Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?

Well, I'm thinking of people like Oro, Szostak, Fox ... it's ridiculous to say that there's been no new data because there've been no successful experiments. As Matt P pointed out, there's a whole journal devoted to studies in this field. If they're not publishing new data, what are they publishing --- knitting patterns?

Percy, They found more amino acids. most all needed for life, I think. Unfortunately, that does not qualify as life. Additionally, it does not qualify as life. Now that leaves the question, What is life?

Exactly what experiments can be cited, Dr.?

I guess you could start with Fox, S. W.; Dose, K. (1977). "Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life"; or you could look at the experiments detailed in Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Do you have any scientific critique of the peer-reviewed papers published in that journal?

Oh, I'll do that one. Life is any collection of molecules that can cause their own synthesis by surface catalysis.Your turn. What is life? Please note that you need a definition that incorporates both bacteria and God, and I have never seen any creationist supply one.

Thanks. I'll look that up. Maybe I'm wrong on this one

Well yes, you are. You can't possibly be right about whether people have been doing research in this field, and doing experiments, and publishing data. That is a fact so plain that it would be difficult even for a creationist to deny it.

I need incorporate bacteria ONLY if I believe in evolution, which I do not. This is the standard textbook version of life, which I adhere to. Viruses are non-living because they are unable to metabolise on their own. They need a host. So basically, an organism that is able to metabolise on their own. And, no. I don’t have to incorporate God into this. Since I do not know why you want it to be so.

No, Dr, you misrepresent me. Yes, they have been doing experiments, collecting data, etc. But. No experiment that makes life from non life. Per my definition. And yes, I'm getting about to reading those references, so I'll not be replying in awhile

No, you are misrepresenting yourself. What you wrote was: If you now wish that you had said something else entirely, then that is not my fault for "misrepresenting" you. I answered what you actually wrote.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I believe I have added to that what I wanted to say. It is not a contradiction. The extensions to M-U, I would not consider new.

Hrm, are you saying LimpSpider changed his mind and then used accusations of "misrepresentation" as a smokescreen to cover it up?Impossible - I'm reliably informed that nobody ever does that at EvC forum.

Hi LimpSpider,You seem to have forgotten the question you asked, so here's your question: I pointed you to webpages at Wikipedia that contained references to papers about experiments that were follow-ons to the Miller/Urey experiment specifically, and to abiogenesis research generally.You asked if you could provide references tomorrow, and I assumed this was a rhetorical question, but since you haven't provided any references today I guess you were waiting for permission. You do not need permission to provide references. In fact, it's in the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

But given what you just posted I'm now getting the feeling that what you really meant to ask was whether we've successfully synthesized life in the lab. The answer is no, not yet.--Percy

Ah, right, although new experiments have been performed, and new data published, you wouldn't "consider" these to be new experiments and new data, and you wouldn't "consider" their existence to contradict a statement that there have been no new experiments and no new data.It's going to be very difficult to talk to you then. If you don't "consider" facts to be facts ... you might be a creationist.

You seem to be having a lot of problems with simple definitions. In another thread you didn't seem to know the meaning of "extrapolation", and now in this thread you don't seem to understand the definition of "new".If a paper contains findings and information not in the original Miller/Urey paper, then those findings and information are necessarily new. Saying "I would not consider [them] new" reflects a problem with simple English.I think what you probably meant to say was that you were expecting papers that reflected more substantial progress toward the synthesis of life and that you didn't find that.--Percy