The lies behind the Miller experiment

quote:

---

So what if it was thought to be the right atmosphere then? That was fine then, but now, even though we arn't sure exactly what earth's early atmosphere consisted of, we are almost positive that it was not at all like the miller-urey experiment

---

And we aren't sure if life formed under an atmosphere at all. Life could have originated in deep sea vents, in mud deep below the surface, or even in amino acid containing meteorites. What we are positive about is that amino acids can be made in very simple conditions. Given that amino acids can be found in meteorites is strong evidence that even if Miller's conditions are not met that amino acids can still form through natural mechanisms.As a sidenote, amino acids may not even be required for life to come about through abiogenesis. Recent research shows that RNA may be a viable pathway.

quote:

---

Secondly, the miller experiment does have a lot to do with evoloution. Without a life form to multiply get through many generations get better suited for for his enviroment, evoloution is impossible. Without divine intervention, 0 multiplied by 5 billion years still =0

---

Do you have to know where metal came from to build a car? Do you have to know where the sun came from in order to predict storm patterns? Do you have to know where germs came from in order to study infectious diseases? Of course not, but yet you are making the same leap of illogic. Evolution assumes that life existed at some point, and how it got there is irrelevant to evolution. There is a separate theory that deals with where that first life came from, and that theory is abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment was one of the first experiments that dealt with the theory of abiogenesis.

when i said earlier the the results of the experiment were invalid, i didnt mean that the experiment had no relevance to science, i meant that the experiments results, as to how amino acids were produced on earth, cannot be considered valid because the experiment didnt have the right atmospheric composition, and hence, it gives us little more knowledge into how life started than before the experiment.
that said, someone needs to reproduce the experiment based on our current data on the atmospheric composition of early earth, and the early sun for that matter (the suns energy would have a great effect on the outcome of reactions) and then we can talk about that.

quote:

---

that said, someone needs to reproduce the experiment based on our current data on the atmospheric composition of early earth, and the early sun for that matter (the suns energy would have a great effect on the outcome of reactions) and then we can talk about that.

---

We also can't ignore other possible energy sources including meteor impacts and wave action.I haven't been able to read the actual research papers as of yet, but those experiments have been done. From http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

As I said in the topic, they have retried the experiment with current conditions, and the results were cyinide and formaldahyde. Also, the experiment did not have anything to do with anything after the poisonous elements have formed, how tey might have combined is not the point.

Did you ever find ANY evidence that the experience was used for the support of evolution or have you dropped that claim?

I'm a bad typer, so sue me

You type just as bad as you try to dodge the main point of this thread.From your very first assertion in this thread: We are still waiting for any kind of evidence at all for your claim that mainstream science still uses the miller experiment to support the theory of evolution.Believe you me, I would sue the living daylight out of you if I could not because of your ignorance but because of your annoying personality. Now, would you mind stop beating around the bush and provide us with something to work with?edited to take out some obscene words.This message has been edited by Lam, 11-23-2004 02:36 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

The starting materials for amino acids, at least in an outer space = comet setting, may well be cyanide and formaldehyde. Those are pretty abundant materials in molecular clouds like the one that likely spawned our solar system. But the *results* starting from them are amino acids or their "just add water" precursors.

Hey JF. I just want to encourage you to think about how you are actually representing the namesake of your avatar. There are many here who hold Him in high regard and don't consider evasion and ignoring others comments to be consistent with the honesty taught by Christ.I really do not want to sound condescending but I feel that you need to start thinking about Jesus here. Christians are expected to represent Christ by holding ourselves to a higher standard than what we see. Seemingly backpedaling from your original argument makes you seem dishonest to those of us reading your posts. Is that really the kind of standard of honesty you wish hold yourself to?People have already refuted the cyanide/formaldahyde issue.People are waiting for you to either come clean or produce a quote for your original claim.Please realize that you will be regarded with much more respect for being honest. There may be those who choose to throw it back in your face but I for one and I am guessing many others will certainly hold you in a higher regard for admitting when you are wrong.I don't mean for this to be a lecture but rather a soft reminder of what (or who) is really important here. Remember, you represent Christ when he dwells in you. Raise yourself to a higher standard of accountability for what you say to those who may need to be saved.

Well said, Jazzns.It can get a bit hard for some of us heathens to remember that the most outrageous of the literalists here are not representative of Christians. It is a good thing to be reminded now and then.I have had a Christian tell me that they are "cultists" and not Christians at all. I'd have to say based on their actions that he may well be right. You seem to be willing to give them more leeway, very, uh, , Christian of you.

sure it's possible, but what's the chances. we haven't been able to create life artificially on earth using cyinide and fohmaldahyde, so the chances of it doing it by our planet, without our synthetic help, are astronomical. Whats the chances a radom letter generator will generate the comlete works of shakesphere? Probaly right arond the chances of life forming this way.

Hey, yo, please stop trying to change the subject and go back to the unfinished one. We are still waiting for the quote from the text book which you claimed to have used the miller experiment to support the theory of evolution.Added by edit.I am very close to scratching off the word love on my shirt there.This message has been edited by Lam, 11-29-2004 01:51 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Yes, though the national geographic article did not mention the miller experiment (when I first skimed it over I thought it did) I have seen an evoloution movie, whown in public school, that premoted it as evidence for evoloution. This was many years back and I don't remeber the title or anything, so I am not using this as proof. My textbook has it the chapter about evoloution, and it is ment to be presented that way. I did also find a younger kids biology book which also uses the experiment in this way. I should also have the qoute of this around thursday.
I admit I was wrong in that it does not state outright that this if proof of evoloution, but the implied meaning that is taught comes pretty close.

I'm beginning to get a different impression of what you're saying. It no longer seems like your largest concern is misrepresentations in books and magazines of evidence supporting abiogenesis and evolution. Maybe I'm reading too much into your posts, but you seem more concerned that they're promoting the idea that the origin of life and the origin of species may both be due to natural rather than divine causes.--Percy

One, my cyinide argument has not been proved wrong.Two, I will admit that my posts may have been misleading to some. This was not intentional, and if it is so misleading, I will try to be more clear, and will have proof posted soon, within the week almost definitly.Three, you and Ned are right, there are a whole bunch of cults that claim to be christian that blow up abortion clinics and stuff like that. There are also cults that claim to be Muslim, and crash airplanes into tall buildings in GOD's name. Luckily, I do not fall into either catorgory.