Is the use of the Miller-Urey experiment in Biology textbooks today proof of evolutionary desperation?

Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere -- for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant. The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (Tian et al. 2005).

Your straw man is a dishonest attempt to cast doubt on abiogenetic research based on an experiment that was ONLY a proof of concept for the formation of amino acids. It IS in that way related to origins, and refined experiments have been performed since. You give no discussion of protolife, of any recent early Earth or abiogenetic theories, and dishonestly misrepresent those with whom you disagree. I award you no points and may Thor have mercy on your soul. EDIT: "Evolution automatically fails if it can't even get off the starting block." That is incorrect. The mechanisms for evolution exist. There is incontrovertible evidence that they exist and that they work the way we think they do. If you want to assume that there was intelligent intervention in evolution, be my guest- but I'm telling you right now that if you want to deny that evolution happens based on the idea that abiogenesis didn't, you're going to lose this debate and lose it badly. EDIT2: UV light makes amino acid formation impossible? Is that so? "The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life."

Keep abiogenesis and evolutionary theory separate. If I concede that abiogenesis is poorly understood, even unlikely, will you concede that humans evolved? And that the planet Earth formed through planetary accretion? I'll allow for god creating the first cell, but it seems unlikely given that we know he did nothing else.

the point of the experiment is> under certain circumstances, organic aminoacids CAN form spontaneously. now, stop thinking about the lightning part and move underwater.. no need to bother with UV anymore.

"I posted it earlier but didn't get any satisfying answers..." Maybe because you're posting this in the religion section, if you were actually looking for real answers you would of learned from your last mistakes and posted this in the appropriate section. Atheists aren't all biologists/chemists. "Abiogenesis and evolution go hand-in-hand" No, actually they are two completely separate theories and by posting this it's just showing your complete ignorance of both. Cells weren't the first living life forms, but self replicating molecules which makes this whole Copy & Paste argument of yours fallacious. "Where did the big bang and the sun come from?" You've completely changed the subject, do you actually understand any of what you've parroted from some creationist site or do you just think all the scientific terms cut it ? The origins of the big bang are unknown, but that certainly isn't a good reason for us to point the finger at a god that's assumed to exist simply because we don't have an answer yet. As for the sun.. According to physicists many thousands of millions of years ago (4.6b) the region of space now occupied by our solar system consisted mainly of interstellar gases scattered around many different places. Then an event occurred which would eventually allow life to exist; a nearby star exploded sending a massive shock wave through space. This shock wave caused the random scatterings of gases to collect into many denser clouds and it's thought that these clouds condensed over eons of time, finally becoming dense enough to trigger the nuclear reaction need to form a star - the sun. Ironically, this was part of my homework a few weeks ago and wrote most of this down from the same text book that you're desperately trying to discredit from anti-science literature.

The big bang and evolution is where life came from. God is a fairy tale and doesn't exist. We are just materialized sunlight from the suns energy. Without the sun we would never exist. The energy from the sun caused atoms to get excited and vibrate and move, and everything evolved from there. ------------------------------ Evidence and proof that we evolved by evolution, by ourselves, without the help of any god: DNA sequencing, Endogenous retroviruses, Similarities between all lineages of DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, Pseudogenes Genome and gene duplication Horizontal gene transfer Cat endogenous retroviruses Chromosome 2 in humans Cytochrome c Human endogenous retroviruses Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup Atavisms Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution Nested hierarchies and classification Fossil Record Continental distribution Island biogeography Antibiotic and pesticide resistance E. coli long-term evolution experiment Lactose intolerance in humans Nylon-eating bacteria PCB tolerance Peppered moth Radiotrophic fungus Urban wildlife Vestigial structures in embryonic development: Hind structures in whales Insect mouthparts Other arthropod appendages Pelvic structure of dinosaurs Pentadactyl limb Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes Route of the vas deferens Observed speciation: Blackcap Drosophila melanogaster Hawthorn fly London Underground mosquito Madeira House Mouse Mollies etc, etc, etc... ------------------- Evidence for the existence of a god: None.

"Abiogenesis and evolution go hand-in-hand. Evolution automatically fails if it can't even get off the starting block." Wrong. Abiogenesis is a theory of Chemistry on how life may have arisen on Earth. Evolution is a theory of Biology on how life diversifies, even if abiogenesis was falsified, Evolution would still be true, claiming that debunking one debunks the other is dishonest at best. 20 different amioacids, that is many more than what living beings today have. The only reason Earth has oxygen is because of Life. Life, Cyanobacteria to be exact, are responsibe for the first oxygen. Nowadays it's mostly algae and plants that provide oxygen. Edit: The Big Bang didn't come from anywhere. A cause or a point of origin would require space and time. Cause and Effect, and Location in the case of the big bang are one and the same thing. It marks the beginning of time, and happened everywhere at once. The Sun formed through accretion of interstellar gas and dust, in the accretion disk around it several planets formed, of which 8, a lot of dwarf planets and even more debris, such as asteroids and comets, formed. Several planets even collided, Earth for instance collided with Theia, which gave us the Moon.

Miller-Urey demonstrated what it hypothesized - you can't debunk that - but it's all beside the point as we now know that the same amino acids featured in Miller-Urey are widely disseminated in the solar system via comets and meteorites. Evolution describes the origin of species not the origin of life. The Big Bang is unrelated to both evolution and the origin of life.

Those books are incorrect, it is abiogenesis not evolution, but when evidence meant they had to change the experiment which got better results. Your basic argument is your downfall.