I think JCL summed up nicely what the experiment
does prove and what it's original purpose infact was ...
Quote:
The purpose of the Urey-Miller experiment was proving that complex amino acids could have formed in the early earth atmosphere just from water and carbon dioxide.
This was not a proof of the origin of life. It was just a final rebuttal of the creationist faith that information gain - complex structures coming out of simple structures - were "impossible".
Most claims based upon this experiment say that it's probably possible to create life, so I don't see why some of you people handle this as if this experiment wrongly proved the creation of life in a lab.
As far as I know, no lifeform has been created in any lab yet, however this experiment has partly shown that it "might be possible to do so".
Assumptions or not, you can hardly do any experiment without them. Apart from that, it's not that impossible to find out how the early earth atmosphere might have been, but yes we may never be 100% sure.
Part of the experiment also said "if the conditions of early earth were as mimicked in the experiment, then ... ", so I don't see any error at all ...
Besides, what if scientists DO succeed in creating life in a lab, would that still mean the conditions were wrong? No, because they succeeded. But also yes, because we can't know for sure? How can they falsify that? I don't think that's possible, unless they succeed in creating life in several different ways, but I think most scientists would agree that that most probably will not be possible.
I know this is just a 'what if ..' argument, but it's valid nonetheless ...
Cheers
