The lies behind the Miller experiment

I'm going to jump in though this is Charles's to talk about.It seems that your understanding is so far off base that getting it worded a number of different ways might help so I'll toss in my two cents. I'm not sure what you mean in detail by this so I may explain things that you already understand. Excuse me for being overly pedantic if I do that.First:
"You" don't evolve. An indivdual doesn't evolve at all. An individual animal is born and reproduces before dieing more or less successfully.What does "evolve" is a population of animals. If a specific trait helps one or more individuals in the population to reproduce better than there may well be more of that trait in the next generation of that population.That is, there will be a change in the mix of genes in the population from one generation to the next. Evolution is just that: a change in the mix of genes in a population over time.Next:
"You", an single animal is NOT better because of natural selection (NS). The single animal is possibly better because it happens to have a particularly good set of genes inherited from it's parents and/or it may have a brand new form of a gene that was a result of a mutation and not from it's parents genes.Then, if that change is in some way helpful for the animal to reproduce, there will be more of that form of the genetics of that individula in the next population generation. This is what "natural selection" is. It is the fact that the total environment will allow some individuals to produce more offspring than others. That is some are "selected" by nature around them.So the population is changed because not all genes in the previous generation make it through this selection process. Some do well, some don't. The popultion is changed by a combination of new genetic features arising AND by a selection process that allows some to carry on and some not. That is what evolution is.If there are no difference between the offspring in a new generation then there will be nothing for selection to work on. (This is a significant simplification since there can be changes in the genetic makeup of a population by other than NS) but for now let's not get to complicated.I hope that helps. I think I've gotten a bit too wordy. I hope Charles does better.(edited to change worky to wordy -- blush)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-04-2004 05:31 PM

It will be interesting to see what that knowledge is.So far you have demonstrated no knowledge of the subject matter at all.

Agreed, and even if a book is used the papers that it is based on may have to be referred to if there is disagreement with the content of the book.

I'd say that a a few percent of those who come in like JF are capable of both listening and understanding.That is one reason why I try hard to be gentle at first. Give him a chance.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2004 05:43 PM

Why do you say it failed? What was it supposed to do that it didn't?As I understand it the experiment was to either explore to see what would happen under what was understood to be early earth conditions or to see if anything like life precursors would form.If it was the former then it can't "fail". Is just shows what happens under those conditions.If it was the later then it succeeded in creating simple organic molecules useful to life.What do you think was being attempted?

When I was in grade 7 the socials text book we had dated the demise of the dinosaurs at 5 million years. I knew that was dead wrong. I never did find out if the text had a mistake or it was soooo old that it was using a current date from decades before. This was, after all, only a decade after radiometric dating became available. -- They coulda gotten the right date for the demise of the dinos from my birth certificate since it was about the same time I was born.The fact that a text is wrong is a problem. So make a fuss and get it fixed.You haven't however, that I recall, given us the ISBN of the text book or an exact quote from it. If you don't supply enough information for others to judge the text it is about as likely that you simply got it wrong. Wouldn't be the first time would it?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-10-2004 02:08 PM

I didn't find where you gave the ISBN, but Charles seemed to have found it anyway. He then asked where it was being used as evidence for evolution cause he couldn't find it and you didn't give it.Perhaps you should get clear what you are objecting to exactly since it has become a bit muddled over the course of this thread.You have yet to substantiate your use of the word "lies" as well. That is a bit harder than to just show that something is wrong.

I think that, if I remember right, that the early atmosphere is now thought to be different form the Miller experiment.

The problem with that site is, I think, it isn't the contents of the text but rather some additional material to extend the text.However, it has nothing to extend any part of the origin of life that I could find. JF will have to come up with the quote.