Just because something is dead doesn't mean it was once alive, is a block of iron alive? I don't think so as it does not fulfill al the requirements for life. Like iron, the amino acids created by the first miller experiment never fulfilled all the requirements of living.
This is a serious science discussion site. You're expected to have sufficient skill, knowledge and maturity to carry on rational discussions based upon evidence. Please read and comply with Message 100 and Message 108, else by the end of the day you'll be in Limbo.
quote:6. the experiments results are invalid, because at the time the composition of the earth atmosphere was thought to be different then it is today.
The experiments results are the experiments results.
If it is looked at in the context of "Let's set up these conditions, and see what happens", then the results are absolutely valid.
The claim that those conditions were those of early Earth is what has been shown to be invalid.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
6. the experiments results are invalid, because at the time the composition of the earth atmosphere was thought to be different then it is today.
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.
Permit me to remind you of a very important post made by Admin.
I was talking about message 29 where you asked me if this was the book
Hi JESUS freak,
I'm not sure why we're experiencing difficulties here. It would be greatly appreciated if you would read the very recent messages from me and Charles more carefully and give us a meaningful response. You claim to have a text book that misrepresents the Miller/Urey experiment. Please provide the text of that mispresentation.
Let me try to be very clear by repeating this: Please provide the text of the misreprentation of the Miller/Urey experiment from your earth science text book.
Also, please provide the text of the other misrepresentations you have mentioned, such as the February, 2004, issue of Popular Science, or the March, 1998, issue of National Geographic.
If there's something about this request that you don't understand or that you need help with then please just let us know.
Please answer admin and provide us with some kind of quote or reference from the book that you claimed to have used the experiment to support evolution.Hate world.
Since there have been no posts indicative of a change in behavior, I'm restricting you to Limbo among the main forums. Since this is your thread, I will transfer it over there. You still have privileges in some of the non-main forums.
Restoration of full privileges will happen once you've demonstrated the ability to follow moderator requests and the Forum Guidelines.