Evolution debunked?

the lab already has all the essential building blocks (all the amino acids, all the proteins, everything) that construct simple life, none of them have to be made by millions of years of waiting...

and anyone can make amino acids from what miller was using, the problem is that those weren't the conditions of pre-biotic earth, that's been proven.

there's obviously a distinction from life (even be it extremely early life) and non-life. therefore there must be a boundary that exist between life and non-life, that's the boundary that science hasn't crossed. and why would that boundary take millions of years to cross? it wouldn't, there's no such thing as semi-life or almost life, we have non living organic stuff and living organic stuff. this signifies a jump from not living to living.

until it's proven that life can arise from the conditions of our early earth (or even being able to make life at all) i will not be satisfied with abiogenesis. maybe life arived here from another planet, or maybe we're all just a galactic science project from some unknown race, i have no clue, but abiogenesis just doesn't seem to be working.
 
the problem is that those weren't the conditions of pre-biotic earth, that's been proven.
Click to expand...

Proven, how so? Someone went back in time with a delorean and witnessed it first hand?
 
Originally posted by ChrisW
the wonderful thing about life is that it had to have a starting point from non-life
Click to expand...
Chris evolution does not attempt to explain origins. It simply explains change in allelic distribution in a population. You are comparing apples with oranges and each time you allude to origins you leave evolution and go off on a tangent. By this reasoning atomic orbital theory must be incorrect as well because it doesn’t explain abiogenesis either.

I have read an interesting theory on origins that went along the lines of river-branching and silicon-silt buildup. It had nothing to do with evolution either. It may or may not be true and either way will have no impact on evolution.

Originally posted by ChrisW
there is a jump from non-life to life, that doesn't take millions of years, it takes a split second.
Click to expand...
As to abiogenesis please define what you mean by "life". What is it you exactly want to see in this test tube? What is "life" by your specific definition?
 
ChrisW-

the lab already has all the essential building blocks (all the amino acids, all the proteins, everything) that construct simple life, none of them have to be made by millions of years of waiting...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct that the lab created the essential building blocks, but still the lab could not continue to progress in the direction of creating life. The amino acids would need millions/billions of years to gain all the small steps to end in life origination. The lab could not accelerate time for this to occur.

This is pretty much irrelevant for the experiment. All they set out to do was to create the building blocks, and this was to show that life could EVENTUALLY evolve into lifeforms.

There are some other theories that might appeal to you regarding this issue-

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date.

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean.

Pvent.gif


Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.

Picelayer.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top