What??
It should not have been expected to result in a living organism... It was designed to test what, if any, of the building blocks of life could be reconstructed from a ProtoEarth-like environment. As it is, dozens of more complex chemical volatiles were produced, including 25 amino acids, only 20 of which are required for life on Earth to function. Since then, via exploration and further experimentation, we've produced more monomers and organics, including 3 of the 4 parts of an RNA chain, and discovered complex organic molecules on nearly ever planetary body that we've visited, all of which further supports the idea that the natural occurrence of these compounds from simpler parts is not only common, but abundant.
A single experiment should never be expected to answer all questions - they simply support or reject hypothesis, determining the viability of future experimentation and the level or "correctness" in current understandings. Miller-Urey signified quite a lot.
I'm not confusing anything. As I've stated, we don't know exactly how Abiogenesis occurred. But we've solved about 90% of the puzzle and study and testing is still ongoing. What more could you possibly ask for?
You're making the claim that it abiogenesis absolutely cannot occur, and you're citing an out of place scientific Law to support you. If anyone is confused, my man, it's you.
Ummm...No. Information is required for everything. Absolutely everything.
Matter is
stuff. It has definable parts. Energy is
something that matter has. They are connected, but they are not one in the same. That's the easiest way to explain it.
All "stuff", everywhere, ever, can be broken down into parts. Each of those parts contains information, regardless of how you want to use the word for your argument. (What is Water without Hydrogen and Oxygen? Where did Hydrogen and Oxygen come from?, How were they fused?, etc)
Again,
Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
Information implies order - and order cannot exist under your understanding of the 2nd Law...
The line between biotic and nonbiotic processes is very thin, and we (humans) are working every day to further define that boundary and to see what makes it all tick.
What?
None of it should have been possible, under your use of the 2nd Law... That was the whole point.
Here you are admitting that it can occur driven by nothing but the Laws of Physics, (forgetting the chemical aspect of all this for some unknown reason) yet you're curiously excluding the origin of biotic processes from the realm of possibility - why is that?
We've pretty well established that the way you're using the 2nd Law doesn't apply here (to either planetary accretion, weather processes, or evolutionary biology). Can we agree on that?
Everything in our solar system, from dirt to snowflakes to people, is the result of a mind-boggingly enormous combination of complex organic and inorganic compounds. I could just as easily say that the same natural processes that produce dirt on a planet's surface, flowing water through it's valleys, and precipitations from it's clouds also produce vegetation, animals, and people "as a result of the Laws of Physics - nothing more." Would I be wrong?
Maybe - unless we discover that it's not, in fact, a closed system...
Expansion isn't slowing down. It's speeding up. Why?
(Neither of us will have a decent answer to this question)
Natural processes are pragmatic - not linear. They can produce complexity, as we've covered already. But they can just as equally produce simplicity in order to solve a "problem".
Most creationists get caught up on the seeming impossibility of very complex things to arise - let alone become something that processes data, which is what your above paragraph proclaims. It is, however, like your previous claims, simply untrue.
Sticking with the computer analogy, imagine the experiments like Miller-Urey produce parts, not amino acids. Your standard for success is a computer, because you've used a working one and can't possibly imagine how something so complex could come from a box of black and white paint, plastic scraps, random and loose wiring, and a junk pile of solder and metal... Those things, on their own, aren't a computer, admittedly.
But those experiments produced more than the 26 letters of the alphabet - they also produced the physical keys on your keypad. They produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - they actually produced a power cable, a CPU, and a tower. They actually produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - but, you're right. They didn't actually make a working computer...
Like with the creationists who don't realize that accepting "micro-evolution" means accepting Evolutionary Theory - you're confused by your own poor arguments. You're conflating the complexity of a cell and devaluing the complexity of what you consider to be a simple natural process, like water crystallization upon freezing, or types of dirt on the crust of an orbiting celestail body.
If the primordial soup can create all the parts for that computer, and then some - so why can't it do more?
The line between life and not-life
And yet, here we are...
That's a very bold claim, especially considering that it's based on something that you don't know very much about.
Tell me, what natural mechanism or scientific law exists which stops the process of information change and adaptation from occurring, at any level. What you're arguing for is that the 2nd Law applies here, only when you want it to, and that it doesn't apply at other times, both of which are equally arbitrary.
That first line is very contradictory to the bold claim you just made in the previous paragragh, don't you think? You first said it was not possible- and then you said it may be possible. Which is it?
You also just said that "NONE" of these scientific requirements have been observed, yet my last two response to you are filled with links showing that 90% of it has been observed, applied, and reproduced... Interesting.
