Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stanley Miller debunked?
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 1 of 34 (229716)
08-04-2005 11:34 AM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 08-04-2005 12:13 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 12:14 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 7 by Matt P, posted 08-05-2005 12:42 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 28 by happy_atheist, posted 10-30-2005 6:01 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 32 by Jabez1000, posted 11-14-2005 12:57 PM compmage has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 34 (229725)
08-04-2005 11:54 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 08-04-2005 12:21 PM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 08-04-2005 12:22 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 34 (229738)
08-04-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
08-04-2005 11:34 AM


Your excerpt is from a Professor Enigma at TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for January 2000. It's a long page, you'll have to search for the excerpt.
Tim Thompson's answer right below it seems fine. He doesn't bother addressing any of Professor Enigma's misrepresentations, just states the true purpose of Miller's experiment.
Anyone can say whatever they like, especially on the Internet. What makes you think much of what Professor Enigma says is accurate?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 11:34 AM compmage has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 4 of 34 (229741)
08-04-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
08-04-2005 11:34 AM


The answer is that the Miller experiment had a number of flaws, but it was not the last word into research on the possibility of abiogenesis. Why not read some scientific papers rather than ID websites? Perhaps Miller has actually kept up to date with current research and didn't see any point defending decades old research which he himself has superceded.
If your argument simply boils down to the probability or unlikelihood of abiogenesis perhaps you would like to give us some indication how you arrived at that level of probability.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 11:34 AM compmage has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 34 (229747)
08-04-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
08-04-2005 11:54 AM


1. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution works regardless of how life got started. Your request for a reply from 'Evolutionists' is misplaced.
2. The Miller experiment was never designed to create life.
3. The experiment was suprising even given its minimal success.
4. The Miller experiment is not the end all be all of biogenesis research. Many other experiments have been conducted since then with different results.
5. The failure of one historical experiment to create life, for which it was not even intended to do, does not mean that life could not arise naturally nor that we will never figure out how.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-04-2005 11:54 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:16 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 34 (229748)
08-04-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
08-04-2005 11:54 AM


oops
My bad, meant to reply to OP.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-04-2005 11:54 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 7 of 34 (229979)
08-05-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
08-04-2005 11:34 AM


Not quite
quote:
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.
Carboxylic acids poisonous? I'll have to remember that the next time I try to eat foods with vinegar or the next time my Krebs cycle tries to get rid of those pesty glycolysis end products for me...
Tar is no more toxic than a pointy object. Sure, you don't want to get it in your lungs, but the earliest organisms probably didn't have to worry about that.
Indeed, Miller has kept up to date and is still publishing (albeit as last author). Miller's experiment has been modified both to fit the primordial atmosphere better and to generate superior concentrations of organic compounds. Please also check the topic "Stanley Miller Experiment- Was it rigged?" for more information on the historical background for this fine experiment.
Message 1 Link added by AdminJar
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-05-2005 10:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 08-04-2005 11:34 AM compmage has not replied

  
Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 34 (232742)
08-12-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jazzns
08-04-2005 12:21 PM


"5. The failure of one historical experiment to create life, for which it was not even intended to do, does not mean that life could not arise naturally nor that we will never figure out how."
Does this mean you take it as a matter of faith that we one day will prove life arose naturally?
Isn't this very concept a matter of belief and not science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 08-04-2005 12:21 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 08-12-2005 5:20 PM Highlander has replied
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2005 5:28 PM Highlander has replied
 Message 11 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-12-2005 5:31 PM Highlander has replied
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2005 6:02 PM Highlander has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 34 (232744)
08-12-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:16 PM


quote:
Does this mean you take it as a matter of faith that we one day will prove life arose naturally?
What would you consider "proof" that life arose naturally? I can't think of anything that would be considered proof. Like any other science, all that anyone can do is to construct reasonable theories, based on our current understanding of science, and then test the principles as best we can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:16 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 6:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 34 (232750)
08-12-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:16 PM


premature conclucsions
Does this mean you take it as a matter of faith that we one day will prove life arose naturally?
Isn't this very concept a matter of belief and not science?
This can only be answered if we are clear on what is and is not "faith". To me faith is something believed without any evidence.
Since we can look at history and see that one after another we have found good explanations for things it is not unreasonable to suppose that we might answer this question too. Since we already have clues and this historical perspective it is any trust that we may answer the orgin of life question is not really a matter of "faith".
Since there are still enormous gaps in our understanding of this to arrive at a conclusion with any firmness now would not be based on much of what I would call science. It would be more an "educated guess": neither science or faith.
I also doubt that we will every "prove" this. I think that we will have very reasonable and strongly supported scenarios but since the "proof" is almost certainly lost in the intervening 4 Gyrs to say we will prove it is too strong.
I do suspect that within a century we will see life arise, on it's own, in the lab, under conditions that are at least reasonable for the conditions on earth early in it's history. I am pretty darn sure that it will not be life like that which occupies the earth today. My wild assed guess is that can not form in a short period of time whatever the conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:16 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 08-12-2005 5:39 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 15 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 6:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 11 of 34 (232752)
08-12-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:16 PM


Welcome
Hello Highlander, welcome to our little corner of the asylum.
In my signature box you can find a few links that can make things easier for newbies around here. I would especially like to point out our Forum Guidelines and our Post of the Month forum. In the PotM forum you will find some of the best that EvC has to offer.
When replying to a particular post please use the reply button on the bottom right of that post. This leaves a cookie crumb trail to follow conversations backwards and forwards. It can also give email notification to the author of that post. General replies, not to any particular post, can be created with the General Reply buttons on the top right and bottom left of each page.
When composing your response you will find a few links directly to the left of the text box; HTML On and dBCodes On. These explain all the formatting available to members here.
Next

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:16 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 6:32 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (232758)
08-12-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
08-12-2005 5:28 PM


Re: premature conclucsions
quote:
I do suspect that within a century we will see life arise, on it's own, in the lab, under conditions that are at least reasonable for the conditions on earth early in it's history.
I'm not so confident, Ned. When life arose, it might have had up to a few tens of millions of years to do it, and perhaps the entire oceans. It could be that the probability of life arising is, although very high in terms of the entire earth, too small to be performed in a laboratory.
On the other hand, I would, of course, be tickled pink if in my life-time a complicated cell-like self-replicating chemical system appears in someone's laboratory experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2005 5:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 13 of 34 (232769)
08-12-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:16 PM


Does this mean you take it as a matter of faith that we one day will prove life arose naturally?
Not at all! It just means that out inability to reproduce the theorized abiogenesis of life does not constitute evidence that it did not occur.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:16 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 6:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 34 (232781)
08-12-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
08-12-2005 5:20 PM


quote:
What would you consider "proof" that life arose naturally? I can't think of anything that would be considered proof. Like any other science, all that anyone can do is to construct reasonable theories, based on our current understanding of science, and then test the principles as best we can.
I agree, but isn't the conlcusion life must have arisen via naturalist (random and undirected) means speculation based on inference? Doesn't that put it par with design theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 08-12-2005 5:20 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 08-12-2005 7:42 PM Highlander has not replied

  
Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (232782)
08-12-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
08-12-2005 5:28 PM


Re: premature conclucsions
quote:
To me faith is something believed without any evidence.
So what is the evidence life arose spontaneously and without direction?
Is it merely that there is no evidence it did not, therefore it must have? I've heard that before, seems a little circular to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2005 5:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 08-12-2005 6:46 PM Highlander has replied
 Message 20 by Matt P, posted 08-12-2005 7:20 PM Highlander has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024