Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?

Nope, not rhetorical. Here’s the references:
Vogel, G., RNA study suggests cool cradle of life, Science 283(5399):155–156, 1999
Miller, S.L., A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions, Science 117:528–529; p. 528, 1953 (Where he describes his experiment)
http://www.americanairandwater.com/uv-hospitals/index.htm (For the hospital reference)
Traps: Miller
http://wiki.answers.com/...enetrate_water_and_to_what_degree
Peptide bonds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis
homochirality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)

Racemate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture

Yes, that's what I meant, Percy. Sorry about the mix-up. I tend to do that even in class. (Got scolded multiple times for mixing a "point" and "line" )

LimpSPider writes: Viruses are non-living because they are unable to metabolise on their own.

I'd consider that an argument in favour of abiogenesis. If viruses have some of the characteristics of life but not all, then the distinction between living and non-living matter is blurred.

I need incorporate bacteria ONLY if I believe in evolution, which I do not. This is the standard textbook version of life, which I adhere to. Viruses are non-living because they are unable to metabolise on their own. They need a host. So basically, an organism that is able to metabolise on their own.

You lost me in there somewhere.

Can bacteria "metabolize on their own?" Synechococcus, for example?

I need incorporate bacteria ONLY if I believe in evolution, which I do not.

Uh, no, you need to incorporate bacteria if you think they're alive.

And, no. I don’t have to incorporate God into this. Since I do not know why you want it to be so.

Well, creationists usually claim that God is alive. (And, of course, dead people too.) So it would be nice if one of them just once would provide a definition of life under which this would be true. Is God "an organism that can metabolize on its own"? Not according to conventional ideas of the Godhead. So ...

Actually, I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize.

Yes I did. Sorry, I meant God. And, oh, no God is not bacteria... My thinking error

quote:

---

Uh, no, you need to incorporate bacteria if you think they're alive.

---

My error...

quote:

---

Well, creationists usually claim that God is alive. (And, of course, dead people too.) So it would be nice if one of them just once would provide a definition of life under which this would be true. Is God "an organism that can metabolize on its own"? Not according to conventional ideas of the Godhead. So ...

---

You see. I don’t claim God is alive. I rather view it as God is beyond death.

"The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted." --- Psalms 18:46

Of course, if you don't want to take the Bible literally ... then you could stop being a creationist now.

LimpSpider writes: Actually, I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize.

Viruses are pretty successful as they are. What environmental "pressure" would there be for them to evolve a fundamentally different lifestye?

I've never seen a virus that was a bacterium, even on the evening shift.

LimpSpirder writes: Actually, I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize.

First, understand that no one is proposing that metabolizing life evolved from viruses, not that that isn't a possibility deserving of consideration, but no one here is making that argument. Ringo was only saying that there can be gradations of life, that some "organisms" can have some but not all of the qualities of life.

But second, I'm concerned about the "I"ve never seen" part of your message. To put the concern in a context familiar to you, have you ever seen Noah's flood? Have you ever seen Jesus resurrected?

How much of the things that you think you know have you ever seen? You may want to do some thinking and investigating about the actual methods scientists employ to establish confidence in what they think they know.

--Percy

I have told phat in a private message that I adhere not to a literal reading of Scripture, but to a literal-historical-grammatical-contextual reading (I think I said that somewhere on the forum too) And yeah, it was a private message......

Which means that they would not evolve the ability to metabolize, right? So they can’t be intermediate. They are simply too successful.

Re: Ringo. Ok got it

quote:

---

But second, I'm concerned about the "I"ve never seen" part of your message. To put the concern in a context familiar to you, have you ever seen Noah's flood? Have you ever seen Jesus resurrected?

---

Good thinking. Here’s the fundamental difference between the two. We can’t experiment on a one time event. However, if life evolved from non-life in the past, it should still be able to do so now, right? There is a distinction between the two. The first is historical science, and the second is operational science.

Historical science is interpreting data of one-time events according to a framework and on which we can’t do experiments. Operational science is where we can do experiments.

quote:

---

How much of the things that you think you know have you ever seen? You may want to do some thinking and investigating about the actual methods scientists employ to establish confidence in what they think they know.

---

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’ Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14

Not that I agree with everything he says.