What purpose does it serve to figure out how life could have originated at random and also believe in a Creator.
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.
Crash, what other premise did it serve?
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?
Yeah, to show that life could have originated at random.
How would it do that?
As you'll clearly see, he is defending the position that the inquiry is in support of abiogenesis.
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.
Then tell me what purpose it served and why?
I've explained the purpose - to demonstrate that organic amino acids can arise through the sort of inorganic chemistry operating on the early Earth.
8 aminos? Then why do we see across the board with all organisms containing 20 amino's per protein, per molecule?
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.
how have you come to such a radical conclusion?
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.