Woese's progenote hypothesis

Well, that was July 1999. In the subsequent 7 years, has Scientific American come out and endorsed the creationist position?No? Hrm. I wonder why not?

There's no skepticism at all over what the experiments - which are actually not "abiogenesis" experiments at all - actually prove, which is that amino acids can have inorganic origin.Now, granted, our conclusions about the chemical origins of life are still uncertain at this time. Many competing models exist. But we don't need perfect knowledge about the chemical origin of life to know that the Biblical account, or any other contention of divine origin, simply doesn't match the facts.

Indeed, no matter what happens, to randman, it proves creationism. Evolutionists have stacks of scientific evidence supporting one conclusion? That proves creationism, because why else would they try so hard. Evolutionists have multiple models for the same event? That proves creationism too.

No. It's like saying that because a barrier held to be impenetrable was penetrated, perhaps other such barriers are not so impenetrable either.

Oh, for God's sake. Both Miller and Urey were almost certainly theists. What possible interest would they have in trying to disprove the god of both their religions?You need to get over these juvenile atheist conspiracy theories. Christians and other theists are overwhelmingly involved in research in evolutionary biology and biochemistry. The idea that all this science is just an atheist plot to disprove God is idiotic. Absolutely 100% false, as you've been repeatedly told. The purpose of the experiment was to establish whether or not amino acids could form under specific inorganic conditions.It was an absolute success, of course. It was never, ever intended to prove the inorganic origin of life all by itself. How could you do that with a single experiment that didn't actually result in anything that was alive?When you rebut a claim that your opponent didn't make, that you just made up yourself, that's called "arguing a stawman." That's exactly what you've done here. The purpose of the experiment was absolutely not what you describe, which is abundantly obvious if you actually look up the experiment you're talking about. Almost entirely incorrect. It's entirely possible to construct functional proteins from as few as 8 different aminos, and possibly even less. Certainly 20 aminos are employed by today's complex life, but there's no reason that all 20 are required right from the beginning.

You'd have to ask them. But you'd have to be pretty ignorant of the vast scope of religious experience to assume that anybody who doesn't believe just like you is an atheist. The exact premise that has explained to you. Did you not understand, or what? The purpose of the Miller/Urey research has been amply repeated to you, in several posts. Did we use too many large words, or what? Or do you simply not believe us? How would it do that? Of course the Miller/Urey experiments support abiogenesis. That's not what I'm saying at all.What I'm saying is that, contrary to your repeated assertion, the purpose of the Miller/Urey experiment was not to single-handedly prove abiogenesis, so pointing out that it doesn't do that is irrelevant. Of course the experiment doesn't do something it wasn't intended to do.It does do what it was intended to do - substantiate the inorganic origin of organic molecules. In that, it was a total success, and absolutely nothing that you've posted changes that. I've explained the purpose - to demonstrate that organic amino acids can arise through the sort of inorganic chemistry operating on the early Earth. We don't see that, and you're clearly not very familiar with what we're talking about, because the majority of proteins are much, much longer than "20 amino acids per protein." Typically proteins are formed from hundreds of amino acids - actually just a part of the amino acid called a "residue" - not just 20. Often they're very small indeed, however.Not every protein has to have all 20 residues. For instance, glucagon, a 29-residue protein, only has 17 different residues.And why wouldn't it? Even the 20 amino acids employed by living things on Earth represent only a small fraction of all the known amino acids. There are hundreds upon hundreds of such amino acids. Living things even today use only a very small number of them. There's no reason to believe that that number couldn't have been even smaller in the past. I opened a textbook? I took a class?In other words, I did exactly what you have never bothered to do - I studied the subject before making grand pronouncements about it.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.