ElishaElijah
Return
They don’t know and can’t prove anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 and performed repeatedly over the years demonstrating the natural formation of amino acids and other life chemicals.
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.[3][4][5]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that more amino acids were produced in the original experiment than Miller was able to report with paper chromatography.[6] While evidence suggests that Earth's prebiotic atmosphere might have typically had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex organic compounds, including amino acids, under varying conditions.[7] Moreover, researchers have shown that transient, hydrogen-rich atmospheres — conducive to Miller-Urey synthesis — would have occurred after large asteroid impacts on early Earth.[8][9]
Organic amino acids and other organic chemicals found in meteorites. The following is one example.
Meteorite Amino Acid Analyses.The predominant amino acids detected were glutamic acid and glycine, with lesser amounts of aspartic acid, serine, alanine, β-alanine, and γ-amino-n-butyric acid (γ-ABA). A similar distribution of amino acids was also found in hot 6 M HCl extracts of Nakhla.
ElishaElijah
Return
I’m glad you cited this because the scientists aren the intelligent design behind the experiment and put this all together which rules out natural selection. Next, where is the life form and was it sustainable even in a lab from then until today? Where is the current stage of the life form created from the scientists ? You should use some critical thinking skills on your own evolution theory, it falls flat.The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 and performed repeatedly over the years demonstrating the natural formation of amino acids and other life chemicals.
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.[3][4][5]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that more amino acids were produced in the original experiment than Miller was able to report with paper chromatography.[6] While evidence suggests that Earth's prebiotic atmosphere might have typically had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex organic compounds, including amino acids, under varying conditions.[7] Moreover, researchers have shown that transient, hydrogen-rich atmospheres — conducive to Miller-Urey synthesis — would have occurred after large asteroid impacts on early Earth.[8][9]
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No, that's you.
Scientists can and do show their work and demonstrate the veracity of their claims.
One of many meaningless incherent chain of responses. You have consistently failed to respond to the objective scientific knowledge and research presented.
Astrophile
Active Member
The Carboniferous period was about 359 million years ago to 299 million years ago. One million years ago was Early Pleistocene.
You asked about the the origin of the chemicals of life and I responded with many source, The Miller-Urey experiments simple set up the environment demonstrating the natural formation of life's chemicals by lightening naturally without an Intelligent Designer.. The other source documented life;s chemical from meteorites. Your response is confusing and incoherent as usual.
Scientists Develop Cell With Synthetic Genome That Grows and Divides Normally
New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life.
Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally
New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life.
March 29, 2021Share
Facebook
Credit: Copyright Emily Grace
Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and dividing, producing cells with wildly different shapes and sizes.
Now, scientists have identified seven genes that can be added to tame the cells’ unruly nature, causing them to neatly divide into uniform orbs. This achievement, a collaboration between the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Bits and Atoms, is described in the journal Cell.
Identifying these genes is an important step toward engineering synthetic cells that do useful things. Such cells could act as small factories that produce drugs, foods and fuels; detect disease and produce drugs to treat it while living inside the body; and function as tiny computers.
But to design and build a cell that does exactly what you want it to do, it helps to have a list of essential parts and know how they fit together.
“We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life,” said Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group. “If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.”
Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0.
Since then, scientists have been working to strip that organism down to its minimum genetic components. The super-simple cell they created five years ago, dubbed JCVI-syn3.0, was perhaps too minimalist. The researchers have now added 19 genes back to this cell, including the seven needed for normal cell division, to create the new variant, JCVI-syn3A. This variant has fewer than 500 genes. To put that number in perspective, the E. coli bacteria that live in your gut have about 4,000 genes. A human cell has around 30,000.
“We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life. If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.” —Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group
Identifying those seven additional genes took years of painstaking effort by JCVI’s synthetic biology group, led by co-author John Glass. Co-lead author and JCVI scientist Lijie Sun constructed dozens of variant strains by systematically adding and removing genes. She and the other researchers would then observe how those genetic changes affected cell growth and division.
NIST’s role was to measure the resulting changes under a microscope. This was a challenge because the cells had to be alive for observation. Using powerful microscopes to observe dead cells is relatively easy. Imaging live cells is much harder.
Holding these cells in place under a microscope was particularly difficult because they are so small and delicate. A hundred or more would fit inside a single E. coli bacterium. Tiny forces can tear them apart.
To solve this problem, Strychalski and MIT co-authors James Pelletier, Andreas Mershin and Neil Gershenfeld designed a microfluidic chemostat — a sort of mini-aquarium — where the cells could be kept fed and happy under a light microscope. The result was stop-motion video that showed the synthetic cells growing and dividing.
This video shows JCVI-syn3.0 cells — the ones created five years ago — dividing into different shapes and sizes. Some of the cells form filaments. Others appear to not fully separate and line up like beads on a string. Despite the variety, all these cells are genetically identical.
Again scientists do not create anything. They just set up the experiments based on Natural Laws and processes and let nature takes its course. No Intelligent Designer necessary.
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
Of course because that’s what you said about science…doesn’t prove anything so we are in agreement. Meaningless and incoherent, that’s the science of evolution and natural process.
No agreement whatsoever.It is your responses that are meaningless and incoherent, stonewalling in response to ojbective verifiable evidence of the Laws of Nature and natural processes as responsible for abiogenesis and evolution.
Where is your objective evidence for an Intelligent Designer without referring to subjective circular arguments?
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
First natural selection rules out all intervention and they admit tiny forces can tear them apart. How about you leave what you created in the experiment in the fish bowl and see how well it does. I mean this is even a tremendous advantage to the atmosphere from the scenario evolutionists are claiming could’ve happened billions of years ago.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
We utilize our understanding of physics to design and create. This in and of itself alludes to intelligent design. What are we to derive our theories and concepts from if not from what we already know? We know that we design things from our intelligence. This does not negate the premise that this takes place over extended periods of time and many processes. Either way, we design from our level of intellect, so viewing life from an intelligent design paradigm isn't necessarily that much of a stretch.
ElishaElijah
Return
What you call circular reasoning is not that at all. We live in a world that is exactly like the Bible describes.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No. The scientists in the study simulated potential natural conditions of early Earth.
These questions don't make any sense.
That is most definitely circular reasoning that the Bible justifies itself without independent evidence.
It remains that there is no objective evidence for the Intelligent Designer to justify Intelligent Design.
ElishaElijah
Return
There’s billions of people living at the moment to verify that what the Bible says about Creation is in fact just like the world we are living in, not just science but archeology, genealogical records, history, prophecy and just plain observation.
False, this is an extreme stretch to the theological argument for Intelligent Design is a specific argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Designer outside nature to explain what they consider the complexity of nature that cannot be explained by science.
Scientific methods, experiments and research simple replicate natural conditions to make predictions to falsify hypothesis concerning the nature of our existence. The human design of experiments is in no may comparable to the Theistic claims of Intelligent Design.
In fact over the recent history of science the claims of irreproducible complexity of the Intelligent Design advocates has been repeatedly refuted. Also the argument for irreproducible complexity represents negative hypotheses which cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. because it simply represents an unverifiable "argument from ignorance" and not objective evidence.
the argument presented by @ElishaElijah is a classic non-scientific argument of "argument from ignorance" and not objective evidence to support the Theist argument of Intelligent Design, Of course there is no objective evidence of an Intelligent Designer..
Last edited:
Belief in a religion does not justify the scripture in any one of the conflicting religions, churches or any other belief systems. Christianity cannot be justified by scripture alone beyond belief any more than than the conflicting beliefs of Judaism. Islam. Buddhism or Hinduism.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
Objectively speaking, do we create and design things from our intelligence? Objectively speaking, have we evidenced the creation of intelligence from an no intelligence source?
ElishaElijah
Return
The Bible is a narrative and story from beginning to end, not a religion. Read and learn
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
If we came from random chemical reactions and our intelligence came through this process, then what's to suggest that intelligence didn't come before we did somewhere else? From what I understand, there's an infinitely large field of possibility out there beyond our capability to observe.