Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

[BobRyan]

Quote:
EVEN THEN it will not get you a VIABLE protein because ALL the amino acids have to be of ONE chiral orientation (left handed) and nobody has found a way to produce all the proteins needed by a cell so that they are all left handed (chemistry argues for random (50/50) distribution of left-and-right when it comes to amino acid chains).

Now, I showed how there actually is a way to make optically pure RNA amd then RNA makes the optically pure amino acids.

You never "Actually SHOW" levro chiral orientation for all amino acids needed for all the proteins in a single living cell.

I don't know if you remember this or not - but the story-telling coming from atheist darwinists is "abiogenesis" they posit LIVING CELLS coming from abiotic matter.

Try to focus.

You have to first MAKE The parts - and then find a way to get them to "Work together".

Currently you have the impossible task of just MAKING THE PARTS.

You want to CLAIM that you have it - but you don't. If YOU DID then we would see it in print. ALL PROTEINS needed to make one single cell have not been MANUFACTURED in the lab from abiotic matter -- all we have to do now is ASSEMBLE them.

No such victory has been actually accomplished - though you seem willing to CLAIM it "anyway" in your endless policy of glossing over details.

 

[BobRyan]

Classic rabbit trailing --

UTEOTW -
I said that you could not justify you claims about anyone having failed to do so because you could not point to us anyone who had tried and failed for it had not happened.

I never claimed that no one would ever try nor did I claim that no one had started an attempt.

That is priceless!!

And some point UTEOTW even you have to see that you are accusing yourself of lying.

 

[genesis12]

Sir Fred Hoyle said that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. Said Hoyle, "It couldn't happen -- ever! Darwininian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." He continues: "The situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory." Why? You believe it, or you can't be in the club. "Quoth the Raven, never more!"

Hey, Bob! I like your avatar!

 

[UTEOTW]

We will keep reminding UTEOTW of the link he is avoiding to WATCH all the many ways he has of "avoiding it some more"

By all means continue. I answered the problems of such a calculation in my first post on this thread. The argument being made is fallacious.

 

[UTEOTW]

You never "Actually SHOW" levro chiral orientation for all amino acids needed for all the proteins in a single living cell.

Continuing to knock that strawman over, eh.

What came first, the protein or the RNA?

In the proposed path for abiogenesis, RNA.

In your strawman, the protein.

Do you now see why this is a strawman? You are proposing that science says something that it does not in fact say and then you proceed to knockover a creation of your own while avoiding what science actually says.

Now I have given you a reference for how to make the optically pure RNA.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

See there. You get the correct right handed RNA chain.

Later, RNA can then make optically pure protein sequences.

Now, can you withdraw your claim that it is not possible to make such optically pure sequences or, instead, show that the proposed method does not actually make optically pure sequences?

See, I told you that you would do you best to avoid this question.

 

[UTEOTW]

Classic rabbit trailing --

Quote:
UTEOTW -
I said that you could not justify you claims about anyone having failed to do so because you could not point to us anyone who had tried and failed for it had not happened.

I never claimed that no one would ever try nor did I claim that no one had started an attempt.

That is priceless!!

And some point UTEOTW even you have to see that you are accusing yourself of lying.

One more time.

You claimed that scientists has "failed" to create "life" from these processes.

I pointed out that this was a strawman because no one had in fact tried and failed. YOu cannot name one group who had tried the whole sequence and failed.

I then gave you a link and quote about a group who was, in fact, attempting a major part of the sequence . These people have so far completed two important milestones and have been getting returns on the final milestone of the project but have not completed it yet.

This in no way contradicts what I said.

In does, however, strongly contradict what you have been asserting.

So, instead, you obfuscate. As usual.

 

[UTEOTW]

Sir Fred Hoyle said that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. Said Hoyle, "It couldn't happen -- ever! Darwininian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." He continues: "The situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory." Why? You believe it, or you can't be in the club. "Quoth the Raven, never more!"

Hey, Bob! I like your avatar!

Fallacious appeal to authority. Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologists, so he can not have an informed opinion on the matter since he is not an expert.

Those who are experts in the field, however, do not seem to find the odds so long.

 

[UTEOTW]

In Romans 1 GOD says that the "Invisible attributes of God" (of which inteillence is the first and most basic) are CLEARLY SEEN in the "things that have been made" EVEN by unbelieving Pagans!!

Francis Crick] An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. [Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and biochemist, was the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule.]
Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 88.

More quote mining. You accidentally added a period to the end there. The sentence, and the paragraph, continued.

. . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago...

 

[BobRyan]

Sir Fred Hoyle said that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. Said Hoyle, "It couldn't happen -- ever! Darwininian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." He continues: "The situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory." Why? You believe it, or you can't be in the club. "Quoth the Raven, never more!"

Hey, Bob! I like your avatar!

Good points all!

Notice how a HARD science like math and statistics is in direct opposition to pseudoscience (junk science actual) story-telling among the "believers" in atheist darwinism? Notice how they have to blindly "attack" Romans 1, Statistics, Common sense. SCIENCE itself!!

Notice that they "want" to claim that statistical science CAN NOT rightly demonstrate that 52 cards in a deck can EASILY be arranged into a 52 card sequence and that the probability is 1 1:1!!

They have to 'use rabbit trail tactics' for bogus test case "proofs" that don't hold water and are so "transparent" as to reveal their desperate faith-based arguments IN FAVOR of atheist darwinism and against science!!

How sad.

How amazing that Crick READILY admits to what Romans 1 says UNBELIEVERS will see clearly "IN THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE". He admits that "random events" do not account for it!!

 

[BobRyan]

The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago...

Hence Crick's SOLUTION - "it did not HAPPEN HERE" it must have been PLACED here by some "Event".

RATHER Than "HEY I found a sequence of chemical reactions that DO result in a living cell!!".

Notice that the huge number of "variables" are what DRIVES the equation outside of the Borel boundary!!

[Emile Borel] tells us that If anything is ten to the 50th power or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe. Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962) ch. 1-3.

We may be led to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale. When the probability of an event is below this limit, the opposite event may be expected to occur with certainty, whatever the number of occasions presenting themselves in the entire universe.
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover Publications, 1962), p. 28.

Note: Regarding Borel’s use of the minus exponent, the reader may recall that this means the same as writing the number as a fraction with the figure 1 on top. 10-50 is the same as 1/1050 or 1 chance in a figure with 50 zeroes.

By “opposite event,” he means no event, or failure to occur. Under the single law of chance, therefore, even a single gene would never be arranged in any usable order in the entire universe, if we apply this statement by the eminent mathematician. One need only to compare the probability of one gene (10-236) with Borel’s 10-50 which he said is the limit of meaningful probabilities on the cosmic scale. What would he say to the figure we got for the minimum set for smallest life, namely, a probability of 10-57800? The ameba’s journeys have made it clear that our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10-236). By the single law of chance, it will never occur.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Classic rabbit trailing --

Quote:
UTEOTW -
I said that you could not justify you claims about anyone having failed to do so because you could not point to us anyone who had tried and failed for it had not happened.

I never claimed that no one would ever try nor did I claim that no one had started an attempt.

That is priceless!!

And some point UTEOTW even you have to see that you are accusing yourself of lying.

UTEOTW
One more time.

You claimed that scientists has "failed" to create "life" from these processes.

I pointed out that this was a strawman because no one had in fact tried and failed. YOu cannot name one group who had tried the whole sequence and failed.

This is just more "Bogus rabbit trailing from UTEOTW" since HE KNOWS the reason they can not attempt the entire series is that they FAIL LONG before that point!

It is just like the bogus rabbit trailing he did with the 52 card "shell game" where he wanted to "pretend" that statistical science claims that a 52 card sequence (DEALING) is "impossible"!!

What a Joke!

What a sad "desperate" tactic in an "All for atheist darwinism" faith-based attack on science, and the Bible, and common sense.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW
So now all you have to do is to make a case that the odds of life are less than 1 to 1*10^50. I hope you have some peer reviewed references.

In the mean time I have an experiemnt for you to do. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them or not. Now deal out all 52 cards and look at the order.

The odds against that particular order is about 8*10^67. This means that you have just done something that is 8*10^17 less likely than what you just told us was impossible odds.


#1. Borel has a lot more credibility than you do on this topic.

#2. If I take a deck of cards unshuffled the odds are 1:1 that I will ALWAYS get the same sequence from an unshuffled deck.

#3. Your own experiement merely SHOWS that PREDICTING a given 52 member sequence in a truly shuffled deck is impossible as Borel said. Your example does not PREDICT it. Your rabbit trail misdirection would be like saying "Hey there are a zillion zillion...zillion possible combinations of which only ONE would be successful. HERE let me spin the dial -- SEE I got one of the failures - that PROVES I will one day get the successful result because it TOO is in that group of zillions of theoretical outcomes"

#4. It is incredibly obvious from point #3 that your only interest in the card story is to create a rabbit trail - But some here MIGHT have an actual interst in the statstical improbablity in abiogenesis so FOR THEM I offer an exercise in actual science -

http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 1 predicts that UNBELIEVING PAGANS (the honest man as Crick said) "CLEARLY SEE the invisible ATTRIBUTES OF GOD in the THINGS that have been MADE".

NEWSMAX: Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004 4:55 p.m. EST
Science Gives Famous Atheist Faith in God

NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God, more or less, based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.
...

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

And yet we have atheist-darwinist touting people here arguing AGAINST what God says ALL MANKIND can clearly see!!

How sad!!

 

[BobRyan]

There are a great many sources NOT dedicated to the rabbit trailing and obfuscation and misdirection of facts in grossly transparent way that UTEOTW is -- as it turns out.

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html

Chirality deals with the condition of a molecule. See, molecules can be compared to your hands. They are the exact same things...except opposite. ? Chiral molecules are often referred to as "left" or "right-handed" (hence the hand comparison...+ chiral means hand). So if these molecules are exactly the same, how can they be opposite? The two forms of the chiral molecule are called enantiomers or optical isomers. The defining characteristic is the direction they rotate plane-polarized light. Left or right. Not everything is chiral (achiral), but all amino acids and many sugars exhibit these types of properties. Almost all biological polymers must be homochiral (same chirality). All amino acids in proteins are left-handed while all sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed. Now, when amino acids are created, they always occur in racemic proportions. Racemic means a 50/50 ratio of left-handed to right-handed. What is even more interesting is that the two enantiomers must be in equilibrium with each other to exist and equilibrium only occurs in a racemic mixture. Remember what was stated above?

In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.

 

[BobRyan]

The hard FACTS –

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html

Early Abiogenesis Experiments: Perhaps most influential to the study of Abiogenesis is the famous Stanley Miller experiment in which he ran large currents of electricity through a container of what he believed to represent the conditions of prebiotic earth. He turned on the machine one night and the next morning he discovered a rich broth of amino acids. This was an amazing discovery at the time. It was the first step toward abiogenesis and secular scientists were enthralled. Unfortunately for Stanley Miller, his assumptions for prebiotic Earth were wrong. He believed that it would have been composed of Hydrogen, Methane, and Ammonia. In reality, the earth would have been composed of predominantly Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen. Attempts were made to replicate Miller's experiment with the new ingredients. Results were meager to say the least: the equivalent of a drop in a swimming pool. Scientists realized that this certainly was not enough so they devised the concept of tidal lagoons. (Note: Scientists often become flustered when we bring up the miller experiment and just say "let it go", but it's hard to do when sites and textbooks can still be found to proclaim the miller experiments as proof that life could arise spontaneously Life in the Universe).

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist’s making grandiose claims for abiogenesis–

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

(Note for the Reader: In the above quote Dawkins argues that Christian evolutionist think “God does something”, that “God contributes something” to the subject of origins. And on that point alone – Dawkins argues for the inconsistency and flawed logic of so-called-christian-evolutionism.

Christian evolutionist sometimes argue against Dawkins claiming that HE has made too much of a grandiose claim about what Christian-evolutionists think God is doing.

How sad that Christian evolutionists are prone to going to such extremes.)

But we have to give atheist darwinist cultists like UTEOTW for NOT making the mistake of the Christian evolutionists being hammered by Dawkins above. THEY take a PURELY atheist view of the topic so as to avoid that problem!!

THEY even attack evolutionists that ADMIT to the "Invisible attribute" of "Intelligence" CLEARLY SEEN in the "things that are made" -- in their service to their atheist darwinist masters.

 

[UTEOTW]

Hence Crick's SOLUTION - "it did not HAPPEN HERE" it must have been PLACED here by some "Event".

Perhaps you did not read all of what Crick said. I'll repeat it for you. "But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Notice that the huge number of "variables" are what DRIVES the equation outside of the Borel boundary!!

Uh, no. That statement does not even make mathematical sense.

You still have been unable to provide a respected source that supports your "impossible" assertion.

One need only to compare the probability of one gene (10-236) with Borel’s 10-50 which he said is the limit of meaningful probabilities on the cosmic scale.

Yes, please continue to knock that strawman over. I have already debunked that strawman in my first post on this thread. YOu have not even attempted to address the issues I raised there.

It can do nothing but support my position for you to be reduced to arguing logical fallacies because you have no facts.

 

[UTEOTW]

This is just more "Bogus rabbit trailing from UTEOTW" since HE KNOWS the reason they can not attempt the entire series is that they FAIL LONG before that point!

More strawman fallacy from Bob. All you really need to do here is tell us who attempted and failed.

Remember, I have given you a quote and link to a group who is trying and is on the verge of success. It could even be argued that they have already succeeded based on some of their recent results.

And then we continue on to your next favorite strawman.

[snip a big quote from http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html on the asserted impossibility of making non-racemic proteins]

Bob.

Pay attention.

RNA came before proteins.

I have given you a reference above on how to make optically pure RNA.

Optically pure RNA is then available for when optically pure proteins are needed.

Can you address what sceince actually says instead of making up your own stories and then debunking them?

 

[UTEOTW]

[snip discussion about Antony Flew]

Bob, is your position really so weak as to reduce you to arguing by anecdote?

Well, if you want to argue by anecdote, I once thought as you do and I have obviously changed my mind. How's that for tit for tat?

But are you sure you want to bring up Flew? Some of us know that you are hiding the rest of the story from us.

Let's shed some light.

Shortly after this statement, Flew admitted that he had been duped by an IDist.

Let's see what Flew said.

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Oh no, it seems like Flew recanted the position you attribute. And why did he do so?

Let's see how his spokesman phrased it.

Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims).

So the problem was that an IDist misled Flew and when he learned the truth, he felt like a "fool."

 

[UTEOTW]

Early Abiogenesis Experiments: Perhaps most influential to the study of Abiogenesis is the famous Stanley Miller experiment in which he ran large currents of electricity through a container of what he believed to represent the conditions of prebiotic earth. He turned on the machine one night and the next morning he discovered a rich broth of amino acids. This was an amazing discovery at the time. It was the first step toward abiogenesis and secular scientists were enthralled. Unfortunately for Stanley Miller, his assumptions for prebiotic Earth were wrong. He believed that it would have been composed of Hydrogen, Methane, and Ammonia. In reality, the earth would have been composed of predominantly Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen. Attempts were made to replicate Miller's experiment with the new ingredients. Results were meager to say the least: the equivalent of a drop in a swimming pool. Scientists realized that this certainly was not enough so they devised the concept of tidal lagoons. (Note: Scientists often become flustered when we bring up the miller experiment and just say "let it go", but it's hard to do when sites and textbooks can still be found to proclaim the miller experiments as proof that life could arise spontaneouslyLife in the Universe).

Trying to start another strawman here? I am not oing to allow you to get away with it.

Contrary to your misinformed source, the early atmosphere was, in fact, reducing.

In the annual meeting of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, held Sept. 4-9 of last year in Cambridge, England, Bruce Fegley, Ph.D., Washington University professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences, presented a paper which showed the following.

Using primitive meteorites called chondrites as their models, earth and planetary scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have performed outgassing calculations and shown that the early Earth's atmosphere was a reducing one, chock full of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor.

You may really want to check some of the references I give you before you post such false information.

Here are a few more references on the early atmosphere.

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical
aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans, Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss
Driven by Giant Impact Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma
oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

And your source seems to be trying to build another strawman when it comes to the Miller experiment. The claim is not exactly that the Miller experiment showed "proof that life could arise spontaneously" as your claim supposes, but that the early atmosphere would have been conductive to producing many of the important precursors. Since the time of Miller, the likely composition of the early atmosphere has been nailed down a little better, and it is less reducing than what he used, but it is still sufficient for the needs.