Chemical Evolution

(I seek critical review of this piece)CHEMICAL EVOLUTIONWe speak of chemical evolution when we speak of chemicals producing organic compounds which in turn eventually develop into organized chemical-biological systems. The basic ideas of chemical evolution were foormulated independantly by Alexander Oparin or the Soviet Union and J.B.S Haldane of Great Britian. It was not until the 1950's that scientists would begin to conduct experiments that would pave the way for broad acceptance of Chemical Evolution.In 1953, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, under the direction of Professor Harold Urey, decided to design an experiment that attempted to simulate the condition of the early earth. An airtight apparatus in which water vapor containing a mixture of hydrogen, methane and ammonia, was circulated past electric charges. The gases were circulated for a week and then the contents of the experimental system were removed. The researchers found a small amount of two amino acids. This was exciting, as amino acids are used in buiding proteins and rightly called the building blocks for life. Based on this experiment, optimists favoring evolution concluded that the needed chemical to construct life could easily have been present in abundace on the early earth. This experiment was also seen to validate that which Oparin and Haldane had proposed, that the early atmosphere was composed of methane, hydrogen and ammonia.It seems though that these scientists beliefs about the primitive earth were mistaken, and that invalidates the Miller-Urey experiment. It does not disprove Chemical Evolution, but it does delete all similar experiments based on false information.An intelligent man, Harold Urey must have known that the building blocks of life would be destroyed if they were exposed to an enviroment with oxygen. Therefore because he believed in chemical evolution, he assumed that the early atmosphere lacked oxygen.The gases which Oparin, Haldane and Urey thought covered the early earth are very different from the ones that cover it today.Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth was not consistent with the Miller-Urey experiment. From 1980 on, NASA has shown that the primitive earth NEVER had any methane, hydrogen or ammonia that would amount to anything. If this were not enough, NASA has consistently shown that the primitive earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.Similar experiments have been preformed with different gases and they have yielded the same results.It may be said that even uder the ideal and unrealistic conditions present in the Miller-Urey experiment, it still failed to produce some of the necessary components of life. Similar experiments suffer the same fate.In Phillip E Johnson's Darwin on Trial, he states, "A generation ago the field of prebiological evolution seemed on the brink of spectacular sucsess; today, it is just about where Darwin left it."
In fact, as there is no evidence for the existence of the 'chemical brew' it is more likely than not that it never existed, and without it there seems to be no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of amino acids by some electrical charges can really have anything to do with the origin of life.It is important that one not consider this the end of the debate. As I stated earlier, this merely invalidates certain experiments, it does not question Chemical Evolution.We have no reason to believe that they were, but suppose all of the required chemicals were present on that primitive earth. We have hit a dead end for we have no reason to believe that life may emerge by having the necessary chemicals sloshing around in a brew that some still believe is not imaginary. Let us be clear: Scientists do all that they can, but the have not been able to manufacture a living organism even with amino acids and sugars etc...Two time Nobel Prize winner, Ilya Prigogine stated that life could never have been formed by chance. "The statistical probability that organix structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."The simplest living cell is as complex as a space ship according to one writer. The cell is as complicated as any modern city, with its defences, transportation system, communication, energy, waste disposal, all the stored information; its incredible. Sir Frederick Hoyle stated that this living organism is as likely to have emerged from that chemical brew we spoke of as a Boeing 747 is to be assembled from a tornade crashing through a junkyard.Ironically it is the evolutionist who tunes out the creationist, dismissing his theory as faith. Well, perhaps it is, but after reviewing chemical evolution, I am at least thankful it is not a blind faith.Respectfully,
ApostleThis message has been edited by Apostle, 07-26-2004 12:35 PM

I think its done now Percy.
Apostle