Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: The Miller Urey Experiment

Which bit is deceptive and in which way?

what a laugh urey miller doesnt proof anything..... aminoacids are not living cells (as we know them) so whats so great about celebrating it in the first place....

haha!
Great video!

You could have every element in the universe present in one location and not get one living cell. As even an idiot knows if you take home something that needs assembly required. You need not only the instruction that describe the order but all the parts, tools and just what the end product should like and do, but you need a mind that can understand it.

And not one educated person can argue the point without looking stupid!

common sense! 56% of earth crust is made of oxygen, oceans are full od H2O. and Ureh thought there was no O2 !

The more i look into evolution the more it seems to be impossible

Even if we get protein than how we are gonna get dna as dna requires a proper set of highly complex enzymes for replication + sudden condition like cytosol or other things . Which themselves require dna . And enzymes that are used to made up of dna are themselves teanslated from dna

They didn't even create a single cell let alone a Human, or even a worm.

Experiment to create life fails...
scientist claims proof of life from non-life!?

Doh!

The amino acids produced in Stanley Miller's experiment were not living. Furthermore, they were not the result of mere accident; they were produced by trained scientists under controlled conditions in modern laboratories. Rather than suggesting that life comes from chance, these experiments showed that “all the biological machinery” needed for life “had to be provided by preexisting life” as biologist René Dubos put it.

Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.”

As microbiologist Radu Popa asked in his book Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled? The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

As Nobel laureate Francis Crick, speaking about origin-of-life theories, observed "there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” Chemist Richard E. Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” Professor J. D. Bernal in the book The Origin of Life wrote: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”

Astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell wrote: “The probability of a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. . . . It is effectively zero.”

Similarly, astronomer Fred Hoyle said: “The entire structure of orthodox biology still holds that life arose at random. Yet as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”

Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. But it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design. It is at a molecular level where the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced. Everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”

When an atheist or evolutionist start to discuss with u, he cannot advocate his ideas without using religious stuff, he tries his best to put ADEM, heaven and angels inside the discussion because he alrrady knows that evolution IS NOT A MATTER OF SCIENCE it is a matter of BELIEF. Just want them just to prove the evolution without talking about religions... u will see he cannot.

Assertions, assertions, assertions.
Competent references or evidence? none.