When Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed, “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur. The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274).
You know what’s interesting?
It’s not so much that it’s obvious that your taking an experiment from sixty (SIXTY!) years ago and almost certainly misinterpreting the results is an act of desperation. That you aren’t talking about current research in abiogenesis and that it has progressed incredibly since this point must be clear to the most simple of minds.
It’s not just that your confusing evolution with abiogenesis shows with blinding clarity that you don’t even have the most rudimentary knowledge on either topic, and are just likely quoting from another source, which also clearly demonstrates that it’s author likewise didn’t have even the most rudimentary knowledge on either topic.
It’s really, rather, what the implication of this leaves for your god.
How the mighty have fallen, huh? From the creation of life all in a single day to the manipulator of a some molecules on a microscopic scale 3.8 billion years ago. Even if we grant that your god created the first reproducing molecules (which we by no means do), where, honestly, does that leave you?
Oh, I know. This is just part of your argument, and you have similar arguments against all of evolution. (And by similar arguments, I of course mean highly strained, amateur, and deliberately misleading arguments, just as this one is.)
But it really all kind of comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it? All of it a laughably fallacious arguments showing where science has it wrong, and none of it giving the slightest evidence as to why creation is right.
I have nothing to add.
“You can’t have a large brain and big guts at the same time,” explains Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation in New York City, which funds research on evolution. Digestion, she says, was the energy-hog of our primate ancestor’s body. The brain was the poor stepsister who got the leftovers.
Until, that is, we discovered meat.
“What we think is that this dietary change around 2.3 million years ago was one of the major significant factors in the evolution of our own species,” Aiello says.
That period is when cut marks on animal bones appeared — not a predator’s tooth marks, but incisions that could have been made only by a sharp tool. That’s one sign of our carnivorous conversion. But Aiello’s favorite clue is somewhat ickier — it’s a tapeworm. “The closest relative of human tapeworms are tapeworms that affect African hyenas and wild dogs,” she says.
So sometime in our evolutionary history, she explains, “we actually shared saliva with wild dogs and hyenas.” That would have happened if, say, we were scavenging on the same carcass that hyenas were.
But dining with dogs was worth it. Meat is packed with lots of calories and fat. Our brain — which uses about 20 times as much energy as the equivalent amount of muscle — piped up and said, “Please, sir, I want some more.”