The lies behind the Miller experiment

In Message 15 I replied to you on this point: So it appears that amino acids can be formed from cyanide and formaldehyde. It might help to think of cyanide (actually, hydrogen cyanide, HCN) and formaldehyde (probably not formaldehyde, but something from the aldehyde chemical family) as types of organic molecules, which they are, rather than as chemicals hostile to modern oxygen breathing organisms. Hydrogen cyanide is extremely reactive, which accounts for its deadliness, and it is used in a wide variety of manufacturing processes. It is also produced by some fruits, for instance appearing in the pits of apricots. Wikepedia (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has good descriptions of this information.I think you mentioned cyanide and formaldehyde to indicate dishonesty. You were pointing out that rather than producing amino acids, which are key building blocks of life, the experiment actually produced deadly chemicals hostile to life. But cynaide and formaldehyde were merely what the process produced before continuing on to use those chemicals to create amino acids.--Percy

quote:

---

One, my cyinide argument has not been proved wrong.

---

Cyanide is highly reactive (as Percy mentioned). The toxicity of cyanide is due to its affinity for heme, the chemical in red blood cells that binds oxygen. Therefore, victims of cyanide poisoning die of suffocation since there RBC's are irreversibly binding HCN instead of O2. Since the first life would not have needed heme or red blood cells (or even oxygen for that matter), cyanide would not necessarily be "bad". [as a side note, did cyanide get it's name because it causes cyanosis?]. As Percy also mentions, cyanide is actually an intermediate chemical NEEDED for the production of amino acids (as is formaldehyde). Next, if peptides are able to bind to a solid support, the cyanide and formaldehyde can be diluted through wave action or tidal force if it occurs in a tidal plain. Your cyanide argument is wrong, cyanide would not prohibit the construction of an imperfect replicator hypothesized by those who work in abiogenesis.

quote:

---

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.

---

Good, that is all we wanted. I am hoping that you can post large chunks including the paragraphs containing the pertinent info as well as the paragraphs in between. Context is everything in scientific literature.

quote:

---

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.

---

Extremists can be found in every walk of life. I don't blame christians for the sins of a few misguided souls. I hope you do the same for everybody, regardless of their religion or worldview.

How about you set yourself a target to provide one small piece of cited evidence that the miller experiment was used to promote evolution?

quote:

---

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.

---

Pretend you are a policeman and someone presented this evidence to you, what would you say?

quote:

---

This was many years back and I don't remeber the title or anything, so I am not using this as proof.

---

hah - that is a old lawyers trick - introduce an idea to the jury even when there is no evidence for it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Just tell us the name of the book - we can look at it in the same way we did the last one.

quote:

---

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 would suggest that we need a quote to assess that properly.I used to be a teacher and your excuses sound an awful lot like "the dog eat my homework".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-29-2004 03:50 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-29-2004 04:36 PM

Might I also add that the first life on earth is believed to be of domain archaea. These are extreme bacteria that live in the extreme conditions on Earth like hyperthermal vents, the poles, and deep underground. Cyanide does not do anything to these creatures at all.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Nothing you say is wrong or untrue, and I see you've already made one edit pass, but if you cuold tilt it a bit more toward the patient and generous end of the scale... Thanks! --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-29-2004 08:53 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Ok, as I have not seen that these compounds are steps midway to amino acids, I will give that to you for now. However, the next question that is to be asked, is how they turned cyinide and formaldahyde. Because Nothing I had seen before the site that you gave said anything about these "organic elements," I have not done any research on the next steps. I mean, just like you can turn nuptunium into plutonium with a particle accelerator, (I think thats what they use, I could be wrong) you could probaly turn cyinide and forhmaldahyde into a synthecicly amino acid, (which I might add, is still tremendously far away from creating life) like changeing neptunium into plutonium, it won't happen in nature. If the following steps to make cyinide to an amino acid can happen in nature without help, then I will accept that and we can move on to debating whether or not an amino acid can turn into life.

The experiments did show that it is possible for amino acid to form naturally. All scientists did was set up the conditions and allowed everything to happen so they could observe.The problem with finding an example like this in nature is that we have no way of knowing if it has already been contaminated by already existing organic compounds that are found everywhere on this planet.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

As Lam just said, experiments of this type are attempts to replicate conditions on the early earth. The original Miller/Urey experiment and all the follow-on experiments were not provided "help". You can legimately argue that we don't yet know enough about the conditions under which early life formed for these experiments to be considered conclusive, but you can't argue that the experimenters were cheating by creating amino acids by explicit intervention and manipulation of the experiment.But let's not forget your main point, which is that biology text books misrepresent the Miller/Urey experiment. What is so magic about Thursdays that they're the only day you can produce supporting documentation?--Percy

Actually, my question about this is what is so magic about Thursdays that they never seem to come?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde can and do react under the conditions found on interstellar dust grains to form molecules that yield amino acids, and even species like the vitamin niacin, on further reaction with water. All you need is a frozen chunk of ice - or frozen carbon dioxide or methane - with hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde in it, and some ultraviolet light to make it react. All of the above are formed in the atmospheres of red giant stars. Space is loaded with this stuff - particularly in the molecular clouds where new stars and their solar systems form.Organic molecules as complex as niacin, amino acids, and even simple sugars have been found in the interior of pristine meteorites. They form abiotically - out in space. There are other pathways to form them abiotically on the early, oxygen-free Earth.

oh boy! It's thursday - evidence day!

Impatiently waiting for some evidence.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Ok I think I have finally went wrong in my argument. I didn’t get the differences of biogenesis and evolution, and thank you nosey ned and Charles knight for pointing them out, as I had always lumped them together into one. At first, when I said evolution, I didn’t mean evolution, but biogenesis, and so was quick to respond yes this was used as proof of evolution. You explained later the difference, but I was mistaken on exactly what my books said. I was against the miller experiment The book quotes I promised, on from the Earth science book, and another from a younger kids biology book (Prentice Hall Science Explorer, ISBN 0-13-434490-1, Title: From Bacteria to Plants, (sounds like book about evolution to me, start with something, get better suited for your environment, however, it is mainly just different classifications of organisms) were both over a page long, which I think is over fair use. I have one written half way, if you know of another way to post the quote, please tell me. Neither of these say this experiment is proof of evolution but again, it is tilted that way. I hereby retract my claim that those textbooks say that this is proof of evolution instead of biogenesis. I stand by my original topic and will change from evolution to biogenesis. Sorry about all the confusion, misunderstandings, and unintentional lies I have caused my bad.ADMIN: If we could start this topic over it would be real helpful, sorry

I think you're doing great, keep it up! Sorry if you don't have a scanner, you'll just have to keep typing.I don't see a need to start the topic over. Refine your position, restate it, and keep moving forward.The incredibly strong emphasis we place on evidence at EvC Forum is unexpected by many who first come here. But science is not like a debate about political parties or rock bands. Discussions about science must be underpinned by facts, not opinions. There's still plenty of room for different opinions and for different interpretations of facts. The debate doesn't end when the facts are introduced, it only begins. What we try to avoid here is nonsense discussions with few or no facts at all.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

OK - are you ok on the different between the two - or would you like to discuss it/put some questions to us before we start the heavy debate again?bestCharles.