Let us set aside all of the other problems with the much touted Miller–Urey experiment (e.g., the “atmosphere” assumed in the experiment bears absolutely no resemblance to the early earth’s atmosphere). Indeed, let us go a step further and assume that scientists can develop a mix of chemicals that in fact accurately reproduces early earth conditions in every particular. And finally let us assume they can zap that mix of chemicals with electricity and produce organic compounds.
The paradigm under which Miller-Urey (and similar experiments) was performed is hopelessly stuck in a quaint nineteenth century view of the cell. Our ancestors believed the cell was, in the words of Ernst Haeckel, a “simple globule of protoplasm.”
Today we know better. We know the cell is a mind-bogglingly complex and intricate marvel of nano-technology. Every one of the trillions of cells in your body is not “like” an automated nano-factory. It is an automated nano-factory.
Experiments like Miller-Urey undoubtedly demonstrate that unguided forces can make some of the organic compounds that are “bricks” of life. But bricks are not a building, far less an automated factory. Therefore, suggesting that Miller-Urey and its ilk demonstrate the efficacy of unguided material forces to build a cell is like suggesting a dump truck dumping a pile of bricks on the ground is the same type of activity we need to build an automated car assembly factory.
2 Replies to “Pardon Me If I Am Not Impressed Dr. Miller”
We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. ~ Harold Urey
bevets, it looks like they totally closed that thread to comments because of you. That’s hilarious.