I do not seem able to get a proposed topic of discussion entered into the science forum.
What am I doing wrong here?
//////
suggested topiv"
Nothing in the Miller and Urey Experiment description is necessarily wrong, but doesn't really accurately reflect modern thinking on the origin of life on earth some would claim.
What was essentially a special case of Spontaneous Generation, which started the unceasing multiplying of that initial protoplasm which became whole kingdoms of life forms, happened nearly 4 billion years.
After all that time there is very little evidence to explain how abiogenesis was possible.
Research since Miller/Urey has been very active and come quite a long ways, some "say", BUT we still know very little.
Modern speculation on the subject is very circumspect, including religious claims of a Spontaneous Generation, and the scientific suspicion of some concrete chemistry at work.
No recent responsible presentation would offer a simplistic scenario like Miller and Urey Experiment without making clear that it's just a very simplified and speculative summary of one possibility for abiogenesis (i.e. the de facto Spontaneous Generation which religion and science had long espoused over the centuries until this very day.
So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.