The Miller-Urey experiment died in the lab, and all credible scientist have distanced themselves from the disaster that it is.
You keep making assertions with no evidence..no sources..no data...kinda like your preacher taught you...well that shyt doesnt cut it when youre talking about science
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More-recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
Secondly, this is the bait and switch tactic Darwinian evolutionist like to play. If evolutionist are going to make the bold sweeping CLAIM that all of life shares a universal common ancestor then they better dayum well explain who or what that universal common ancestor is and how it came into existence.
no they dont....thats like saying you cant watch star wars wothout seeing episode 1...there a things we dont know..things we do know and things were just beginning to understand....evolution is pretty much fact..doesnt matter what your pastor tells you
Furthermore any imbecile who has raised animals knows that variation within a species happens over time within any population, but to posit that grand scale changes such as macroevolution happens is pure CONJECTURE.
youre killing me here buddy...the periods involved in differentiating species are thousands of years and its not conjecture..DNA sequencing confirms the common ancestry...
If it can't be observed and if it's not testable or reproducible it is not true science.
see the post above...and what do you call fossils ?
Microevolution is the observable variety within a species and is therefore scientific. Macroevolution is the unobservable change from one unique life form into another unique life form and is therefore not scientific but it is based on metaphysics and philosophy. And to let reality speak for itself, everybody knows by everyday observation that specified complexity is only caused by intelligent agents . Against this hardcore reality the worldview naturalism forces evolutionists to believe it is caused by mindless naturalistic processes.
It's pathetically comical how atheists and evolutionists will give space for the possibility of aliens which they have NEVER seen and at the same time shout from the roof top no God exist. This is the classic example of hypocritical fukkery.
If youre going to talk about science you should actually LEARN it first...I feel like im taking over where youre fifth grade teacher fell off
"Microevolution" is a made up nonsense word used by creationists when they cant deny evidence of heritable changes..but it makes as much sense as saying "microgravity" dropped newtons apple but thats different from the gravity that holds the Earth in orbit around the sun.
Can you find ONE credible scientist who distingushes "micro" AND "macro" evolution....
you wont because thats the whole point..those tiny changes adding up over time lead to differnt species...think Dog and a Wolf,Camel and Lama and so on..