Stanley Miller debunked?

Yep(with some reservations about wording in the last line), and that is why I criticized Dembski in your link in another thread. All parties seem to have some interest in the Determinate Point of origin or origins. That is why Gould's material probablism avoids this stumbling block. I think he did so at the loss of further seperating out vertebrate morphology by attempting to "historicize" it.

That a given cybernetic abstraction is MORE abstract than the subjetive form-making distinctions collected in nature and abstracted in the concept "phenotype". I dont think this is ordered correctly but that is the evidence in lack of information about the small scale directions of changes.

I dont see why

quote:

---

Be careful of the phrase "without direction." There is plenty of direction in nature in the form of gravity (towards big masses), electricity (the basis of crystal structure), and other natural processes.

---

is "better" phrased with as autocatalysis and replication need not but could be the same thing. I think it is unhealthy biologically to try to THINK about abstract regulations without the population size already monoplyticized beyond some general statement about plasticity( or distributed regeneration etc) but I would never assume that any or all rates are thought available to the thought process enabled regardless.The following can be without direction in highlander sense I would survive.

quote:

---

The traditional view, expressed in most biology textbooks, is that life originated once, and has ever since been evolving in the well-known neo-Darwinian manner. Sometimes the origin of life is envisioned as accidental synthesis of a gene in the organic soup, with subsequent mutation and the rapid establishment of genetically isolated lines of descent, each with a unique system of evolved adapatations. This view wa perhaps admissible when the gene was thought of as a protein. The extreme specialization of the DNA molecule, however, forces us to regard the nuclear gene as a later development. The early establishment of seperate phlogenies is also most unlikely. The independent evolution of identical adpatations must happen very seldom. On this view the (nearly) universal occurrence of fundamental biochemical machinery, such as DNA, ATP, and various enzyme systems, rasises a dillemma. Either they were brought to perfection immediately by the original species of organism, or they were independently evolved in all seperate phlyetic lines. Neither view is acceptable to serious students of biopoesis (origin and early development of life). Effective mechanisms of heredity, and of the structural and immunological mechanisms on which the maintence of individuality depends, must have required a long period of evolution. Before these mechanisms appeared there could have been no genetically isolated evolutionary lines nor even physically definable indviduals. As Ehrensvard (1962) expressed it, "Life is older than organisms." For a long time life was neither monophyletic nor polyphletic, it was non-phlyetic.

---

Adaptation and Natural Selection A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought by George C. Williams p. 135 Princeton New Jersey Princeton Univerity Press 1966Point(continued coincident ignorance) paraphyly is directionless. It does not contain access to Newton's term "directum". I think it really does.

Yes. Although I dont agree really that there are two "sides" to c/e I recognize the thought patterns that can lead to writing different responses in some topics. I know very little geology for instance so I can not get into much in those cases. The "gene" can be likened to a cybernetic "abstraction" that is regulated through population genetics but this biological imagination ( I am willing to assert can also be an intuition) ever more detailed since molecular biology grew sets itself within the range of somatic shapes. One can try (sic!) to contemplate the chance random stochastic non-phlytic life that is not the organism, in so many directions; and especially as information technology has garnered economic allegience that the writing of ones' thoughts on this often extripate the simple systematists subjective domain of classification categories. I feel that Wolfram's "new science" is case in point where the function that is in nature that relates this domain and range being both one to one and onto is often writ out of existence by nature of our visual alphabet rather than what would have been the case if our phonic invariances were constraining the cuts and pastes that furthermore permit post-modern writers the instrumental freedom to violate what I consider a basic biological sufficency (to not write thoughts that end up with texts that do not refer to actual groups of living thiings (viruses would be living mind you). This ends up with writings that look more like science fiction than science but certainly not religious. So I try to maintain some rigor when crossing to biological areas of polyphyly BECAUSE we dont know the lines that lead where out lineage is. Speculation about alien life without evidence only causes the single or multiple origins of life to be rubed in the writ without the right to but by dint of lingos to do so. The real issue is the coded content of DNA vs protein at present. I think there is another level of analyticity here. Others simply dont understand what I am writing.So the "evidence" that chance randomness existed in however long or short the period was before a baramin was pluralized in any thought is merely that cynetics might provide an intellectual environment and technical community to communicate information tranfer IN LIFE no matter what the phenotype is dissected as but given that there IS a difference of genotype and phenoptype. Many students use this kind of thought process but I know how difficult it is to use and try to express myself otherwise.I had wanted to support you most basic contention that early life is without direction but I did not want to see other posters insisting that just because there was *some* deterministic cross over point functionally, IN SOME SENSE, that this meant %anything^ could be written as a response provided the "tone" was scientific "". It can not in all honesty.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-13-2005 08:08 AM

It would be belief or faith rather than an application of a catalytic cycle of prior replications IF the following blaming of Christianity in the non-plyetism WERE true.(from Williams op cit p266)

quote:

---

Uncritical analogy with self-conscious human organization is probably not the whole explanation for the humanization of groups of organisms. There may also be a desire, unconscious in many and expressed by few, to find not only an order in Nature but a moral order. In human behavior a sacrifice of self-interest and devotion to a suprapersonal cause is considered praisworthy. If some other organisms also showed concern for group welfare and were not entirely self-seeking, these organisms, and Nature in general would be more ethically acceptable. In most theological systems it is necessary that the creator be benevolent...but this is hardly a basis for making decisions in biology.

---

I think not. I think it is not. I think some posters dont parse the obligatory group this fine. It is basically fine with me what you said. I just tried to qualify it with what does count. It is not circular as you suggested but broadening where value does and did matter. Evolutionists who object simply do because either they have this older criticism misapplied to current understanding or else they are NOT defending man's interest in the asthetic point of view contained. It would be a difficult thing to discuss this in terms of what it is like to be a bat but an evo might. This however is about the life that IS NOT an organism(but is a "group") (thus reference to humans is out of place as well) Soooo, if it is only because of reference to the Christian Environment causing biology to go backwards I would agree with you and disagree with all other sayers else there is a more particular point being brought out in the power of the people participating in this thread obligatoryily. There is a facultative teleology that connects with a physical teleology that teleonmy of natural as opposed to artifical selection CAN NOT SORT. The origins of life might contain such value and IS evaluated but not if the determinstic point is truely stohastic. I doubt it is. Others might disagree. 911 showed the plurivocal of this 66 published system of religousness was not as broad as the science fiction that otherwise results from current science failing to grasp the synthetic a priori already present in thought. One can decide without judging in this subject in this thread, thus other aspects of Matt P's post still stand.

OP was

quote:

---

I am desparately looking for the evolusionist response to the following creationist statement:
"If you think Stanley Miller did it maybe you should ask him if he still believes it. His experiment produced 85 % tar and 13 % carboxilyc acid both of which are poisonous to life. The 2 % amino acids that he produced he "filtered" (which is "cheating" and not viable for real life.) out. 20 Amino Acids are needed for life and Dr. Miller fell well short of that. Half of the amino acids he produced were right-handed and just one right-handed amino acid would destroy the possibility of any life being "produced." Miller was in the crowd at a debate in San Diego several years ago when Dr. Duane Gish was debunking Miller's abiogenesis experiment. Miller was asked if he would like to respond to Dr. Gish's comments and he said "no." He then went on to state that he realizes the serious problems with his experiment(s). "

​

If this is true, the experiment only goes to show how unlikely it is for even the most basic organic matter to form, which is still a VERY long why off from real life. Surely, there must be an awnser to this?

---

You substantially said,

quote:

---

Anyway, the point of this is that it is possible for purely stochastic bifurcation processes to go from an even mixture of single anisomers to longer chains of homochiral molecules. The particular handedness that occurs is random, not predetermined, but since there are only two possibilites that leaves a 50-50 probability that life would have the homochirality that we observe today.

---

Are there really only two possibilities here? What if proteins add different "weight" to the symmetrical distribution of form in a GALTON POLYGON
Evolution by Jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the Mechanism of Evolutionary Change | Genetics | Oxford Academic
tipped during biological change by the 50-50 perversion of DNA?The only reason Kant introduces final causes determinately is to show how effective causes might preceed in thought thought of final purposes. Adults are arguing WHERE Kant said, "specially the supreme condition under which a final purpose (i.e. the determining ground of a supreme understanding for the production of beings of the world) can be allowed)"p294 Critique of Judgement(bold added) yet in a regulative either reflectively or determintively of this thought process he asked, if it was not such that tape worms were "set-offs" to human vitality.In a reflection printed in the Translator's Introduction to the Conflict of the Faculties Kant skected in this vitalism.

quote:

---

The conformity to law of an organic being by which it maintains itself in the same form while continuously sloughing off and restoring its parts to health. As far as the whole of organic nature as such is concerned, this conformity to law of an organic being and alteration of the vital force imply that the creature, after it has produced offspring like itself, mingles as an individual with unorganized matter and only the species endures. Growing old and death. This is not a disease, but consummation of the vital force.

---

Now with Crick and Provine etc we tend not to doubt as we might be a critic at Kant for today and that which is routinely done here in EVC speak etc, but look, if the 49/51 question as REPRESENTED in the OP IS the offset of Kant is as MOVED FROM his use of analogon of life RATHER than analogon of art, a set in the death margin kinematically no matter the full dynamics might simply give death by tapeworms NOT to a Mathusian effective cause no matter how ecosystems might be engineered, but to causality ONLY with respect to man(by using economic equations finally while dissecting plant growth etc) that is unrecorded in biology because germs and bacteria (viruses etc) are seen as diseases rather than simply tippings of the Galton polygon.This is the form of the argument. Restricting the discussion BACK to DNA when both DNA and proteins are involved fails to notice that Croizat's method provides if not a priority itself, the motivation to think like physicist's did parabolas on the place of unusally symmetrical shapes in endemic places little habitable but using artifical selection to rationalize natural selection makes an error Kant had already corrected by a taste for an analogy NOT to art he solved "dialectically".I assume you are STILL a "happy" atheist.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-30-2005 08:25 AM

I think there IS a missing one. I have not been able to write it down determinatively as of yet. I need a little more time. I am writing a primer on Malthus first so that how I have a problem with the specific endpoints you quite clearly reflected on comes even clearer and cleaner. The process before and after homochirality could be different in different parts of the universe or slightly deviant within the solar system, I am tempted to think... This thought is somewhat like that as to if the matter in a pendulum affects its rate of swing. There was some discussion of a 5th force but that has not been supported. I do not want to be lead INTO temptation however.It is not that I can not follow your logic but that the FUTURE possibility of an intlligent being (either alien or idolic) differentiates a different EFFECT in the process you named IN Life for me while it does not at present indicate any possible deviation in death currently in my mind. I have to check out that possibility before I can uncategorically respond. That is why I am investigating Malthus and Pearson's reference to Malthus through Darwin where Malthus talks about the size of a Cabbage head. The issue specifically could be then the relation of homochirality to protein differences across selectable changes in cabbages. I do not want to get ahead of myself, I just wanted you to know I was still thinking of your question AND answer. I have cited Gladyshev on chirality before and this would applyhttp://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ohfrmab/ohfrmab.htm
to both proteins and nucleic acids but it seems slightly possible that there is a distributive effect when one considers motion of Earth Vs motion of chemcials rotating on other planets that is NOT contained in the endpoints being two in your end. Yes they might be two "fundamentally" or "elementally" but for the biology involved it might matter INITIALLY (to be defined later) any slight difference in the PROPORTION of the left and right sided ones DEPENDENT on monohierarchy reverse information flow (given life) from one side than the other of a later fit survivability. I think I can express the retrodiction a bit better later. Thanks for the reply.One needs to account for symmetry FACTORS in the DIFFERENCE of Earth and other Planet trajectories.I will be working out most of the issues that are not directly chemical here
EvC Forum: "CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE" - Critique
and then I will post back here on the specific issues in chemistry(biochemistry).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-06-2005 07:18 AM