Podcast appearances and mentions of miller urey

Life has always been a mystery. The building blocks, origins, and more are some of the biggest questions in science! The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1952-53, changed our understanding of how life came about and got us one step closer to finding the true answer! What was the Miller-Urey experiment and what the scientists find? … Continue reading "Episode 191: Origins of Life – How Miller-Urey Experiment Changed Everything"

Does life exist beyond Earth, or is our planet genuinely unique? Can we recreate the origins of life in a lab? And what role does Mars play in the quest for cosmic life? I had the extraordinary honor of discussing this with two outstanding scientists, Mario Livio and Jack Szostak. Mario and Jack just released their new book, Is Earth Exceptional?, which seeks to answer whether life is a freak accident or a chemical inevitability. Tune in and join us for this mesmerizing exploration! Mario Livio is an astrophysicist and author known for his work in cosmology and his popular science books. Livio has significantly contributed to our understanding of dark energy, black holes, and other cosmic phenomena.  Jack Szostak is a prominent biologist and Nobel Laureate known for his significant contributions to understanding life's fundamental processes. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009, along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider, for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase. Key Takeaways: 00:00:00 Intro 00:01:33 “Life existing only on Earth is arrogant.” 00:04:09 Miller–Urey experiment 00:08:35 Does extraordinary evidence exist? 00:10:12 Judging a book by its cover 00:14:11 The origin of life  00:22:18 Thoughts on Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee 00:24:59 The role of magnetite in the origin of life  00:31:30 Life on Mars?  00:55:15 Drake equation  00:58:54 Outro  Additional resources: ➡️ Learn more about Mario Livio:

Stephen Meyer is the author of Return of the God Hypothesis and the director of the Discovery Institute. James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist and professor at Rice University, renowned for his work in nanotechnology and his skepticism toward the current scientific models explaining the origin of life.  In this wide-ranging conversation, Meyer and Tour contrast biological evolution with the more complex challenge of chemical evolution, where modern science still struggles to explain how nonliving chemicals could give rise to life. They critique early experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, emphasizing that producing basic molecules is far from creating life itself. Meyer and Tour also argue that as scientific understanding deepens, the complexity of life's origins becomes more daunting, raising both scientific and philosophical questions about the adequacy of the current mainstream scientific explanations and theories for the origin of life.

Don't worry, it's nothing important this week - only the origin of all life on planet Earth. No biggie. Sure, life evolved by natural selection, but to get evolution going, you need to have life in the first place. So where did it come from?Scientists have theories about “abiogenesis” - the moment around 3.5 billion years ago when, having never existed before, biology began. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the theories, and some of the recent studies where scientists have tried to recreate the conditions that might've sparked self-replicating molecules. Are we any nearer to answering one of the biggest questions of all?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress, the online magazine where you can find the best writing on science, technology, and human progress. The latest issue of Works in Progress includes amazing articles on the history of serfdom in Russia, what it's like to be deliberately infected with the zika virus, and how we can create safe markets for organ donation. You can read all that and much more, all for free, at this link.Show notes* Darwin's 1871 “warm little pond” letter* JBS Haldane writing about the origin of life in 1929* The famous Miller-Urey experiment from 1953* Nick Lane and Joana Xavier's 2024 commentary article in Nature, describing the RNA world hypothesis vs. the hydrothermal vents hypothesis, and the open science problems in origin-of-life research* 2015 review on the RNA world hypothesis* 2008 review of the deep-sea vents hypothesis* 2023 PNAS paper with a mathematical model of the co-evolution of replicators and reproducers* 2024 study finding that long-chain fatty acids can be produced in conditions resembling deep-sea hydrothermal ventsCredits and acknowledgementsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We thank Prof. Nick Lane for talking us through the theories of abiogenesis (but he's not responsible for any mistakes in the show). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Sagan once pondered, "How did the molecules of life arise?" This question, echoing through the annals of scientific history, brings us to today's episode. We've long understood the mechanics of evolution, but the origin of life itself remains a captivating mystery. From Darwin's elegant theory of natural selection to the curious idea of Spontaneous Generation, we'll dive deep into the evolution of thought on life's beginnings. We'll also unravel the groundbreaking Miller-Urey experiment, which mimicked Earth's early conditions to create organic molecules.    Music in this Episode Orchestral Rise & Confusion by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/11275-orchestral-rise-confusion, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Under The Surface by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/10639-under-the-surface, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Gamma 135 175 Water Meditations by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/10713-gamma-135-175-water-meditations, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Psychic Cube by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/11767-psychic-cube, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Simple Space Score by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/8867-simple-space-score, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Scorpion Standoff by Tim Kulig, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/8471-scorpion-standoff, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license Blue Scorpion by Kevin MacLeod, Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/3451-blue-scorpion, Licensed under CC BY 4.0: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

One of the fundamental questions of humanity is where did we come from? How did life on Earth come about?  While there have been many theories as to how this could have happened, in 1952, one man decided to actually run an experiment to see if they could replicate the early conditions on Earth.  The results were eye-opening. Learn more about the Miller-Urey Experiment and how it changed our ideas on the genesis of life, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Draft Kings Step into the thrilling world of sports and entertainment with DraftKings, where every day is game day! Join the millions of fans who have already discovered the ultimate destination for fantasy sports and sports betting. Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use code EVERYTHING to score two hundred dollars in bonus bets instantly when you bet just five dollars! Newspapers.com Newspapers.com is like a time machine. Dive into their extensive online archives to explore history as it happened. With over 800 million digitized newspaper pages spanning three centuries, Newspapers.com provides an unparalleled gateway to the past, with papers from the US, UK, Canada, Australia and beyond. Use the code “EverythingEverywhere” at checkout to get 20% off a publisher extra subscription at newspapers.com. Noom  Noom is not just another diet or fitness app. It's a comprehensive lifestyle program designed to empower you to make lasting changes and achieve your health goals. With Noom, you'll embark on a personalized journey that considers your unique needs, preferences, and challenges. Their innovative approach combines cutting-edge technology with the support of a dedicated team of experts, including registered dietitians, nutritionists, and behavior change specialists. Noom's changing how the world thinks about weight loss. Go to noom.com to sign up for your trial today!   ButcherBox ButcherBox is the perfect solution for anyone looking to eat high-quality, sustainably sourced meat without the hassle of going to the grocery store. With ButcherBox, you can enjoy a variety of grass-fed beef, heritage pork, free-range chicken, and wild-caught seafood delivered straight to your door every month. ButcherBox.com/Daily  Subscribe to the podcast!  https://link.chtbl.com/EverythingEverywhere?sid=ShowNotes -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Peter Bennett & Thor Thomsen   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Update your podcast app at newpodcastapps.com Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's bypass the idea that DNA, the blueprint for proteins, couldn't come about by random chance. Perhaps the process worked backwards: perhaps the proteins came first. That was the concept behind the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, in which the chemicals thought to have been present in earth's "primordial soup" (water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2)) were all combined and subjected to electricity, meant to simulate lightning. Proteins are made of 20 amino acid building blocks, and this experiment successfully produced more than those 20 (there are more possible amino acids than just those used in our own core set). This experiment was heralded as proof of abiogenesis, or the production of life from non-living matter. There are a number of major problems with this, though. First, the amino acids produced in this experiment and in all subsequent experiments like it produce a racemic mixture of amino acids, meaning the orientation of the molecules is a combination of non-superimposable mirror images of one another. This refers to the positions of non-symmetrical components of the amino acids, whether they're on the right or the left side (much like our thumbs on our left and right hands appear on opposite sides, as non-superimposable mirror images of one another). However, in nature, amino acids are almost exclusively in the L-form. Its opposite, called the D-form, causes the subsequently formed protein to mis-fold. Since a protein's 3-D structure is determined by the chemistry of its building blocks, and the structure is critical to its function, this makes a protein built of a racemic mixture of amino acids non-functional and toxic to life. This problem has never been circumvented in the laboratory. But even supposing it were, supposing the early environment beginning with chemicals in the primordial soup might somehow produce only L-form amino acids, we'd still have the information problem. Without DNA instructions to tell the body which amino acids to use in which sequence, the average length of a mammalian protein is about 400 amino acids in length. The probability of each amino acid out of 20 being placed in the correct sequence at random is (1/20)^400. If you plug odds like that into an online calculator, what you get is: zero. The probability is effectively zero. And that's just the random formation of a single protein, assuming the orientation of all the amino acids was somehow magically corrected. A single irreducibly complex cell would require somewhere between 3-500 of those. (And that's not even addressing the entirely separate question in abiogenesis of "what constitutes life." A dead body has all of those functional proteins, but they no longer do anything. Why not? What is the indescribable "something" that they have lost--and thus, what would need to be bestowed upon a spontaneously produced protein to cause it to function, even supposing such a protein could be produced in the first place?)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode 197 – Eternal Information – Part 5 – Living Information Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: I will praise you because I have been remarkably and wondrously made. Your works are wondrous, and I know this very well. Psalm 139, verse 14, Christian Standard Bible ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Thank you for joining us here today on Anchored by Truth as we continue the series which we are calling “Eternal Information.” Like several of the other series that we have done on Anchored by Truth this “Eternal Information” points out a fundamental truth about the universe we see around us. Everywhere we look the universe exhibits order and design. That is true for the inanimate features of the universe and even more true for living creatures. Today we are going to focus on the undeniable elements of design present in living creatures. In the studio we have RD who is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. When we look at the composition of living creatures it’s hard to avoid noticing an amazing level of complexity isn’t it? RD: Yes, it is. Anyone who has ever contemplated the properties of a living cell for even a moment has to recognize that human beings still do not have the ability to create structures or systems with that level of design finesse. Our most elegant examples of technology and advanced design pale in comparison to the complexity present to every cell on the planet. Yet, the most amazing thing is that some people continue to insist that all of that sophisticated complexity could have arisen by chance. So, today we’re going to do more of an in-depth look at the most amazing information storage medium on the planet – DNA. We’re doing this because we want people to have facts that run directly counter to the assertion that random chance could have produced living creatures. VK: Well, just as a brief review to set the stage – we have already learned several critical things about information as a fundament component of the created order. Information stands alongside matter, energy, time, and space as a fundamental component that is evident when we make empirical observations about the universe. The difference between information and these other components is that information is non-material. Speaking technically, information is massless. Information is not created by and does not interact with matter, energy, time, or space. We can use matter and energy to transmit, receive, or store information but neither matter nor energy create information. A chemical formula for apple pie or rocket fuel can be written on the same piece of paper using the same ink. The paper and ink do not create the formula, tell us what is in the formula, or affect the formula in the slightest. Thus, information, differs from other massless parts of the universe like photons which are also massless. But photons can be created by matter and energy and do interact with them. RD: And we have seen during this series that information contains specified sequences, elements, codes, and symbols that are arranged or encoded for a specific purpose to produce specific effects. So, in addition to information being non-material another overarching concept that leaps out at us about information is that information is ordered, organized, and specified. All definitions of information reflect these fundamental attributes. VK: So, in studying these attributes of information one information scientist, Dr. Werner Gitt’s has formulated four laws that describe how information behaves within the universe. The first law is “A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.” The second law is that “Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.” The third law of information is that “universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.” Universal information is simply a way of saying that real information possesses the attributes of order, structure, meaning, and potential action that can produce results. This helps us distinguish information from the kind of nonsense that would be produced by a cat walking on a keyboard. The cat might produce some characters on a computer screen that resemble information, but the letters on the screen won’t have order, purpose, or enable meaningful action to take place. RD: Exactly right. These first three laws then lead to a fourth law that will be particularly relevant to our discussion today. The fourth law is that “universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.” Anything that has order, specificity, and purpose must reflect intelligence. There are many predicable patterns in nature that are regular and repeating like crystal lattices or ripples spreading across a pond – but those patterns don’t convey meaning or purpose. They may be beautiful but they don’t tell anyone who much sugar to put in the pie or where the treasure is buried. This distinction immediately leads us to our subject today. Many people believe that chemistry can explain everything we need to know about how living creatures function, but it can’t. VK: As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati reminded us when he was a guest on Anchored by Truth, the information stored in DNA cannot be explained by the chemical components of DNA anymore than the chemical components of paper and ink can explain what appears on a printed page. Paper and ink have chemical elements that form them, but it requires intelligence to use that paper and ink to store or transmit information. RD: Yes. I sometimes ask people a sort-of trick question: “Is biology the product of chemistry and physics?” The answer is clearly no. If chemistry and physics could produce biology we could load some carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen into a vat, provide an energy source like electricity or heat, and “poof” out would come some cells –or at least some organic compounds. But we can’t. VK: But some people would say we have already done that. Some people are under the impression that scientists have created life from non-living chemicals in laboratories. RD: Many people are under the misimpression that the famous experiments conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago starting in 1953 produced life. They didn’t. Some of the more accurate reporting noted that the Miller-Urey experiments while not producing life did produce organic material. Even this was a considerable overstatement of what Miller-Urey produced. The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that some scientists had speculated were necessary to form life—methane, ammonia and hydrogen. They thought these gases might be similar to the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere. They also included water vapor to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below. VK: Well, what did they get out of their experiment and why was it so widely regarded as an evolutionary breakthrough? RD: Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then muddy. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the water trap used to collect the reaction products. The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called best referred to as tar or resin. Tar or resin a common product that results from organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed. What Miller and Urey were looking for was amino acids. VK: Why were they looking for amino acids? RD: The basic structure of all life on earth, whether plant or animal, is a cell. Some creatures like bacteria are only a single cell. Human beings contain over 35 trillion cells. Regardless of the number all life on earth is cellular based. Cells are composed of permeable membranes that encase the components of the cell that actually carry on the business of life. Those components include protein “machines” and other things like nucleic acids. The most famous nucleic acid is, of course, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The proteins that make life possible are built from amino acids. Amino acids are small organic compounds consisting of 10 to 20 atoms. There are hundreds of known amino acids but only 20 of those are used by living creatures. VK: So, did they find any amino acids? RD: They didn’t find any amino acids on their first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine – but the yields were extremely small. Even Miller admitted at the time “The total yield was small for the energy expended.” After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists have only been able to produce tiny amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The other amino acids require much more complex synthesis conditions. And without all 20 amino acids available as a set most known protein types cannot be produced. VK: That would seem to be a big problem. But there were other very significant problems weren’t there? RD: Yes. There was a huge problem with the material that was produced. Chemists divide amino acids into levorotary and dextrorotary. Levorotary or dextrorotary refer to the “chirality” of the molecule - in simple terms whether the molecule is “left handed” or “right handed.” The amino acids of all living forms are levorotary or left-handed. As organic chemist A.E. Wilder-Smith has noted “If even very small amounts of … the dextrorotary type are present, proteins of a different three dimensional structure are formed, which are unsuitable for life’s metabolism.” VK: In other words, the presence of right-handed amino acids can be lethal. So, did the Urey-Miller experiments ever produce pure left-handed amino acids? RD: No. Nor have any similar experiments since produced pure left-handed amino acids. They always produce a combination of the two kinds of amino acids which chemists call a “racemate.” Usually, the proportion produced in these kinds of experiments is what you’d expect – about 50-50. So, this points out one of big failures of the Urey-Miller experiments to be helpful to the idea that living cells could have been produced randomly. Not only didn’t the experiments produce anything that was “alive” – despite all the media hype, they didn’t even produce the kind of building blocks with which real cells are made. VK: And Urey himself acknowledged this problem. He was once asked how life could have formed spontaneously when living creatures require left-handed amino acids but the lab experiments like his only produce mixtures. His reply was, “Well, I have worried about that a great deal and it is a very important question … and I don’t know the answer to it.” Moreover, that’s just the beginning of the problems pointed out by their experiments. The Urey-Miller experiments used an “atmosphere” that was devoid of oxygen – what is commonly referred to as a “reducing atmosphere.” But the earliest known rocks, even according to the long age conventional theories, all show signs of oxidation. Rust is one common form of oxidation with which we’re all familiar. The presence of oxygen in the early earth atmosphere would be a real problem because oxidation would break down any early organic compounds faster than they could be created. RD: So, many scientists today are trying to explain the origin of life by positing that it occurred near deep sea ocean vents. But for life to form water vapor, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane must be present to produce the amino acids. Those amino acids must then combine spontaneously into long chains called polypeptides. But polypeptide synthesis won’t take place in the presence of excess water. Excess water would break down the polypeptides into the component amino acids. So, the appeal to life originating near deep ocean vents comes with a problem that is really unsolvable. VK: The point about all of this is that contrary to widespread public opinion scientists have never “created life in a test tube.” Some surveys have found that as much as 75% of the general public believes they have. Further, scientists have never even produced the kind of amino acids living creatures need simply by shooting an energy source through a mixture of chemical elements, even when they preselect for elements that form the proteins required by life. Scientists can produce levorotary amino acids but only through very carefully designed synthesis protocols that aren’t anything close to the processes found in nature. So, far from demonstrating that random forces could have generated the components of life the Urey-Miller experiments actually demonstrated the extreme improbability of that happening. RD: Right. The Urey-Miller experiments were a success – just not a success at showing how easily the components of living creatures can be produced by undirected “natural” processes. The Urey-Miller experiments were a success at demonstrating the extreme improbability of random processes producing the compounds needed by living creatures and the impossibility of those compounds then becoming organized into proteins, nucleic acids, or cells. But even if the Urey-Miller experiments had produced some or most of the necessary amino acids that still wouldn’t have been very helpful to their original aim. VK: Why not? RD: Because presumably in designing their experiments Urey-Miller injected a considerable amount of “intelligence,” into their experiments. Said slightly differently Urey-Miller applied a considerable amount of information when they designed and conducted their experiments. Remember on their first trial they didn’t get anything “useful” for life. So, they redesigned the experiment. This is a clear example of them acquiring and using information in an attempt to show that life could have arisen without intelligence or information. VK: What you’re saying that even if a group of scientists went into a lab, put some chemicals into beakers, provided an energy source, captured any products formed, and then discovered the right kind of amino acids none of that is random. The scientists are the ones picking the chemicals they put in the beaker and they are using information to do that because they already “know the answer.” They already know what chemical elements are present in living creatures and they know the proportions the various elements represent. The scientists already know that all living creatures need a source of energy to sustain their activity, their life. And they have a pretty good idea of what kind of energy must be present. Too much energy living things get fried. Too little energy living creatures die of starvation or freeze to death. Living creatures live within very narrow limits of the type and amounts of energy they need to sustain themselves. But none of that information would be available to an “organic soup” drifting about in a primeval earth being struck by lightning or boiled by volcanic rifts. The absence of information would be fatal – if there was anything living that could die – which there wouldn’t be. Information is the essential component for transforming inanimate chemical elements into living entities. RD: Yes. Scientists studying living things, then determining the constituent parts of those living things, and then attempting to induce similar things to organize into living things doesn’t demonstrate that life could have arisen randomly. It does the exact opposite. Information and its application were present throughout the process that Urey-Miller attempted to construct. As you just said, Information is an essential component for transforming inanimate chemical elements into living entities. An all-mighty, all-wise God could create the elements He wanted. He did on day one. Then on day three He took some of those elements are organized them in such a way that living things emerged. VK: You’re referring to Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11 through 13 which read, “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.” That’s from the New International Version. RD: Yes. God can create atoms and molecules out of nothing (and he did) because God is infinite in power, wisdom, and sovereignty. God created the atoms and molecules on the first day and then began organizing them into a creation that suited His purposes, including the creation of man on day six. Day three is when he turned those atoms and molecules into the first cells with which He built vegetation. Now, we’re not told expressly when God created the plants that live beneath the seas but it might have been on day three or even day two when the Bible tells us He organized the waters into the seas and the sky. Christians are not left with a dilemma about how hundreds of billions of atoms could all come together at the right place at the right time to make the first living cell. But people who want to leave God out of the arrival of life are. VK: Well, this is a series about information so let’s do a quick check at some of the places information is present in what we know about the process for creating life. Atheists and radical secularists have to figure out how enough hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen arrived at one place and began forming just the right set of chemical bonds to turn those elements into amino acids. So, the first application of information is what elements are going to comprise living creatures. And those aren’t all of the elements that are contained in living creatures. The human body has 21 separate elements some of them in very tiny amounts. Yet despite their relatively small presence they are necessary for us to live. RD: Yes. And it’s not sufficient just to have the elements available. Those elements must combine in just the right way to create twenty different forms of amino acids because those amino acids are going to be necessary to form proteins. The next place information is present is in the chemical structure of the amino acids. And just having the 20 different amino acids doesn’t make a cell or even a protein. Proteins are typically comprised of between 100 to 500 acid “blocks” in a chain. But the proteins don’t just exist as long strings dangling around. The protein string is called its primary structure but then all proteins fold into complicated shapes called their tertiary structure. It’s in their tertiary structure that proteins will interact with one another to perform the functions that sustain life. VK: So, there’s information displayed in how the amino acids are lined up into a particular protein and then, of course, a bunch of free floating proteins doesn’t mean anything is living. Without a permeable cell membrane holding everything together you’d just have a bunch of junk protein. And the cell wall has to be permeable because even though it encloses the cell’s contents energy sustaining materials must come in and waste products must go out. So, there’s more information that describes the membrane’s construction and information that prescribes what energy source is safe for use and what is toxic. And all that is just talking about a single celled organism. We haven’t even begun to think about multi-celled creatures much less mammals and man. There are a great many layers of information necessary to make life, even simple life, possible. RD: Yep. And even if you can get past all those informational barriers all you’ve done is get life going. Cells need instructions for how to operate and, of course, that’s all contained in DNA – which as we are going to see next time actually operates as a four-dimensional information system all by itself. We might have excused Charles Darwin for thinking that living cells are relatively simple constructs but ever since the biomolecular revolution in the 1950’s that excuse has gone away. James Watson and Francis Crick first discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, almost seven decades ago. Since then we’ve mapped the incredible complexity of life in increasingly fine detail including the human genome. Each new discovery adds to our knowledge of how life works but also adds barriers to the idea that random, chaotic forces could have solved the informational puzzle. To this day, no scientist has ever created “life in a test tube” nor have they even produced even the most basic compounds, the right amino acids, from which living creatures are formed. VK: So, as you say physics plus chemistry do not equal biology. Physics plus chemistry plus information equals life. You know it’s just a little bit silly to believe that unintelligent and undirected matter and energy could produce life when even the most intelligent scientists that have lived among us have not been able to do it. That’s one of the reasons King David proclaimed we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” This sounds like a great time to go to prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of corporate confession because we have all fallen short of the standards that God has prescribed for the creatures made in His image. But we can praise Him that there was One who met those standards and then allow us to rest on His perfect merit so we don’t need to rest on our imperfections. ---- PRAYER OF CORPORATE CONFESSION VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the Good News Translation) Acts, Chapter 17, verses 23 and 24, Good News Translation Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis (creation.com) The human genome is amazingly complex (creation.com) Four Dimensional Genome (creation.com) We are less than dust (creation.com)

Episode 174 – 10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know 2 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. Psalm 139, verse 14, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you today as we continue the new series we started last time on Anchored by Truth. So, In the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books and he is the one picking the facts we are covering in this series. RD, you’ve entitled this series “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know.” I’m sure many listeners would wonder how in the world you settled on the 10 facts that we are including in this series. There are surely thousands of facts that are relevant to the Christian faith. Picking 10 means you have to have done some hard thinking. RD: Well, I’d first like to start by thanking everyone for joining us here today. And you are absolutely right that there are thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of facts that are relevant to the Christian faith. I have wanted to do this series for a while to highlight a couple of key points. First, as we discussed last time the Christian faith is a faith of facts. In other words the Christian faith is a faith that reflects the real world, and not just the world as it is today but the entire history of the world – both natural and human history. One of the ways we can be confident about the truth of the Christian faith is that Christianity permits us to test it by examining its principle source – the Bible – through the lens of logic, reason, and evidence. VK: Now in saying that I want to be sure that people understand that we are not elevating man’s logic over the revelation made in the Bible. What you are saying is that the Bible may be tested in the same way a farmer tests his fruit trees. Jesus gave us this test in Matthew, chapter 12, verse 33 which says, “A tree is identified by its fruit. If a tree is good, its fruit will be good. If a tree is bad, its fruit will be bad.” That’s the New Living Translation version of that verse. We can be sure of the Bible’s trustworthiness because we can evaluate its content for accuracy, reliability, consistency, and relevance. When we do so we see that it possesses the attributes we would expect of a book that claims to be the word of God. The Bible is consistent with what we know about world and human history and it gives evidence of supernatural origin. RD: Yes. We do not judge the Bible. The Bible judges us. But the Bible commands us, to use our minds in worship. In John 10:38, Jesus said to a group of people who were about to stone him, “even though you do not believe me, you should at least believe my deeds, in order that you may know once and for all that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father.” Even Jesus didn’t just demand unquestioning obedience. He gave evidence, and a lot of it, that He was who He said He was. In the same way the Bible provides evidence that it is what it says it is. So, part of what we’re doing in this series is to look at a set of facts that serve the same purpose that Jesus’ deeds did. These facts confirm the Bible and its message. But you are right that deciding on just 10 facts was not easy. VK: So, how did you do it? RD: Whenever I think about the Bible I always try to ensure that I start out with the big story. The Bible is one grand saga – the saga of creation, fall, and redemption. The saga features a chosen people, the Jews, a chosen family, the family of David, and, of course, one central person – the Messiah who was Christ Jesus. Those are the primary actors in this unfolding, grand drama but make no mistake – we are all players on the stage. So, when I started thinking about which facts that pertain to Christianity I went back to the places where the grand saga is so misunderstood in our day and age. And, of course, no surprise the misunderstanding of the story begins at the beginning. VK: It’s obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the book of Genesis is the most attacked book in the Bible. For more than a century and a half the attacks have been relentless. In our culture the belief that all life arose from the random collision of inanimate particles has largely supplanted a belief in the creative activity of God. Even many Christians now fall for the idea that God may have started everything but somehow He used evolution to move life along. Long-age uniformitarianism has replaced the idea that the surface of the earth we see resulted from a catastrophic world-wide flood. Few people now believe that the world wide dispersal of human beings and the proliferation of languages resulted from God correcting the behavior of His people at Babel when they tried to build a tower that would reach the heavens. RD: Yes. As you said Genesis is the most attacked book in the Bible and for good reason. If Satan and his human minions can dispense with the necessity of God as creator they can fill the gap with any nonsense that is convenient at the moment. God as creator means God as regulator and the one idea that fallen people hate is that they are accountable to a holy sovereign. So, the first fact that I chose to feature in this series, and that we addressed on our last episode, is the whole notion of what is sometimes termed “deep time.” The simple fact is that there is abundant scientific evidence that is consistent with the age of the earth and universe being thousands of years old rather than millions or billions of years old. VK: Deep time is essentially the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. The secular world must have deep time in order to maintain the illusion that the General Theory of Evolution is plausible. Evolution needs billions of years of time to change bacteria into biologists. The only supposed creative force evolution has is beneficial mutation - in other words the random interaction of unthinking matter. To make the whole evolutionary hypothesis plausible the scheme needs lots of time. Lots of time is necessary so that lots of those random, chaotic, interactive events can take place. They need untold trillions of those interactions in the hope that a few of them will produce a living being so complex that the code that describe its construction can contain 3 billion data elements. RD: Deep time is the root of the evolutionary weed. Destroy the root and the weed dies. VK: I like that phrase. “Deep time is the root of the evolutionary weed.” It’s graphic but appropriate. So, we addressed the issue of deep time in our last episode of Anchored by Truth. What fact do you want to tackle today? RD: Today I want to address the fact that the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. VK: Ok. I think we’re going to need to probe some of the specifics that lead to a statement as definitive as that. RD: I agree. So, let’s start out with the fact that unlike Charles Darwin thought a living cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm. Living cells are enormously complex structures. In fact the simplest living cell is more complex than the most sophisticated machine ever built by man. VK: I think we better get into some specific examples of what you’re thinking about. RD: I agree. So, let’s start with some basic facts about cells. All life on earth is cellular based. We know that there are different types of cells – some have nuclei and some don’t – but all life on earth is based on cells. Some living forms are only a single cell but. Higher forms of life have a great many cells. Recent estimates are that the human body contains 200 different types of cells and about 30 Trillion individual cells. But regardless of whether we’re talking about a single cell bacterium or a human being all life on earth is based on the existence of cells. VK: And we know that all cells are composed of a cell wall, or membrane, that encloses the cells machinery which consists of various proteins. The number of proteins that a particular cell contains varies widely but even the simplest cell contains thousands of individual proteins. Estimates say that the simplest bacterial cell is comprised of at least 100 Billion atoms. That’s Billions with a “B.” In other words, every single cell on earth is a phenomenally complicated system and the complexity of life only increases as we move up the chain. RD: Right. And the sheer numbers only begin to hint at the complexity. All of those protein machines must not only be present but they must be able to properly perform their individual function. Why don’t you go ahead and read that section about cellular composition from Michael Denton’s classic book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis? VK: This is from page 263 from a chapter entitled “The Enigma of Life’s Origin.” The American biochemist Harold Markowitz has speculated as to what might be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self-replicating cell … Such a cell would necessarily be bound by a cell membrane and the simplest one feasible is probably the typical bilayered lipid membrane utilized by all existing cells. The synthesis of the fats of the cell membrane would require perhaps a minimum of five proteins. A minimum of ten proteins would be required for the nucleotide building blocks of the DNA, and for the DNA synthesis. Such a cell would also require a protein synthetic apparatus for the synthesis of its proteins. If this was along the lines of usual ribosomal system, it would require about eighty proteins. … This is the smallest hypothetical cell we can envisage ... since we have allowed no control functions, no vitamin metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism. RD: So, what Denton was describing was the simplest theoretical cell. Some bacterial cells approach that level of “simplicity” but the cells of higher organisms multiply the level of complexity present within each cell. We can get some idea of how much more complicated higher organisms are by considering DNA. The DNA of the simplest self-reproducing organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism. Its DNA contains 482 genes with 580,000 base pairs. But Mycoplasma can’t actually survive by itself. It only survives by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. Mycoplasma has DNA which consists of approximately 500,000 base pairs. Human DNA by comparison consists of 3 Billion base pairs. VK: So, the point of all this is really very simple. Living creatures are enormously complicated systems. Yet the General Theory of Evolution contends that all of this complexity arose as the result of the random collision of bits of matter floating in what is sometimes called a “pre-biotic soup.” Wow. That would have to have been an extremely fortunate accident for 100 Billion of the right atoms to all collide with one another in such a way that a permeable cell wall was instantly formed that contained hundreds of individual proteins that immediately began acting together to sustain and replicate themselves. How do evolutionists address this obvious problem? RD: Well, typically they don’t actually attempt to address the issue of original cellular formation. They try to come at the problem indirectly by talking about how organic pre-cursors may have formed. All of the proteins that comprise cellular machinery are made up of amino acids. So, the evolutionists try to show how these amino acids may have formed without intelligent intervention. That’s one of the reasons the Miller- Urey experiments were so sensationalized during the latter half of the 20th century. VK: In 1953 Harold Urey of the University of Chicago and his 23-year-old graduate student, Stanley Miller. The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with gases that had been speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapor (to simulate the ocean). Next a heating coil kept the water boiling, and they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below. The result was a sort of gooey tar mixture that contained some amino acids. And some scientists of the day proclaimed that scientists had created life in a test tube. Some still do and the Miller-Urey experiments is still prominently featured in many textbooks as proof that life arose from non-life. RD: That’s the contention but the truth is that the Miller-Urey experiments not only didn’t create life they proved how difficult it is for life to have arisen randomly. In his well-known book called Algeny Jeremy Rifkin wrote this: “It turns out that the particular amino acids Miller formed in his experiment are totally unsuitable for the formation of life. Chemists divide amino acids into levorotary and dextrorotary. The latter are incapable of supporting life. … For biogenesis to take place all … amino acids of living protoplasm must be levorotary … if even small amounts of the dextrorotary type are present, proteins of a different three dimensional structure are formed, which are unsuitable for life’s metabolism. … Miller’s experiment produced only [combinations of the two types].” VK: One survey of adult Americans believe that as many as 75% of adult Americans believe that scientists have produced life from non-living chemicals but that’s not true is it? RD: No. All similar experiments since Miller-Urey have resulted only in the production of a combination of levorotary and dextrorotary amino acids which as Rifkin said are completely unsuitable to sustain life. So, all of this biochemistry leads us back to where we began in stating our fact for this episode: the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of inanimate atoms and molecules. VK: Well, as you put it some people believe that chemistry plus physics equals biology. But that’s not true is it? RD: No. And even if a scientist did create “life in a test tube” that would not prove life arose or could arise without intelligent intervention – unless the scientist wanted to claim they themselves were not intelligent! And it is not just that life displays incredible complexity. There are least 3 specific forms of complexity that are present in life: irreducible complexity, specific complexity, and informational complexity. When we speak of “irreducible complexity” we are simply saying that living systems are not only complicated but they must operate as a system. Take one part away or if a single part malfunctions and you don’t just affect that part. The entire system ceases to function. This is very similar to mechanical systems with which we are more familiar. Someone may drive a car worth $100,000 but you can take away a $3 spark plug wire or valve stem out of a tire and the whole car stops. The failure of a single, seemingly insignificant part stops the entire system from functioning. VK: The most graphic example of the failure of a single part stopping an enormously complicated system was the 1986 Challenger disaster. According to Wikipedia “The disaster was caused by the failure of the two redundant O-ring seals in a joint in the Space Shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB). The record-low temperatures of the launch reduced the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, reducing their ability to seal the joints. The broken seals caused a breach into the joint shortly after liftoff, which allowed pressurized gas … to leak and burn through the wall to the adjacent external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand [solid rocket booster’s] aft attachment, which caused it to crash into the external tank, which caused a structural failure of the external tank and an explosion.” RD: Yes. Most people don’t realize that there are dozens of biochemical reactions that must be present for vision to occur. Remove a single one and even though the eye itself might be fine the entire system fails. But the complexity of life is not just irreducible it is also specified. The example most often given of specified complexity is language. We can have a very long sequence of random letters – hundreds, thousands, or millions yet without specificity most of that series will be meaningless. VK: An analog might be if we filled a swimming pool with a child’s letter blocks. There would be enormous complexity in the jumble of blocks but how much meaning would be present. If we started pulling out blocks one at a time, occasionally we will pull out a sequence of 2 or 3 letters that has meaning. The letter “t” and “o” might come out and that means something. Then we pull a “p” and that means something because now we have “top.” But after that, then what? If we pulled out another “p” we could be on our way to “topple” but how likely would we pull out the “l” and “e” in that order? So, a physical situation can be enormously complex but meaningless. But that is not at all how life exists. RD: And with your letter blocks in the pool analogy we start to see the impossibility of aligning the 100 Billion atoms in the simplest cell by random interaction. Specified complexity means that the complexity has been so arranged that it produces use, meaning, or in the ultimate expression – life. Life, all life, exhibits specified complexity. Cells not only have billions of atoms but all of those atoms are organized into micro-machines that perform specific purposes and all those micro-machines must work together properly or the system fails. VK: So, specified complexity leads us to the conclusion that life contains informational complexity. Back to your formula – chemistry plus physics does not equal biology. Nor does the addition of time complete the package for life. Chemical plus physical systems that have been around for a while are just old systems. What transforms chemistry plus physics into biology is information. You might say that information is necessary for animation. Right? RD: Right. There’s a great book that discusses this need thoroughly and compellingly called In the Beginning was Information. Informational complexity is exhibited in all living systems but it is most potently exhibited in DNA. DNA is far more than just a series of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements clinging together in long molecular strings. DNA is an information storage system that is far more complicated, at its simplest, than the most sophisticated human information system. Originally it was thought that the genes that DNA contains controlled the attributes of the creature. It was thought that one gene controls one attribute. VK: But that’s not true at all is it? RD: No. The genes of all higher order animals are pleiotropic which means that most genes control or contribute to the control of multiple aspects of the creature. Moreover, we now know that DNA differs greatly from human information systems in that it is not two dimensional in its storage capacity. It is three dimensional. It can be read not just right to left but left to right and even up and down. In some cases some parts of the code are skipped in providing instructions to the cell while in other cases that part of the code is used. And there is a relatively new discipline called “epigenetics” which tells us that contrary to long standing ideas certain characteristics acquired by an individual during their lifetime can be passed immediately to their descendants. VK: It used to be thought that there was an absolute barrier between what are referred to as “somatic” cells and “germ” cells. Somatic cells are used to build the “body” of the creature. “Germ” cells are reproductive cells. It was thought that there was an absolute barrier between the two and it was called the Weismann barrier. But the latest science indicates that isn’t always true. Yet all of this amazing complexity must be specified somewhere with the DNA. The big point is that living beings do not and cannot exist without enormous information systems being present in every component of the living creature – the cell. RD: Right. The simplest cell will not work if its component parts don’t function properly individually and collectively. The same is true for body systems that those cells build. That’s irreducible complexity. The cells and body systems must be organized in very specific ways. They must exist as systems that have utility, function, and purpose so they must have been developed and must be maintained in very specific configurations. In other words, they are specified in their design and function. That’s specified complexity. And present throughout all living creatures are incomprehensible amounts of information. And the information is not a direct consequence of the underlying chemistry any more than the information on the page of a book is dependent on the chemistry of the ink and paper. The information present in living creatures transcends the physical storage apparatus in the same way that the information contained in a computer has nothing to do with chips, plastic, wires, or metal. And information is the exact opposite of randomness and chaos. Chaotically derived information is not only ridiculous it is impossible. VK: Well, as you said the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. And even King David knew that 3,000 years ago as our opening verse from Psalm 139 demonstrated. Life is complex – irreducibly, specifically, and informationally. But let’s hasten to add that as complex as it is to us, it presents no challenge to an omniscient God. Today let’s listen to a prayer for children who are getting ready to go back to school. And let’s remember that as important as education is to our children parents must always be alert to what their kids are being taught in school, especially public schools. That’s one of the reasons it is so important for us to ground ourselves firmly in facts so we can correct the impressions that circulate so widely today – such as the idea that evolution can explain the marvelous complexity of life. Evolution can’t but the Bible does. ---- PRAYER FOR CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Opening Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation) Psalm 139,verse 14, New Living Translation How simple can life be? - creation.com Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis - creation.com C14 dinos - creation.com

Today, we examine Origin of Life, from a Biblical Worldview vs the current Scientific view. We refer to Dr. James Tour and his argument that there is no proof beyond the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 that life just happened. Tour argues that no one can reproduce the making of cells. The complexity of cells and the processes that take place in them. The following are links that go along support many of the thoughts used in this message.https://www.jmtour.com/media/Flash%20Graphene%20Video%20Rice%20University%202019.mp4      grapheneNanomachines in Medicine - YouTubeDr. James Tour lectureshttps://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Yhttps://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

Today, we examine Origin of Life, from a Biblical Worldview vs the current Scientific view. We refer to Dr. James Tour and his argument that there is no proof beyond the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 that life just happened. Tour argues that no one can reproduce the making of cells. The complexity of cells and the processes that take place in them. The following are links that go along support many of the thoughts used in this message.https://www.jmtour.com/media/Flash%20Graphene%20Video%20Rice%20University%202019.mp4      grapheneNanomachines in Medicine - YouTubeDr. James Tour lectureshttps://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Yhttps://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

RSR Host Fred Williams is joined by Daniel Hedrick for another Contemporary Science Review show. This week the duo look at the ongoing efforts of secular scientists' quest to explain the origins of life while skirting around the huge elephant in the room of Intelligent Design. Instead of using chemicals in the lab such as the Miller–Urey experiment, secular scientists are now resorting to virtual or computer simulations that give the illusion that ecosystems evolve. What these Life Simulators have in common is that they are designed by intelligent minds, and predicated on initial input conditions determined by the intelligent user of the simulator. Daniel also exposes the weakness of AI by inputting a sentence into the AI powered web app Wordtune, which then outputted sentences that changed the meaning. OpenAI recently overhauled their language model in an attempt to address complaints about toxic language and misinformation.

RSR Host Fred Williams is joined by Daniel Hedrick for another Contemporary Science Review show. This week the duo look at the ongoing efforts of secular scientists' quest to explain the origins of life while skirting around the huge elephant in the room of Intelligent Design. Instead of using chemicals in the lab such as the Miller–Urey experiment, secular scientists are now resorting to virtual or computer simulations that give the illusion that ecosystems evolve. What these Life Simulators have in common is that they are designed by intelligent minds, and predicated on initial input conditions determined by the intelligent user of the simulator. Daniel also exposes the weakness of AI by inputting a sentence into the AI powered web app Wordtune, which then outputted sentences that changed the meaning. OpenAI recently overhauled their language model in an attempt to address complaints about toxic language and misinformation.

On today's ID the Future, biologist Jonathan Wells and host Eric Anderson discuss a recently discovered problem with the famous Miller-Urey experiment, long ballyhooed in biology textbooks as dramatic experimental evidence for the naturalistic origin of life. The newly uncovered problem involves the glassware used in the experiment. It is an interesting finding, but as Wells explains, it is far from the first problem discovered with the experiment, nor the most serious one. While biology textbooks often present the 1952 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as a key icon of evolution, even those origin-of-life researchers who hope to one day to discover a credible naturalistic scenario for the origin of the first living cell concede that the experiment Read More › Source

Biologist Jonathan Wells and host Eric Anderson discuss a recently discovered problem with the famous Miller-Urey experiment, long ballyhooed in biology textbooks as dramatic experimental evidence for the naturalistic origin of life. The newly uncovered problem involves the glassware used in the experiment. It is an interesting finding, but as Wells explains, it is far […]

El experimento de Miller-Urey es uno de lo más importantes en los estudios de origen de la vida. Este año, un equipo de científicos encontró que el material del matraz donde se llevaron a cabo los experimentos tenia un papel crucial en la formación de moléculas orgánicas. Entrevista: Bioquímico Jorge Martínez Ortega Créditos: Le Maik, Planeteando

Travel Bans Do Little To Slow Spread Of Omicron After South African researchers first detected the new COVID variant Omicron last week, it's already been found in dozens of countries around the world, including in the United States. Travel restrictions imposed by the Biden administration and others have done little to slow its spread. Instead, experts say that increasing global vaccination rates is critical to stopping future troubling mutations from occurring and spreading. In other news, scientists are re-testing a foundational piece of science, the Miller-Urey experiment, first conducted in 1952, which simulated how life on earth could have originated. Scientists are questioning their old assumptions that the glass container in the original experiment was inert. Joining Ira to talk through these and other big science stories of the week is Sophie Bushwick, Technology editor at Scientific American.   Ralph Nader Reflects On His Auto Safety Campaign, 55 Years Later It's hard to imagine a world without seatbelts or airbags. But five decades ago, it was the norm for car manufacturers to put glamour over safety. “It was stylistic pornography over engineering integrity,” Ralph Nader, prolific consumer advocate and several-time presidential candidate, tells Science Friday. This winter marks the 55th anniversary of Nader's groundbreaking investigation, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” a damning look at how little auto safety technology was in vehicles back in the 1960s. The book had a massive effect on auto safety in the U.S., setting the groundwork for laws about seatbelts, and the creation of the United States Department of Transportation. Nader joins Ira to discuss what's happened over 55 years of auto safety advances, and what kind of work is needed to make sure new technology, like self-driving cars, have the safety checks they need before going out on the roads.   New Drug Reverses Paralysis In Mice With Spinal Cord Injuries Nearly 300,000 people are living with spinal cord injuries in the United States. Currently, recovery or effective treatment remains elusive. Researchers haven't yet figured out a reliable way to knit back together severed spinal cords or nerves. Now, a new study in mice shows promising potential to prevent paralysis after injury. Researchers gave paralyzed mice a specially formulated injection that uses a novel technique called “dancing molecules.” And after a month, the mice were walking again. Joining Ira to better understand this new development in spinal cord treatment is Samuel Stupp, professor of materials science, chemistry, biomedical engineering and medicine, and director of the Simpson Querrey Institute for BioNanotechnology at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an underappreciated, though outsize, role.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an under appreciated, though outsized role.

Stephen Wolfram answers general questions from his viewers about science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: Is there any experiment in computation similar to Miller - Urey experiment? - Can there be life inside a solid? - ill it be possible in the future to create an atmosphere on a planetary scale? - Why can electromagnetic waves transfer in space while sound waves can't? - Could the physics project predict a phenomenon that can't be observed by humans but would be "faster than light"? - What about low frequency electromagnetic waves from giant electromagnets ULF could they be sent and detected like from giant coils? - Do you think AI based government and regulation of economy will be a reality in this century?

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (10/13/21), we pick up where we ended on our previous broadcast and present more of an episode of the Hank Unplugged podcast. Hank is talking with Neil Thomas, author of Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design. Hank and Neil Thomas discuss the false antagonism between religion and science, Darwin's misreading of the Bible and the Book of Nature, how the fossil record has been an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution, how Richard Dawkins continues to hoodwink people, the misinformation with respect to the Miller–Urey experiment, and Panspermia—the hypothesis that life exists throughout the universe and is distributed by things like meteoroids and comets.

Hank Hanegraaff is joined by Neil Thomas to discuss his book Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design. Neil Thomas was a committed Darwinist and agnostic — until an investigation of evolutionary theory led him to a startling conclusion: “I had been conned!” As he studied the work of Darwin's defenders, he found himself encountering tactics eerily similar to the methods of political brainwashing he had studied as a scholar. Thomas felt impelled to write a book as a sort of warning call to humanity: “Beware! You have been fooled!” For more information on receiving Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design for your partnering gift click here. https://www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-cri2110hup/Topics discussed include: What led Neil Thomas to question his acceptance of Darwinian evolution? (7:45); the wide-ranging and significant impact of the Darwinian paradigm (10:15); scientific bias against deism and towards materialism (14:00); how did Darwin gain acceptance of his theories? (16:10); the false antagonism between religion and science—naturalism vs. the miraculous (18:50); was Darwin a fundamentalist? (23:40); the fossil record and the Darwinian paradigm (28:20); Darwinian delusions (30:40); the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment (33:30); the rising popularity of Panspermia (37:45); the unfair accusations of pseudoscience attached to the work of Intelligent Design advocates (40:40); Darwin, Chomsky and how linguistics impact evolutionary theory (44:00); the complexity of the human brain (47:20); how consciousness convinced Alfred Russel Wallace to disagree with Darwinism (50:55); racism, sexism and eugenics as ramifications of social-Darwinism (54:45); materialistic magic in the Darwinian paradigm postulating that something can come from nothing (1:01:00); the privileged planet (1:05:25); how do you explain the rising popularity of the multiverse theory? (1:09:00); what is the mystery of mysteries? (1:13:30); the humility of Einstein as opposed to the hubris of many academic elites (1:16:45); the limits of materialistic explanations (1:19:00); the great historical irony of many post-enlightenment thinkers today (1:22:15); does Intelligent Design make more sense than materialism in an age of scientific enlightenment? (1:23:45). Listen to Hank's podcast and follow Hank off the grid where he is joined by some of the brightest minds discussing topics you care about. Get equipped to be a cultural change agent.Archived episodes are on our Website and available at the additional channels listed below.You can help spread the word about Hank Unplugged by giving us a rating and review from the other channels we are listed on.

What would have to happen for life to arise naturally from non-life? Let's begin thinking through just some of the steps required. Along the way, we'll see how to separate facts from assumptions in “origin of life” studies, including the famous Miller-Urey experiment. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/answerstv/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/answerstv/support

One of the fundamental questions of humanity is where did we come from? How did life on Earth come about?  While there have been many theories as to how this could have happened, in 1952, two men decided to actually run an experiment to see if they could replicate the early conditions on Earth.  The results were eye-opening. Learn more about the Miller-Urey Experiment and how it changed our ideas on the genesis of life, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Out Travel The System Podcast -------------------------------- Associate Producer Thor Thomsen Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere   Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/EEDailyPodcast/ Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/

Today, we go through some of the arguments for god that Cameron Bertuzzi and Dr. Chad McIntosh streamed the other day.Sources:Fireball FAQs - American Meteor Society: https://bit.ly/3dZoqrgMeteor Activity Outlook for February 13-19, 2021: https://bit.ly/304bUycThomas Aquinas and the Five Ways: https://bit.ly/3sAzcbpCosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): https://stanford.io/2MCgzo9Miller-Urey Revisited: https://go.nasa.gov/3rd6htuThe Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment: https://bit.ly/3q8uhN6Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere: https://bit.ly/3e2qxdUThe Concept of Evil: https://stanford.io/3bXrMbgOriginal Video: https://bit.ly/304Wk5s

My AP Biology ThoughtsEpisode #12Welcome to My AP Biology Thoughts podcast, my name is Helena and I am your host for episode 12 called Unit 7 Evolution on Miller and Urey..  Today we will be discussing the first experiment to prove that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds. Segment 1: Introduction to the Miller Urey experiment Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were biochemists at the University of Chicago in 1952, who wanted to explore how life came to be billions of years ago. They created an experiment that was meant to simulate the conditions that they believed could have existed on young earth billions of years ago, around the time the first life was thought to have formed. The point of their experiment was to test what kind of environment needed in order to create life. Their experiment tested Primordial Soup Theory developed by both Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane. The theory states that energy (lighting and rain) energized the gases in earth's early atmosphere to create simple organic compounds that formed an organic “soup”. This soup eventually turned into complex organic polymers and lastly life.  Segment 2: Example of Miller Urey experiment Miller and Urey tested this theory by designing an experiment in which they used a glass flask attached with a pair of electrodes, to hold water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which were the main components of young earth's atmosphere. This flask was connected to another flask that was half filled with water, and held over a heating source. When the water was heating it vaporized and mixed with the gas mixture. As this was happening electrical sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lighting. This simulated atmosphere was cooled so the water condensed in order for it to sink into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus. After a day the solution in the trap turned pink, and at the end of the week they removed the boiling flask and added mercuric chloride to prevent microbial contamination. They stopped the reaction by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid. They then evaporated it to remove impurities. They found that 10%-15% of carbon present was in the form of organic compounds. Miller and Urey used paper chromatography and found that 2% of the carbon went into amino acids, including 13 of 22 amino acids essential to make proteins in living cells, glycine being the most abundant.  Segment 3: Digging Deeper into Miller Urey experimentWhile the experiment only created organic molecules and not a living biochemical system (which in reality would take thousands of years), the results were still, to a large extent, enough to prove the primordial soup hypothesis. This is significant because the experiment was the first to show that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds. It also inspired various other experiments, building more evidence for this theory of the origin of life. Thank you for listening to this episode of My AP Biology Thoughts. For more student-ran podcasts, make sure that you visithttp://www.hvspn.com/ ( www.hvspn.com). Thanks for listening!  Music Credits:"Ice Flow" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Subscribe to our PodcastApple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts   Stitcher   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC07e_nBHLyc_nyvjF6z-DVg (YouTube) Connect with us on Social Media Twitterhttps://twitter.com/thehvspn ( )https://twitter.com/thehvspn (@thehvspn)

Arizona Üniversitesinde Moleküler Biyoloji ve Astronomi alanlarında çalışan Betül Kacar konuğum oldu. Kendisi aynı zamanda astrobiyoloji alanında NASA'nın yeni fonladığı gruplardan birinin başında. Astrobiyoloji neydi? Astrobiyoloji sevgiydi, emekti. Evrendeki yaşamın gelmişi geçmişi geleceği ve tüm olasılıkları hakkında bir alan. Mikrobiyolojiden, yıldız sistemlerinin incelenmesine kadar geniş bir ölçekte çalışan insanları buluşturan bu alandaki çalışmalar ve genel olarak bilime, hayata bakış hakkında uzun uzun konuştuk. Bazı kaynaklar (timecodelu linklere ek olarak):Aeon makalesi: Do we send the goo?Paleontolojinin limitleriSentetik biyoloji***Bölüm Sponsoru: WWF Market (Link) - https://wwfmarket.com/discount/FULARSIZPANDA .***Konular:(00:00) Fularsız haberler.(00:58) Betül Kacar kimdir necidir?(03:03) ICAR ve NASA Duyurusu.(06:09) Gezegenlerdeki yaşam izleri.(08:40) 3.5 milyar yıllık fosil: Jeolojik ve biyolojik kanıtlar.(11:49) Hücre makinesini bozmak.(13:39) 2 milyar yıllık davranışlar.(17:02) Vitalism: Yaşamın sınırı ve hiyerarşisi.(19:03) Kimyasal ağ yapısı.(22:00) Küçücük Rubisco enziminin koca atmosferi değiştirmesi.(27:00) Yeni bir Miller-Urey deneyi: Test tübüne radyasyonu basarsak.(28:15) Protospermia.(29:30) Etik.(31:40) "Prime Directive".(35:10) Bilim hem yavaş hem hızlı ilerliyor.(38:31) İyimserlik ve Fermi Paradoksu.(41:00) NASA etkisi.(46:00) Patreondan Soru: James Webb teleskobu.(46:15) Patreondan Soru: Nası bir bulgu önyargılarını zorlardı.(48:00) Kendine ilham vermek ve survivorship bias.(55:40) Patreon teşekkürleri. ***Patreon: Aylık veya hatta YILLIK destek verin, ikimiz de rahat edelim.Kitap: Safsatalar Ansiklopedisi (4. Baskı çıktı, hem de bu sefer bir kısmı ciltli).

Today, we learn about the Origin of Life on Earth. How did life emerge from the inanimate world? Scientists have a good explaination for how abiogenesis could have occured. We know life emerged spontaneously by chemical processes that we understand, but we don't know exactly what happened 3.5 billion years ago in the primordial soup. This Abiogenesis video will give you good explaination of how many scientists think the primordial soup could have lead to the origin of life on earth. Please watch if you are interested where LUCA, the last universal cellular ancestor, came from. We also discuess the RNA world hypothesis. I also speculate on the chance of life occuring. Are we alone in the universe? I don't think so. Enjoy 3D animations and HD videos while listening to the English narration. Welcome to Animal Science TV, Abiogenesis. The origin of life on earth. timestamps: 0:00 - Abiogenesis Introduction 0:21 - LUCA... Last Universal Common Ancestor 1:30 - What is life? 3:52 - Primordial soup 4:36 - Miller-Urey experiment 5:58 - Chemical evolution 7:50 - Cell membranes 8:56 - Thank you Patreons! 9:09 - Origin of life on Earth 10:27 - Fulfulling the definition 12:03 - What happened 3.5 BYA? 13:01 - Chances of life 14:26 - Are we alone in the universe? 15:00 - Support Animal Science TV Support me on Patreon for video requests and for a shoutout! Just $1 a month helps keep me motivated: https://www.patreon.com/AnimalScienceTV https://www.animalsciencetv.com https://www.facebook.com/AnimalScienceTv https://twitter.com/AnimalScienceTV https://www.youtube.com/AnimalScienceTV Special thanks to my current Patreons: Lab Assistants: The Borbs Research Associates: Susie, Julie Acepilot Lead Scientists: Lisa, Daralyn Kelleher #AnimalScienceTV #AnimalNews #AnimalEducation General Credits: Videos: Property of Animal Science TV Stock Videos: StoryBlocks Standard License Stock Photos: Pixabay, Canva Music: Youtube Audio Library Creative Commons Sound effects: https://www.zapsplat.com Animations: Animal Science TV Specific Credits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Etls-2019-0024c.01.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simplified_tree.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phylogenic_Tree.jpg https://www.onezoom.org/ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photosynthesis_en.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerobic_mitochondria_process.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phylogenetic_tree_of_Theropods_respiratory_system_01.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miller-Urey_experiment-en.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francis_Crick.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Difference_DNA_RNA-EN.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Etls-2019-0024c.01.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TCA_cycle.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Figure_06_01_03.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Succinic_acid_production_with_zero_byproducts,_Glyoxylate_oxidative_route.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:0302_Phospholipid_Bilayer.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_lipid_and_lipid_bilayer.png http://medcell.med.yale.edu/lectures/introduction_cell_membrane.php Fossil JPG: Julien Alleon, GPL. http://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/article1817/

Dr. Woodward discusses the Miller-Urey experiment and gives 20 reasons as to why it came up short as a theory to explain the origin of life. Email any questions or comments to information@apologetics.org to receive a free DVD copy of Illustra Media's Origin: Unlocking the mystery of life!Support the show (http://www.apologetics.org)

Dr. Woodward discusses the Miller-Urey experiment and gives 20 reasons as to why it came up short as a theory to explain the origin of life. Support the show (http://www.apologetics.org)

Show notes: In the show, The Bio Busters professors, Dr. A and Dr. C, discuss with Biology Senior TJ Fisher the mysteries of life and how it could have started in the early days of our planet. The professors discuss abiogenesis, the Miller-Urey experiment, and the RNA world hypothesis among many other musings. Keep the discussion and comments going on the iTunes review section, or feel free to e-mail the podcast with future show ideas and thoughts on the current show.   Music by Bahaa Naamani Email us at thebiobusters@gmail.com   References: “Exploring Life's Origins: Ribozymes & the RNA World.” Accessed November 14, 2018. http://exploringorigins.org/ribozymes.html. Miller, Stanley L. “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.” Science 117, no. 3046 (May 15, 1953): 528–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.117.3046.528. Nasir, Arshan, and Gustavo Caetano-Anollés. “A Phylogenomic Data-Driven Exploration of Viral Origins and Evolution.” Science Advances 1, no. 8 (September 1, 2015): e1500527. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500527. Richter, Viviane. “What Came First, Cells or Viruses?” Cosmos Magazine. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/what-came-first-cells-or-viruses. “Spontaneous Generation | Microbiology.” Accessed November 14, 2018. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/microbiology/chapter/spontaneous-generation/.

This video was supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation. To learn more, visit https://www.heisingsimons.org/ Thanks also to our supporters on https://www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth : - Today I Found Out - Maarten Bremer - Jeff Straathof - Mark Roth - Tony Fadell - Muhammad Shifaz - Melissa Vigil - Alberto Bortoni - Valentin ___________________________________________ Credits (and Twitter handles): Script Writer: Emily Elert (@eelert) Script Editor: Rachel Becker (@RA_Becks) Video Illustrator: Ever Salazar (@eversalazar) Video Director: Emily Elert (@eelert) Video Narrator: Emily Elert (@eelert) With Contributions From: Henry Reich, Alex Reich, Kate Yoshida, Omkar Bhagat, Peter Reich, David Goldenberg Music by: Nathaniel Schroeder: http://www.soundcloud.com/drschroeder _________________________________________ Like our videos? Subscribe to MinuteEarth on YouTube: http://goo.gl/EpIDGd Get early, exclusive access to our videos on Vessel: https://goo.gl/hgD1iJ Support us on Patreon: https://goo.gl/ZVgLQZ Also, say hello on: Facebook: http://goo.gl/FpAvo6 Twitter: http://goo.gl/Y1aWVC And find us on itunes: https://goo.gl/sfwS6n ___________________________________________ If you liked this week’s video, we think you might also like this: Fantastic Aurora: Inside the Sun to Earth's Poles https://youtu.be/N5utQxtma2U?t=3m1s FYI: We try to leave jargon out of our videos, but if you want to learn more about this topic, here are some handy keywords to get your googling started: Abiogenesis – the process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Amino Acids – a class of organic compounds. Twenty of the roughly 500 known amino acids appear in the genetic code, and, when strung together into long chains, form the basic building blocks of proteins. Faint Young Sun Paradox – describes the apparent contradiction between evidence for a warm ancient Earth, and stellar models, which predict that the young Sun was 25% dimmer than today's Sun. First described by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. The Miller–Urey experiment – a landmark experiment in the 1950s in which scientists demonstrated that amino acids could form spontaneously from inorganic gases present in Earth's early atmosphere Snowball Earth – a climatic state of Earth in which the entire surface becomes frozen over. Molecules featured in this video: - Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Methane (CH4) - Nitrous oxide (N20) - Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) - Amino acids (especifically threonine, valine, cysteine and methionine) - Adenine (C5H5N5) - Glycine (C2H5NO2) ___________________________________________ References: Airapetian, V. S., Glocer, A., Gronoff, G., Hébrard, E., & Danchi, W. (2016). Prebiotic chemistry and atmospheric warming of early Earth by an active young Sun. Nature Geoscience Nature Geosci, 9(6), 452-455. doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 Earth's changeable atmosphere. (2016). Nature Geoscience Nature Geosci, 9(6), 409-409. doi:10.1038/ngeo2735 Feulner, G. (2012). The faint young Sun problem. Rev. Geophys. Reviews of Geophysics, 50(2). doi:10.1029/2011rg000375 Leconte, J., Forget, F., Charnay, B., Wordsworth, R., & Pottier, A. (2013). Increased insolation threshold for runaway greenhouse processes on Earth-like planets. Nature, 504(7479), 268-271. doi:10.1038/nature12827 Marchi, S., Black, B., Elkins-Tanton, L., & Bottke, W. (2016). Massive impact-induced release of carbon and sulfur gases in the early Earth's atmosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 449, 96-104. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.05.032 Sagan, C., & Mullen, G. (1972). Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures. Science, 177(4043), 52-56. doi:10.1126/science.177.4043.52 Wolf, E. T., & Toon, O. B. (2014). Delayed onset of runaway and moist greenhouse climates for Earth. Geophys. Res. Lett. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(1), 167-172. doi:10.1002/2013gl058376

Recently NOVA claimed the 1950 Miller-Urey experiment made great strides toward explaining abiogenesis. This is a bold claim, that may not be true? Plug into God-Talk, chill and listen to Dr. Andy & Doug as they decipher the chemistry, the philosophy, and the theological implications of the real story behind this landmark experiment

In this episode, Pete and Kreg discuss the origins of life in response to Sal's question. This topic leads them from panspermia, to the RNA world, the Miller Urey experiment, and space-fairing tardigrades.

AstronomyCast 376: The Miller-Urey Experiment by Fraser Cain & Dr. Pamela Gay

In this episode we will be looking if the Miller-Urey experiment actually proved life from non-life and Haekel's embryos

Modern textbooks are filled with confessions of faith in evolution. Miller-Urey experiment Amino acids produced from a soup of hydrogen…

Transcript: How did life begin on Earth? In the 1950s, a classic set of experiments were conducted by Miller and Urey. The Miller-Urey experiments tried to make life in a bottle. A flask containing water and the basic chemical ingredients of the oceans and the Earth’s atmosphere is given extra energy and left for weeks. After watching this closed experiment for weeks, it turns out that amino acids and complex molecules and other organic material is created. The Miller-Urey experiments give some sense that complexity can emerge from simple ingredients given sufficient time and an energy source. However, in the 1950s we did not know exactly what the early Earth’s atmosphere composition was. It turns out that the first Miller-Urey experiments used too much methane and ammonia and not enough carbon dioxide. Using a more appropriate composition for the early Earth’s atmosphere yields less organic materials, but later versions of these experiments have nonetheless been able to reproduce and produce almost all the amino acids, sugars, lipids, and the five bases needed by RNA and DNA. This is of course not the same as producing a replicating molecule, which has never been seen in one of these experiments, and in fact other chemical constituents are probably needed in addition to a large amount of time to produce the first replicating molecule. But it is an indication that life must have started by the building of larger pieces from smaller pieces.

I entered my Ethics class at the University of Akron. Day one we had to get something out of the way. We needed to get God out of this discussion. After all, what does God know about Morals? Here was their excuse to get God out of the Ethics discussions: 1. There are so many denominations. If people can't agree on God then he doesn't exist. 2. There are universal truths (like don't murder). Did God invent these truths, or did he just relay them? 3. There are no hard facts that God exists. You can run an experiment in a lab and prove God. No we don't want to put our faith into something we can't see. Yes God is all around. To start this podcast we first have to start where everything starts: God. If I walked through the forest and found a watch, would I go, “Wow this dirt has turned into a watch! – Amazing!” No, I'd go, “Someone lost their watch.” It's obvious that somenoe created this watch. It didn't evolve over billions of years from a frog. It's to integrated. It's too intelligent. Even after billions of years, a watch did not evolve from a frog. OK, I know this is dumb. There are birds who have had their beaks evolve over time. However, they are still BIRDS. If we evolved from a big bang, and energy and matter just landed here and we arose from a bunch of goo, I say the complexity is to great. Christians look at God's designs and praise the creator. They put their faith in someone they can't see, but they can see a reflection of his mighty hand in his creations. A non believer puts their faith in time. How did this happen? Their answer is time. Over time everything “just happened.” For today, let's just look at a few things. Let's cover how the planet got here. Let's go back to the beginning. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Science wants to prove that you can create life by chance. One widely used example of how life could have formed by natural processes is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment (Miller-Urey experiment), performed in the early 1950s. Miller's objective was not to create life but to simulate how life's basic building structures (amino acids) might have formed in the early earth. In the experiment, Miller attempted to simulate the early atmosphere of earth by using certain gases, which he thought might produce organic compounds necessary for life. Since the gases he included (water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) do not react with each other under natural conditions, he generated electrical currents to simulate some form of energy input (such as lightning) that was needed to drive the chemical reactions. The result was production of amino acids. Many textbooks promote this experiment as the first step in explaining how life could have originated. But there is more to this experiment than what is commonly represented in textbooks. In the experiment, Miller was attempting to illustrate how life's building blocks (amino acids) could have formed by natural processes. However, throughout the experiment Miller relied on years of intelligent research in chemistry. He purposely chose which gases to include and which to exclude. Next, he had to isolate the biochemicals (amino acids) from the environment he had created them in because it would have destroyed them. No such system would have existed on the so-called primitive earth. It appears Miller used intelligent design throughout the experiment rather than chance processes. Now let's look at the Earth The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life....