Which conclusion about the origin of life on earth is most strongly supported by the miller-urey experiment?

The conclusions are biological, rational, empirical, geological, and chemical and none of them support Miller-Urey. The conclusion most strongly supported is the faith-based ideological one that is propounded and quasi-religiously maintained and adhered to by naturalists, atheists, and all who cling to the Lewontin Mandate that demands that only materialistic solutions to the origin of life are to be considered because "we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."

While a number of abiotic compounds were produced during the Miller-Urey experiment, the initial conditions were actually not consistent with the primordial state of the Earth, compromising the value of the initial experiment despite its continually romantically nostalgically proclaimed importance. While some resulting compounds have some consistency with small compounds that could be utilized in an organism,  nothing close to comprehensive, and not in the correct configuration.

i think the answer is g1

hope i

-lavira: )

idk

explanation: