Originally Posted by Eddie_T
The Miller experiment used intelligence to create what was “perhaps” a simulated primordial soup, so it’s based upon initial conjecture. Next, they provided high energy sparks to hydrogen-rich gases “thought” to exist on primal earth, another big assumption. The experiment did yield some amino acids and though heralded as a victory it may be the opposite as it yielded a few right and left handed amino acids. Life’s proteins require left handed amino acids and left handed only, even one right handed amino acid would render the protein inoperable. Miller’s experiment had no element of randomness it made several perhaps and assumptive decisions and was controlled by the intelligence of the experimenter. According to wikianswers, “A typical protein contains 200-300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!).”
The Urey-Miller experiment didn't attempt to prove that life developed spontaneously. That is NOT an appropriate conclusion to draw from that experiment.
The test confirmed that a pre-existing biological process was not needed to assemble the component molecules into amino acids.
Many other experiments have confirmed Urey-Miller's conclusions. Many have expanded upon those experiments, adjusting the parameters, adjusting the assumptions you've presented. Taken all together, it becomes quite obvious that there are a LOT of environment where amino acids will spontaneously form. And yes, there are some environments that are utterly hostile to amino acid formation.
Does that prove abiogenesis and disprove "god-did-it" creationism? Of course not. It DOES disprove the notion that life had to exist before amino acids could be synthesized, which is one of the things that can falsify abiogenesis.
Everything you've mentioned is normal, natural, and appropriate skepticism that presents new questions and demands new answers. The difference between science and theism is whether or not a final conclusion is made before those questions are answered.
But again - NONE of this challenges evolutionary theory any more than relativity challenges the idea that objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Regardless of whether life developed spontaneously, was transplanted here by mindless processes or alien intervention, or was created by a divine entity, evolution occurred.