Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?

And how do you know it isn't?

The concern has nothing to do with historical versus experimental or observational science. You said you had never seen a virus evolve metabolizing ability, and I responded with Biblical examples because I thought they would be more familiar to you, but let me remove the confusion with different examples. Would you object to the possibility of water on Mars because, "I've never seen water on Mars"? Would you object to the possibility of electrons because, "I've never seen an electron"? Would you object to the possibility of mountains eroding away to plains because, "I've never seen a mountain erode away to a plain"?In other words, "I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize," is no objection at all, but if you think it has validity then discussion with you is pointless. That's why I said it was concerning. I was afraid you were adopting the position that if you had never seen something happen with your own eyes that it was not possible.So what did you really mean when you said, "I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize"? Was there a legitimate objection that you actually had in mind?--Percy

No Percy, I don’t mean with my eyes, literally. That would be absurd. It would require that I see absolutely everything, which is physically impossible.We know there is water on Mars, in the frozen form. This we see through extension. The effects of the cause. However, you don’t see either the virus evolve to do so, or its effects. At least, it has never been reported. Electron’s effects can be seen. It can be tested, it can be theorized about. Mountains eroding to a plain. We can see erosion in action.This is not so with viruses. We can test if they metabolize. They do not. They have never been seen to do so (Via experimentation, when I say see, I don’t mean in the with my own eyes sense). By anyone.

You did not say, "I've never seen a virus metabolize." You said, "I've never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize." If you had a legitimate point, what was it?--Percy

So I made a paraphrasical mistake.

Okay, I guess you were forced into a tough choice between conceding you had no point or appearing clueless. Are you sure you made the right choice?Is there anything you'd still like to discuss about post Miller/Urey research into life's origins?--Percy

Well, I made my objections to the experiment, which were not refuted. And no, I was not appearing clueless or had no point. I paraphrased myself wrongly.
Then the topic became sidetracked.....so.

Under some conditions, and under some time frame measured in eons, and in some environment or sequences of environments. Can all of those things be reproduced? We have only guesses about some of those things.

I'm not sure what "intermediate" has to do with it. My point was that there is no fundamental difference between non-living and living matter; in fact, you have to bring in artificial criteria like metabloism to make a classification. It's possible that a virus-like "thing" could evolve a metabolism-like capability if there was some advantage to it.

Are Viruses Living? I’m not the only one who thinks viruses are non-living, ringo

Is that really the point? If viruses are non-living does that mean that they aren't part of the evolutionary pathway to life?I'm sure that when you did your search, you cherry picked away references such as the ones I've listed below. No you aren't wrong for saying that viruses are not alive, at least when they aren't attacking a cell, but as ringo pointed out the gulf between living and not is not as wide as you are trying to imply. "Are viruses alive?"

quote:

---

Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. Virions can remain in this dormant state for extended periods of time, waiting patiently to come into contact with the appropriate host. When the virion comes into contact with the appropriate host, it becomes active and is then referred to as a virus. It now displays properties typified by living organisms, such as reacting to its environment and directing its efforts toward self-replication"

---

From Scientific American: Are Viruses Alive

quote:

---

First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

---

Page not found | Whitehead Institute

quote:

---

What is the issue regarding whether viruses are alive or dead? Why do some scientists believe a virus is alive and some believe it's dead?

---

Not all scientists agree with Dr. Racaniello. Do you even know who he is?

quote:

---

The simplest answer is: "That depends".1 This is not meant to be flippant but it recognises that much of the definition of a word like "life" comes from personal perspective. There is no real wrong or right. You make your case for why you think it is or is not alive, and that's your posiiton. Cool. At best, viruses could be considered undead. No zombie parallels please-they don't eat brains

---

Source

quote:

---

For about 100 years, the scientific community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are. First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

---

Source

quote:

---

Viruses are infectious particles that consist of a DNA or an RNA molecule (the viral genome) packaged in a protein capsid, a protective coat that allows their transfer from one cell to another. Although it is in our nature as humans to try to classify things in order to make sense of the world around us, viruses may exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living creatures depending on the definition of life used. According to Schwann and Schleiden’s cell theory dating back to 1839, all living creatures are made of individual units of life called cells — small membrane-bounded compartments filled with a concentrated aqueous solution of chemicals. The simplest life forms are unicellular organisms; higher organisms, such as ourselves, are like cellular cities in which specialized functions are performed by different groups of cells linked by intricate communication systems. Under this definition, viruses are acellular particles and thus are definitely not alive. If one’s definition of life is a more evolutionary one, with an organism being defined as the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history (Luria et al., 1978), then viruses are definitely alive.

---

SourceScience is not all black and white. Few things are. Life, as science has shown, has a lot of grey.Oh others can argue by link too. Not much fun is it.ABE
Oops sorry I see NoNukes beat me on this.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

You don't have to work so hard at missing the point. Cearly, there is controversy over whether or not viruses are "alive". That makes my point. There just is no clearly-defined difference between "alive" and "not alive".The broader point, again, is that some virus-like "thing" could have evolved a metabloism-like capability if there was some advantage to it. That possibiliy is all that is needed for abiogenesis to happen.

The feline disagrees with you on that one, Limpy. The Virus is the King of the Living. He is the smartest and most efficient of all that which is alive. His memory is the longest. All the rest serves the benevolent King and His Will is done without Him lifting a protein.

Uh-huh. Never have I seen more a mature user!