Hi all,

I was reading some topics and articles which are related to the chemical evolution...


"The Chemical Evolution" has attracted me to discuss.

I always hesitate to discuss this issue.


Finally, I decided to discuss it with you because, science and knowledge is no.1 goal for me as a new atheist.


My question is,

What makes me love the chemical evolution is because I like Biochemistry so much.


Also, as a new atheist, I have a passion to know more about this subject..


[Spontaneous Generation and the Miller Experiment]

what do you think those who criticize

the Miller Experiment...saying that the Miller experiment has problems..

I really really want to hear your opinion on this subject...


Your thoughts and opinions are always matter to me.



Views: 63

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Miller experiments are old, but there have been more recent ones as well. once I get home and can access my resources with more ease, I will link to some of them.


That's what I expected too..


Thanks :)

The Miller/Urey experiment was the first step in creating life form non-life.  As I understand it, it merely created amino acids.  I say "merely" but it's a pretty big step as amino acids one of the first steps in creating life.  There are many hypothesis on how you get from non-life to life.  RNA world, Iron/Sulfur world, among others.  What we do know is carbon is the most reactive element in the universe.  I have heard - I think from Neil deGrasse Tyson - that carbon is involved in over half of all known chemical reactions.  It is therefore not surprising that life is carbon based.  When you break down what life is made of, it's roughly proportional with how elements are distributed in the Universe. 


As far as chemical evolution, what we need is to get from basic natural chemical reactions to a self-replicating molecule.  We have demonstrated many of the steps needed in various experiments.  Once we have a molecule that can self-replicate, evolution takes over and the rest is history.  Most theists make the common mistake. If we don't know X, therefore God. 


There had been many studies since Miller/Urey, the most exciting being Dr. Jack Stozack at Harvard.  Here's a good video on abiogenisis, creating life from non-life.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjOqWkV1_tk


I agree that upon becoming an atheist a whole new world became available to me.  I literally can't get enough of science since!  It has been an amazing journey.  



I just noticed you're from Saudi Arabia. I know how hard it is to be an atheist in America but I can't imagine in Suadi Arabia. I'm glad you found us. At least you know you're not alone, even if I'm sure you feel lonely.
Thank you for your supporting comment and I appreciate your time.

That was exciting Adriana!

The DNA is the key, the evolutionary biology for example, to the Earth’s biosphere a web of interdependence all based on DNA.

Have you heard of the PAH hypothesis of abiogenesis?

http://www.pahworld.com/  (search for PAH world and you'll encounter enough juicy stuff)

You know, there is a lecture series of Robert M. Hazen by the Teaching Company, it's called "The Origins of Life." Here the science and the history of successive discoveries, frameworks of thought, hypotheses and so are laid out very clearly.

You opened my eyes on this!


yeah, I remembered studing the freezing point of the aromatic compounds.. 

But, freezing point is not as important as mentioning that PAHs are related the origin of life!

I'm sure you will agree with this.


Very helpful, thanks Albert.

I am very intrigued too. But please remember it's as yet an hypothesis.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service