesis or evolution in any modern sense. And always demeaning the science, while never demonstrating some alternative they tout.

The alternative to be touted is the miracle that is all of existence itself.

 

[McBell]

The alternative to be touted is the miracle that is all of existence itself.

"GodDidIt" is not an explanation.
It is a cop out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The alternative to be touted is the miracle that is all of existence itself.

That is not really an alternative. I think life is miraculous even if all that we can say about it is what can be observed naturally. That it may have an natural origin doesn't make it any less wonderful and fascinating. Neither does that disprove God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"GodDidIt" is not an explanation.
It is a cop out.

From a theistic position and my interpretation of the Bible, that sort of glib, meaningless answer should be discouraged and not something I believe to be encouraged by God. But a scientific discussion based on what I believe isn't really a scientific discussion, so what I believe is irrelevant to the subject.

 

[Jimmy]

That is not really an alternative. I think life is miraculous even if all that we can say about it is what can be observed naturally. That it may have a natural origin doesn't make it any less wonderful and fascinating. Neither does that disprove God.

That’s not the definition of a miracle.

 

[ppp]

That’s not the definition of a miracle.

Is there a definition of miracle? There is certainly a tapdance around a definition of miracle.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s not the definition of a miracle.

Your claim isn't an alternative either and I wasn't asked to define miracle. Nor offering a definition.

 

[Jimmy]

Your claim isn't an alternative either and I wasn't asked to define miracle.

The miracle of existence is the alternative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The miracle of existence is the alternative.

It isn't.

 

[Jimmy]

It isn't.

It is. You just don’t see it. You see existence as it is. Which is cool.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is. You just don’t see it. You see existence as it is. Which is cool.

I believe it is miraculous, but that is belief and not an alternative to a scientific explanation. Because others believe something different. And still others something different. And yet again, more others that believe something else different. They can't all be right and declaring one belief is the true belief over all the others is just an empty claim.

I'm glad you believe something, but it cannot be an alternative explanation to an explanation based on the evidence, since it lacks any that is relevant. The only real evidence for a belief is that some people believe it. The actual alternative would be that some people don't.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe it is miraculous, but that is belief and not an alternative to a scientific explanation. Because others believe something different. And still others something different. And yet again, more others that believe something else different. They can't all be right and declaring one belief is the true belief over all the others is just an empty claim.

I'm glad you believe something, but it cannot be an alternative explanation to an explanation based on the evidence, since it lacks any that is relevant. The only real evidence for a belief is that some people believe it. The actual alternative would be that some people don't.

The miracle is the alternative. The scientific evidence you have about existence is evidence of nothing. I would say the rock in your hand is a miracle. You would say the rock in your hand is made up of this that and the other thing and is 2 billion years old. But you have really told me nothing. The so-called evidence that you told me is evidence of nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The miracle is the alternative. The scientific evidence you have about existence is evidence of nothing. I would say the rock in your hand is a miracle. You would say the rock in your hand is made up of this that and the other thing and is 2 billion years old. But you have really told me nothing. The so-called evidence that you told me is evidence of nothing.

I don't have a rock in my hand. I'm just happy to see you.

Describing the evidence of the rock is telling you something.

That is an interesting philosophy and not one I can share. I accept evidence and rational explanations using it. I also hold personal beliefs on faith. But I cannot use those as a reason to dismiss evidence, rational explanation and sound conclusions on that evidence and explanation. I don't believe that God would want me to, since it would be tantamount to false witness in my belief.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe it is miraculous, but that is belief and not an alternative to a scientific explanation. Because others believe something different. And still others something different. And yet again, more others that believe something else different. They can't all be right and declaring one belief is the true belief over all the others is just an empty claim.

I'm glad you believe something, but it cannot be an alternative explanation to an explanation based on the evidence, since it lacks any that is relevant. The only real evidence for a belief is that some people believe it. The actual alternative would be that some people don't.

So you believe life is a miracle? What makes it a miracle?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you believe life is a miracle? What makes it a miracle?

You tell me. You drew first.