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."
Natural History includes abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution does not (how can a theory about population genetics apply when there are no populations or genes?)
This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading.
I think the Miller-Urey experiment was not misleading. It showed that amino acids can be created abiogenetically. Quite straightforward if you ask me.
Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life.
You either misunderstand your chem professors or they are wrong. It is not compelling evidence of abiogenesis of life, but compelling evidence that amino acids can be created abiogenetically. It was the first major experimenet which showed the basic building blocks of life created abiogenetically, that's why the fuss.
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?
Controlled experiments are science, uncontrolled experiments are discounted. Plenty of experiments have been done in the last 50 years, including environments which have a tidal pool type situation (with proteinoids and replicating cell like microspheres forming which create nucleic acids and polypeptides).
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.
Experiments have since been done using catalysts (such as clay substrates) which provide much better results than the primitive Miller experiment.
Finally, the early atmosphere looked nothing like that in the Miller experiment. (Science magazine, 1995)
Yup, much better experiments have been performed in the last 50 years which more accurately model the likely environments of early earth.
“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
Its a good quote. The origin of life does appear to be almost a miracle. To counter quote:
quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
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."
Exactly, it was about The Origin of Species, not the Origin 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.
The actual title of Darwin's book is
"On The Origins of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Reaces in the Struggle for Life"
So it was written to discuss the origin of species by means of Natural Selection, not the Origin of all Life by means of abiogenetic biochemistry. It might even be a push to call the first life a 'species', but I'll let that slide.
™ Version 4.2