The lies behind the Miller experiment

What does "individually contained" mean? I've never heard this mentioned before in relation to the Miller/Urey experiment, and can't imagine what it might be referring to. I found this diagram on the Internet, I don't know how accurate it is:Moving on: I agree with you, it doesn't seem like cyanide and formaldehyde could be pathways to teh chemicals of life, but poking about on the web I found that Miller/Urey discovered that these are intermediate products on the way to producing amino acids, which are essential for life (http://www.rednova.com/...stories/2/2004/07/23/story101.html). Your science book might have garbled the explanation.At that same website, and also poking about at other places on the web, I came across some information that says that in the later experiments (Juan Oro, 1961, is usually mentioned) amino acids were formed from "hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in aqueous solution" (http://www.chem.duke.edu/...uise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html).In any case, scientists would not consider a process whose end products were cyanide and formaldehyde as indicative that the chemicals necessary for life could be produced on the early earth, so it makes sense that these were actually intermediate products.Which biology book are you using? My kids are both taking biology now, maybe it's the same one. In any case, I'll check the book tonight and see what they have to say about the Miller/Urey and subsequent experiments.--Percy

The way I look at, if Urey and Miller had said, "These are the elements and compounds of the early earth," then they'd be wrong. But uncovering the identify of those elements and compounds was not a goal of the experiment. What they actually said was more like, "We used the elements and compounds we thought most likely to have been on the early earth."As is so often the case with sheltered Creationists, JF has been misled, in this case into believing that these experiments were intended to reveal the composition of the early earth and its atmosphere. They weren't. He's also been misled into believing that this experiment is cited as evidence for evolution. It isn't.The Miller/Urey experiment and the successor experiments that used a variety of initial conditions showed that adding energy to hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, either in elemental or compound form, in an uncontrolled environment yields organic compounds, thus demonstrating that organic compounds can arise by natural means. Some of the experiments probably replicated conditions on the early earth better than others, but given our meager knowledge at this time we probably can't even say with much confidence which ones.I see an analogy here with Piaget's stages of child intellectual development. Before someone can make the subtle distinctions required to understand what has been explained in this thread about the Miller/Urey experiment, they have to understand a little about the process behind reliably gaining knowledge. For those who believe revelation is a reliable method, our explanations may as well fall on deaf ears.This has gone on too long. Even at his tender age JF already exhibits many of the behaviors that Creationists typically bring to a debate. JF should quote the portion of his book he believes misrepresents the Miller/Urey experiment so we can get on with this.--Percy

This is the page on the Miller/Urey experiment from my son's biology book, Biology, Visualizing Life by George B. Johnson, published by Holt, 1994:

​

Click on the picture for a larger view.This may or may not be similar to JF's book. I can see problems with the description, but nothing approaching lies and misrepresentations, and the section is titled, "Origin of Life's Chemicals", not evolution, not even origin of life.--Percy

Hi JesusFreak,You're being asked to provide excerpts or images from your earth science textbook to support the claim that you made in Message 3: We would like to see evidence from this textbook that cites the Miller/Urey experiment as supporting evolution. Please provide excerpts or images.You also said this: That sounds fairly inaccurate. Please provide excerpts or images.In Message 37 you said you would quote the book: In Message 70 you said it again: It's been over a week, so get on with it. It didn't take me long to scan in the page from my son's biology book in Message 86, it certainly shouldn't take you long to do the same for your book, or at least type in the paragraphs.You also said this in Message 10: Can you back this up? What issue of the National Geographic. It's on-line, after all, we can easily look this up.You have to move on from just saying things like, "The Miller/Urey experiment is being improperly used to promote the theory of evolution." It's time to provide some concrete examples.By the way, did you read the biology page in Message 86? Does it agree with your own book?--Percy

I have the same reaction as Moose. One of the great mysteries of life is how it started. Organic molecules, even just amino acids, are incredibly complex. It wasn't believed that uncontrolled conditions could produce such molecules. The significance of the Miller/Urey experiment, and the reason it is still cited today and described in all the textbooks, is that it forthrightly attacked this question for the first time, and because it *was* fantastically and unbelievably successful. A 70 year old experiment isn't still talked about today because it was a failure, but because it was landmark research demonstrating that complex organic compounds could be produced naturally. Experiments since then have revised and refined the environmental conditions, but all that is anticlimatic after the initial finding and usually barely rates a mention.--Percy