Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The lies behind the Miller experiment
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 76 of 115 (158136)
11-10-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 1:58 PM


Re: Failure
In my mind "didn't fail completely" is rather an odd way to describe a great success. And it did prove something - that abiotic generation of amino acids was easier than anyone thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 1:58 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 115 (158183)
11-10-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:06 PM


Re: An explanation of evolution
JESUS freak writes:
the elements in your first experiment were not on earth when it was created.
Sorry, I didn't see a reference to a scientific report to back up that assertion ... did you happen to forget that detail?
Also I'll need to see your periodic chart for what elements were on earth when it first formed so that I can see what the differences are between that and today's periodic chart. I find this concept fascinating in it's depth and detail.
Finally, please review the last article
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html
as it was discussing the raining down on earth of organic compounds already formed in space (think of them as micro-mini-meteors?) and that only needed to combine with water to form the cell-like membranes, so I need to know how their absence (or the elements to make them, confirmed or not per above) is any hindrance to the process?
Thank you for giving this such intellectual consideration.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:06 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 9:47 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 90 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 1:57 PM RAZD has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 78 of 115 (158196)
11-10-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
11-10-2004 8:55 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 11-10-2004 9:57 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 10:23 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 92 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 2:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 79 of 115 (158201)
11-10-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Early atmosphere
Yes, it's now pretty sure that the early atmosphere was not as chemically reduced as Miller and Urey thought 50 years ago - nitrogen instead of ammonia, and carbon dioxide instead of methane. Of course, Miller and others have conducted experiments on these mixtures, and still can get "biomolecules" to form in several different ways. Add in the fact that things as complex as the vitamin niacin have been found in the interior of pristine meteorites, and it doesn't leave all that much room for saying Miller and Urey promoted "a lie." Their initial experiment was probably in error - wrong starting materials for Earth - but it pointed the way to a lot of fruitful research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 9:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 11-11-2004 10:12 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 93 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 2:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 115 (158212)
11-10-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Early atmosphere
this
Nature - Not Found
It is an experiment you could do in a school chemistry lab. But it produces weird growths that, although made purely from inorganic materials, share some of the characteristics of living organisms.
Maselko and Strizhak mixed calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, copper chloride, sodium iodide, hydrogen peroxide and starch. They found a fungus-like, soft membrane grows out of the mixture, enclosing a hollow cavity up to 1 cm across.
is not about the miller experiment, but based on rather simple compounds thought to exist on the early earth
and this
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html
"A number of years ago I found that some of the extraterrestrial organic compounds brought to Earth in the Murchison meteorite could form membranous vesicles when they interacted with water," said team member Dave Deamer, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz. ... "When I learned of the ice experiments at NASA Ames, I went to the Astrochemistry Lab intending to find out what would happen when their complex organic mixtures were allowed to interact with water. To our surprise and delight we found that vesicular structures formed that looked very much like those we saw in the Murchison material."
is about those chemicals being common in space and present on meteors that would have impacted the earth in quantity in the early days.
they are NOT about the Miller experiment but are recent ones done based on the current thinking on the early atmosphere and near space conditions.
or am I missing something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 9:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 81 of 115 (158223)
11-10-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:02 PM


Re: An explanation of evolution
Then whoever is using the experiment as proof of evolution is wrong. But science as a whole is not to blame, since research in both fields is kept well in different camps.
You may have a bad text book, don't blame the scientists however.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2004 11:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:02 PM JESUS freak has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 82 of 115 (158294)
11-11-2004 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Adminnemooseus
11-10-2004 2:53 PM


Re: School textbooks
quote:
Decommissioned Products | McGraw Hill... is the link given by Charles Knight, back in message 29. I don't see anything to do with abiogenesis on the page. Perhaps a different page of the same general source?
{BTW, the non-admin mode likes the cited site - Hopefully will explore it further later.}
Adminnemooseus
Yes - that was the site I cited. However I made no suggestion it supported JF's claims. I was hoping he could explain how it did, because I couldn't see how.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-10-2004 2:53 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 11-11-2004 6:59 PM CK has replied
 Message 95 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 2:03 PM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 83 of 115 (158297)
11-11-2004 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:07 PM


Re: School textbooks
quote:
Yes I did give you the ISBN and the other guy found the book. I'll get others and quote from the one I have when I get the time
Unless you can provide us with a quote to support this position, this is currently unproven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:07 PM JESUS freak has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 115 (158349)
11-11-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coragyps
11-10-2004 9:57 PM


Re: Early atmosphere
Coragyps writes:
Their initial experiment was probably in error - wrong starting materials for Earth - but it pointed the way to a lot of fruitful research.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 11-10-2004 9:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 115 (158496)
11-11-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by CK
11-11-2004 6:43 AM


The textbook reference
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 11-11-2004 6:43 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by CK, posted 11-12-2004 3:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 115 (158559)
11-11-2004 9:49 PM


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

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 87 of 115 (158619)
11-12-2004 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by NosyNed
11-11-2004 6:59 PM


Re: The textbook reference
I totally agree.
You know, we have this every few months - have we ever seen one of those mystical textbooks that "tell lies" or apply the theory of evolution where it shouldn't go?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 11-11-2004 6:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 88 of 115 (158998)
11-13-2004 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 1:58 PM


Re: Failure
any chance of ever producing a quote to support your postion? or should we consider the matter closed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 1:58 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by JESUS freak, posted 11-15-2004 1:59 PM CK has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 115 (159744)
11-15-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
11-10-2004 5:16 PM


Re: Failure
To produce amino acids "easier than one thought" was not the purpose of the miller experiment. Second, easier than who thought, and how hard did they think it would be? Miller did think that creating his amino acids (which still had no chance of forming life) would take 6 months to a year, so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2004 5:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2004 6:10 PM JESUS freak has not replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 115 (159747)
11-15-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
11-10-2004 8:55 PM


Re: An explanation of evolution
Oh you didn't? How about reading message 65

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2004 7:43 PM JESUS freak has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024