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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No abiogenesis = No evolution.
Then get to work and do the experiment that can produce life from non-life.
I read what I said in the original book Darwin wrote says I am not accusing Darwin of anything.
Organic came from inorganic. Deal with it
The problem is, there are some who believe the whole universe was created and has come so far in just 6,000 years. Even if you don't adhere to Darwinian evolution, it's not compatible.
Actually, even based on biogenesis, there could be evolution.
Define life
The primary goal of the Miller-Urey experiment was to test the hypothesis that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic compounds under conditions thought to exist on early Earth, essentially demonstrating the possibility of abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-living matter.
obviously we're living on two sides of the same earth. I think. And of course, that's probably figurative language since I don't know if the earth can be said to have sides. Yeah well anyway -- Because what icant said makes sense. And what you say -- (does not). Plus -- abiogenesis is not supported increasingly by "evidence. " Abiogenesis | Definition & Theory You might want to read that. Nothing increasing about it. Hypotheses maybe that great minds can think about I suppose. Nothing substantial with evidence.
Oh we are. Thank you do much.
Are you saying you can have evolution without Life beginning to exist?
No you will not.
I'm not contesting it. Organic was produced by introducing the components enabling the inorganic substances to produce organic substance. I don't believe and I don't believe scientists think--that organic matter just popped up without any connection outside of itself.
You are not even using the term "organic" properly. Organic chemistry is just carbon based chemistry. That is what an organic chemist works with. There is no need for life to make organic chemicals. As to the building blocks of life they form on their own all over the place. Miller Urey were the first to show that they did not need life but since then there have been multiple sources found for them. They even form in space and no one is arguing that there is life in space.
According to what I read, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules (in this case amino acids) could be created from inorganic materials by what they considered as natural environmental conditions as they thought them to be, such as acidic solution, heat and electrical discharge (lightning), without the mediation of enzymes. (https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.)
Although deliberate breeding is similar to evolution in many ways, they are not the same thing. In breeding, a conscious being decides what qualities to shoot for. Evolution, OTOH, is a completely natural process, where it is the environment that drives the selection process.
Something that reproduces, either by copying itself, or passing down its genes sexually.
It is obvious to me that you also like to play the same game as @YoursTrue
Only theists seem to care about Darwin's religious beliefs.
The experiment produced amino acids. The building blocks of life. Complex molecules of the kind that your ilk likes to brand as "too complex" to form naturally and which "had to be designed".
Darwin cared about them.