Contemporary Darwinism has quite enough difficulties, thank you, just trying to explain the descent (or if you wish, ascent) of man without adding to the impossible burden the greater impossibility of abiogenesis. For this reason, Darwin's apologists are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis. They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."
This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading. Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life. It is far - very far from that.
To begin with, Miller created a very controlled experiment in a laboratory. Why didn't he experiment in a tidal pool, far more like the "primordial sea" we read about so often?
Miller was a chemist, and added laboratory reagents, and designed the experiment to avoid hydrolysis of amino acids by removing water. Obviously this is something almost impossible to do in the "primordial sea."
Miller produced only a small quantity of one amino acid, and a few traces of others, all of them of course racemic mixtures, and not the optically active stereoisomer, of which our own proteins are made.
Finally, the early atmosphere looked nothing like that in the Miller experiment. (Science magazine, 1995)
Beyond these incredibly vexing (for Darwinists) problems lie even bigger hurdles, as is abundantly evident from the following quote:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and biochemist
Darwin's seminal book was not called "The Origin of Species NOT COUNTING the First Critter." No, it was called "The Origin of Species." It had precisely one picture/drawing, viz. the "tree of life."
Darwin's tree, of course, proposed a single ancestor for all living things. The silliness of attempting to cut the tree off at its base, just AFTER the first living cell is assembled is lost on Darwinists who can do little other than look down at their toes, and drag their shoes around on the floor and try to change the subject when asked about the "origin" of the very first species on earth. It IS, after all, the title of Darwin's book, isn't it.
™ Version 4.2