Woese's progenote hypothesis

The sole purpose of the inquiry was to solve the seemingly insoluble in purely materialistic terms. Consider what other applicable purpose it could have possibly served? And to be sure that the study was out of morbid interest to supplant the need and role of an Intelligence beyond us through some capricious force:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/...uise_chem/Exobiology/miller.htmlHere was the problem with the experiment. The entire premise of the inquiry was to prove that life could have originated at random via a few simple compounds in a prebiotic soup, of sorts. (Pay no mind where even the simple chemicals came from). The claim was that miller had succesfully synethized proteins, such as adenine and guanine, but that he failed to produce cytosine and thymine. What's the first problem? Neither of those four bases are even proteins. Those are the four base pairs of a DNA molecule. So what did Miller actually produce and how did he produce it? Miller took what he thought must have been earth's early conditions, which in itself, is pure, unadulterated conjecture. He assumed that the earth's atmosphere was composed of very high concentrations of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, etc. From this volatile mixture, he used a spark ignition in attempt to make a combination that would allow life to come from non-life. What Dr. Miller atually created ws 85% tar, 3% carboxylic acid, and 12% non-living amino acids.What does it take to arrive at just one protein? It takes 20 specific amino acids, placed in sequential order just to produce one protein. This means that Miller just took a wild guess as to what earth's atmosphere was actually comprised of and assumed that his pristine laboratory must have resembled those conditions. I mean, with his mixture, we could assume that a dirty diaper is a breeding ground for a prebiotic mixture, not just the propagation of bacteria. But perhaps my wording of failure was a bit execessive. It was a success on one level. Where as Louis Pastuer was officially credited with demonstrably proving that abiogenesis is impossible, perhaps it was Miller that sealed the deal once and for all. In those regards, the experiment was a success.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Almost certainly theists? How have you deduced that from that their studies? What purpose does it serve to figure out how life could have originated at random and also believe in a Creator. A Creator needs 'create' in order to be a Creator. I think you're bright enough to realize that. Crash, what other premise did it serve? What medicinal value is there in their study? What philanthropy could possibly have derived from the experiment? You claim that I'm spewing some conspiratorial rant but the premsie is quite clear. You tell me what purpose it served and we'll go from there. LOL! Yeah, to show that life could have originated at random. Everyone knows this except you. Here's an interview with Miller. As you'll clearly see, he is defending the position that the inquiry is in support of abiogenesis. Closing your eyes won't make the monster disappear.Just a moment... Then tell me what purpose it served and why? Even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 8 aminos? Then why do we see across the board with all organisms containing 20 amino's per protein, per molecule? Show me functional proteins with as little as 8 amino's , which amino's are they, and how have you come to such a radical conclusion?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner