And what source do you have that states this? I can't find anything other than some forum debates and a few Creationist pages (which requote the same thing over and over again without providing citations) that states it's scientifically known that the chemicals produced as a result of that experiment would have been toxic to whatever live evolved in those conditions. In any case, the intent of the experiment was simply to show that the organic compounds necessary for creating life could result from natural processes. The experiment was never intended to actually create life.Originally posted by Darkslash
[B]Miller-Urey produced a vast amount of tarlike material that would have been toxic to the amino acids produced.
Furthermore, how does this show any problems with evolutionary theory? Evolution and Abiogenesis, while capable of being discussed together because they are related topics, are not co-dependent on each other. If you provided absolute concrete proof against abiogenesis that would still not affect the scientific validity of evolution. Evolution is the theory which discusses the development of life, not the creation of it.
No, that's not correct at all. Evolution is not random and undirected. It is specifically directed by natural selection.And yes, evolution is a theory proposing that complex life has come to be from "random, undirected forces." The description put on textbooks is correct, not misleading in the slightest.
If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out.(you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)