The lies behind the Miller experiment

JF.Just to let you know, you are making a common mistake amongst people who are new to science and evolution. You are confusing evolution (the changes in species over time acted upon by natural selection) with abiogenesis (life arising from inorganic origins). Both are compleatly different sciences. One deals with species (organisims), the other is largely chemestry.Because of this you could NEVER cite the Miller-Urey Experiment as anything other than proof of Abiogenesis. It has never been claimed (correctly at least) to support evolution.Just a heads up.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 06:14 PM

Did you not read my post above?The Miller-Urey Experiment is evidence of ABIOGENISIS. Abiogenisis is the study of the possible origins of life thrugh non-organic chemical processes. It's more chemestry than Biology and it has nothing, I reapeat NOTHING to do with evolution.So, if anyone brings it fourth as proof of anything other than ABIOGENISIS, they are in the wrong. Do you understand?The Miller-Urey experiment is Abiogenisis NOT Evolution.If you could repeat the sentece above three (3) times followd by the statement:"I understand the meaning of the above words."We will know that you got it. Ok?Peace.

It's irrelivant weather it faild or not. It cann't be sited as even an ATEMPT to prove evolution. It has NOTHING to do with evolution.It is an expiriment dealing with ABIOGENISIS.Do you understand the difference between the two theories?

Then whoever is using the experiment as proof of evolution is wrong. But science as a whole is not to blame, since research in both fields is kept well in different camps.You may have a bad text book, don't blame the scientists however.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2004 11:08 PM