What is sure is that people are very fond of that kind of futile debates: at least politicians must have found the trick to focus their mind with that on the medias so that they don't focus on more important things .
Let's answer the question. Someone simply post a link to a scientific site that proves evolution by "scientific experimentation". Cross species evolution, not micro-evolution. And lets not forget, just as Miller attempted to produce the building blocks of life, it was still done by "Intelligent Design". I've debated this theory for years. My discovery is that we all believe in a Creator. We simply call Him by different names. "Nature". "Instinct". One other observation. Those that base their beliefs on religion are always referred to as fanatics. The truth is, some of the most rabid responses are from evolutionists/humanists. Perhaps it's because if they're wrong, they don't like the alternatives. So for all of you that place your faith in yourself, post the link.
Yes, but there's an underlying quesiton here: how did the incredible complexity of earthly life occur by chance? That's the big question. Calling that "instinct" or "dumb luck" is too much of a stretch if you ask me...
Actually, we're all being a little too gentle and kind here. I'll put it a little more bluntly: the Miller Urey experiments were a complete disaster The simple origin of life experiments are simple ammonia+methane-->spark-->tar+amino acid residue. Sounds simple, right? Here's what they don't tell you: 1. They ran the experiments several hundred times and only one run gave the amino they were looking for. 2. The run that did work had only a 2% of aminos. And of the the 2% aminos, 95% was the simplest amino glycine! 3. No experiment has produced a decent amount of aminos. But if they did, there's another impossible problem because there are only 20 bioactive aminos. Yet there are 100 amino acids that are adundant. What would the soup do to get rid of the 80 non-bioactive aminos?? 4. Real aminos are split 50/50 right and left handed. No inorganic chain process selects only left or right handed aminos. Yet this is precisely what is found in every living system. Are non-materialist seriously supposed to be believe that these aminos just happened to be all be strung together left handed (homochirality)?? The problem is that after decades of research and attempting to coax, coerce and cajole those poor little amino acids into self-order and self-organization absolutely nothing has happened. Zip. Zippo. The most brilliant minds in the most well-equipped laboratories on planet earth cannot get these molecules to self-assemble. Here's a question for the atheists: do you wonder why panspermia is so popular among non-theistic scientists? Do you wonder why panspermia is so popular in science fiction? It's because the scientific studies show overwhelmingly that life did not form on planet earth without outside intervention. And since many people do not want to accept theism, they turn instead to panspermia.
Thereâs another big problem that Iâve never talked about: even the prebiotic soup itself is an unproven myth! Dilution is another HUGE problem for amino acid assembly in a real world, 3.8 billion years ago environment. UV radiation, thermal conditions, lightning, shock waves and natural chemical reactions would have destroyed most of the organic compounds in the ocean. Also, keep in mind the formula that I said earlier. If there were prebiotic soups, there would "tars", i.e. hydrocarbons. Scientists have searched diligently for such deposits in pre-Cambrian deposits and - you guessed it - they've found zippo! All the materials that scientists have expected to find (nitrogenous cokes, purines, pyrimidines, etc.) are non-existent. In other words, the prebiotic soup is nothing but a fantasy!
>In other words, the prebiotic soup is >nothing but a fantasy! And of course we all know that creationists are the last to buy into any sort of fantasy. The deeper I dig the more I'm proud to be in the "I don't know" group. JB
And for those of you who have heard RNA is the "savior", take a look at the following link on Robert Shapiro's work which devastates the foundations of all RNA-related work: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4396 Here is Shapiro's bio: "Robert Shapiro is Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University. He is author or co-author of over 110 publications, primarily in the area of DNA chemistry."
Yeah, but there's a problem with the "neutral approach". It's called probability: Hoyle and Wickramasinghe looked at the odds of very simple life forming from 2,000 enzymes. (Life with 2,000 enzymes is highly debatable as well, but let's assume that's correct. He calculated the odds at 1 in 10^40,000! Here's a quote from their work: "No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning...there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2000=10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court..." If you don't believe Hoyle, then consider the calculation of Hubert Yockey (one of the leading researchers in information theory and biological systems). He calculated the odds of one protein (not a complex DNA molecule mind you!) forming called iso-1-cytochrome c in ideal lab conditions: 1 in 2^-44! He concluded with the following statement: "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability." Think about it: there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire universe! Face it - this didn't happen by chance. If you won't become at theist or deist, then fine - consider pantheism or panspermia like Hoyle did. But don't kid yourself: life did not occur on planet earth by random processes...
Why do you think NASA and other top level scientists are anxious to comb Mars for life? Do they think it occurred by random processes? Of course not! Think about it: The two scientists that know as much as anyone else about origin of life, Hoyle and Francis Crick, suggested panspermia as a legitimate option. They knew the odds of life forming randomly and searched for extraterrestial origins! That's why NASA is looking desperately for water on Mars. Many top level scientists believe in panspermia and/or other methods of interstellar seeding. Hasn't anyone seen the movie Contact??