Stanley Miller Experiment - Was It "Rigged"?

This is just a quick one. I've heard from creationists, and former evolution teachers (from creationist videos, etc.) that the Stanley Miller experiment that was supposed to prove that organic chemicals can form abiotically was "rigged". Is this true? I think it had something to do with oxygen, and how there wasn't O2 in the early atmosphere or something... can someone help me please?Thanks a lot,
-Sean{Modified title from "The Stanley Miller Experiment" to "Stanley Miller Experiment - Was It "Rigged"?" - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-07-2004 12:36 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No, it was not rigged. This experiment has been repeated thousands of times by thousands of scientists around the world. You yourself could probably carry out this experiment.About the lack of oxygen, that's the whole point of the matter. Stanley's experiment showed that the lack of oxygen (which was theorized to be the case in early Earth environment) did not prevent organic molecules from forming naturally.

---

The Laminator

​

And let us not forget the Miller-Urey experiment is not the only one to show how organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic reagents. Urea was the first one. For a long time, that was one constant cry from creationists: Evolution couldn't happen because you couldn't make organic compounds from inorganic reagents (showing that the creationist confusion of evolution with abiogenesis goes back quite some time).

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The Urey-Miller experiment wasn't rigged. However, although it was constructed to approximate the conditions believed to exist in the early earth, since the experiment was first formed theories have moved on and the experiment doesn't model the conditions believed to have existed under current theories.The central point stands however: it is perfectly possible to create organic compounds (amino acids, specifically) abiotically. This has also been demonstrated in both other experiments and astronomical observations.

And what makes you think those clouds of amino acids in space haven't been propagated by the panspermian galactic federation from a purely biotic synthesis?TTFN,WK

This is the reply I got from a creationist when explaining the Miller Experiment:

quote:

---

That experiment removed oxyen, which would have been present in the "early earth", because oxygen would have oxidized the amino acids and kept them from bonding with each other. The experiment also produced tar, toxic to life, and some other chemical I can't remember right now that is toxic to life. And even if that experiment had worked, you only produced amino acids. No proteins, and certainly no life. That is a far cry from evolution.

---

I know this is a common christian retort, but what is the truth? Was there oxygen or not in the early earth atmosphere? Did he have oxygen or not in the experiment??Thanks a lot!
-Sean

from:
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~divenere/notes/archean.htm

quote:

---

- the early atmosphere was probably rich in carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor; this reducing atmosphere was devoid of free oxygen (O2)

---

I will go off the top of my head here. We know this because when there was oxygen in the atmosphere then the iron started to oxidize. This left evidence.there is a bit on it here; CB035.1: Oxygen for early earth

Lam:
About the lack of oxygen, that's the whole point of the matter. Stanley's experiment showed that the lack of oxygen (which was theorized to be the case in early Earth environment) did not prevent organic molecules from forming naturally.John Paul:
Actually it was known that if oxygen had been present in the quantity it is today that amino acids wouldn't form. That was the basis for a reducing atmosphere.Was the experiment rigged? It surely looks like it to me. How so? Well first you have an "atmosphere" that didn't resemble the early earth's atmosphere. Then you have a "cold trap" that would take these formed organic molecules away from any other possible disturbances. What is not widely mentioned is the amount of toxic chemicals produced far outweigfhed the amount of amino acids produced.

quote:

---

What is not widely mentioned is the amount of toxic chemicals produced far outweigfhed the amount of amino acids produced.

---

Toxic to life as we know it today. Unless we know what the earliest life could tolerate, we can't know for sure if these toxic byproducts would have "killed" life.

Since boiling acid, radioactive waste, rock a kilometer underground and crude oil isn't toxic to all extant life forms I think you have a good point there.This is the sort of foolish assertion that makes the literalists look bad. John Paul, you should start being more careful in those areas that you are least knowledgeable.

Actually, they used an atmosphere that the science of 1953 believed to be a close approximation of the Earth's early atmosphere. The Book of Genesis neglects to give the formula, so Urey and Miller went on analogy with what had been found spectroscopically to exist on Jupiter and Saturn. Later work here on Earth shows that they were probably wrong - there was likely more carbon dioxide and less ammonia.
As to cold traps: how hot does the rain get two meters away from a lightning bolt?

quote:

---

Well first you have an "atmosphere" that didn't resemble the early earth's atmosphere.

---

As was already mentioned, the Urey-Miller experiment was based on what was believed at that time to be the composition of the primordial atmosphere. An honest mistake, based on the best science at the time, is not "rigged". At any rate, the experiment was reproduced with a variety of atmospheric compositions, incuding those currently believed to be that of the primordial atmosphere, and with a variety of energy sources, and the results are always the same - the production of complex organic molecules, including amino acids.By the way, why did the evil atheist conspiracy allow the information that Urey-Miller's "atmosphere" was incorrect if it is so damaging to the cause of atheistic evolutionism?

Presently, all life on Earth are divided into 3 domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya.The first life on Earth were the Archaea, which is also known as extreme bacteria. They live in the most extreme environments on Earth that previously thought to be too extreme for life. These environments include the 2 polar regions, hypothermic vents deep in th oceans, volcanic regions, etc...In other words, the archaea live in conditions that more resembled early Earth, which had lots and lots of toxic chemicals as well.With that said, I don't know how creationists could completely ignore the Archaea domain when it come to looking at life.But anyway, Mission for Truth, if you didn't know about the archaea before, hope that explain to you how life could have existed in such toxic environments.Again, I am tempted to say that the Miller experiment did not prove anything except that it IS possible for organic molecules to form naturally from non-organic molecules. The result of the experiment completely refuted the Creationist slogan "life can't come from non-life."

---

The Laminator

​

I actually found my old biology text and looked this stuff up. You guys are right. Thanks!