Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The lies behind the Miller experiment
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 115 (155260)
11-02-2004 5:13 PM


Errors in presentation of Miller experiment
The Miller experiment did not prove anything.
The miller experiment may be fifty years old, but it is still one of the most prominent arguments for evolution. It even looks true at first glance. Miller did his famous experiment 1953 with a bunch of test tubes and a mini tesla coil that he used to simulate lightning on a sphere of gasses that he thought represented the early atmosphere. The atmosphere that miller used was a hydrogen rich mixture of hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. This atmosphere, when sparked constantly in the same place for a week, (a lightning bolt is much shorter than one second) created amino acids. This is still in textbooks (including mine) today. Creating amino acids sounds good, until you learn that these amino acids had to be individually contained while they formed so that all the poisonous tar that that the experiment made would not kill them, making it most definitely un-natural.
Here is a bigger problem with the experiment: the correct atmosphere was not used. Both Creationist and Darwinist scientists agree that early earth’s atmosphere was not hydrogen rich. The experiment has been tested again with the correct atmosphere and this time formed life-forming organic molecules cyanide, and formaldehyde. At least that’s what my science book says. Fine. I’ll accept that they both contain carbon, and thus can be called organic. However, Cyanide life-giving? Ya right. Let’s talk about these two elements for a second. First, Cyanide is not some instant life giver. No you can’t Just Add Lightning! to get life. Cyanide is actually the stuff that makes up suicide pills! Why use Cyanide? The government uses cyanide because it is so poisonous that it can instantly kill a human with no pain. It is almost the same with formaldehyde. This compound cannot even be opened up in a lab with out major equipment to protect all living cells. They also use this element in china for abortions. Here’s the funny part; when you combine both of them, you get embalming fluid!
(edited to merger post 3 into the OP)
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2004 10:17 AM
This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 11-04-2004 03:42 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 11-02-2004 5:23 PM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 11-04-2004 10:30 AM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 7 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2004 10:38 AM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2004 8:00 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-07-2004 12:36 PM JESUS freak has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 115 (155263)
11-02-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JESUS freak
11-02-2004 5:13 PM


Needs work
You should supply rather a lot more information before this can be considered as an adequate opening post (OP).
You would have to describe your understanding of the Miller experiment, what it was intended to, or claimed to prove and why you think it didn't.
You should also explain why you'd bring up a half century old rather primitive experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JESUS freak, posted 11-02-2004 5:13 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 9:38 AM AdminNosy has not replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 115 (155791)
11-04-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
11-02-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Needs work
Fine I've never requested a topic before.
The miller experiment may be fifty years old, but it is still one of the most prominent arguments for evolution. It even looks true at first glance. Miller did his famous experiment 1953 with a bunch of test tubes and a mini tesla coil that he used to simulate lightning on a sphere of gasses that he thought represented the early atmosphere. The atmosphere that miller used was a hydrogen rich mixture of hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. This atmosphere, when sparked constantly in the same place for a week, (a lightning bolt is much shorter than one second) created amino acids. This is still in textbooks (including mine) today. Creating amino acids sounds good, until you learn that these amino acids had to be individually contained while they formed so that all the poisonous tar that that the experiment made would not kill them, making it most definitely un-natural.
Here is a bigger problem with the experiment: the correct atmosphere was not used. Both Creationist and Darwinist scientists agree that early earth’s atmosphere was not hydrogen rich. The experiment has been tested again with the correct atmosphere and this time formed life-forming organic molecules cyanide, and formaldehyde. At least that’s what my science book says. Fine. I’ll accept that they both contain carbon, and thus can be called organic. However, Cyanide life-giving? Ya right. Let’s talk about these two elements for a second. First, Cyanide is not some instant life giver. No you can’t Just Add Lightning! to get life. Cyanide is actually the stuff that makes up suicide pills! Why use Cyanide? The government uses cyanide because it is so poisonous that it can instantly kill a human with no pain. It is almost the same with formaldehyde. This compound cannot even be opened up in a lab with out major equipment to protect all living cells. They also use this element in china for abortions. Here’s the funny part; when you combine both of them, you get embalming fluid!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 11-02-2004 5:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 11-04-2004 10:28 AM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2004 4:03 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 11-04-2004 4:14 PM JESUS freak has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 115 (155809)
11-04-2004 10:18 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I know it is your first topic. It's not a bad one now.
I merged post 3 into the opening post (OP) so that it can be refered to in one place.
I might ask if you want me to change the topic title and remove the word lies. If you wish to leave it you're going to have to defend the assertion that someone is lying. That may distract from the main theme of the discussion. How about "Errors in use of the Miller Experiment" or something to that effect?
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2004 10:20 AM

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 115 (155813)
11-04-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 9:38 AM


Re: Needs work
Are you saying that the miller-urey experiment is presented without the objections that have been raised against it?
That a one-sided view of this work is given?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-04-2004 10:29 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-04-2004 10:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 9:38 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:44 PM CK has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 115 (155818)
11-04-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JESUS freak
11-02-2004 5:13 PM


The Miller experiment did not prove anything.
It proved organic compounds could arise through non-organic processes.
The miller experiment may be fifty years old, but it is still one of the most prominent arguments for evolution.
The miller experiment (or Miller-Urey experiment to give credit where credit is due) has exactly nothing to do with evolution, and is most certainly therefore not a prominent argument for it.
This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 11-04-2004 10:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JESUS freak, posted 11-02-2004 5:13 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:54 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 7 of 115 (155823)
11-04-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JESUS freak
11-02-2004 5:13 PM


JESUS freak writes:
[...] cyanide [...] is so poisonous that it can instantly kill a human [...]
Are you suggesting that if cyanide is poisonous for humans, then it must be poisonous for every other living thing?

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JESUS freak, posted 11-02-2004 5:13 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:51 PM Parasomnium has not replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 115 (155916)
11-04-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
11-04-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Needs work
Yes I am, at least in EVERY non-Christian text book that talks about it. And the media (popoular science, Feb 2004)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 11-04-2004 10:28 AM CK has not replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 115 (155922)
11-04-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Parasomnium
11-04-2004 10:38 AM


First, I have read that it is, though this may be incorrect. Second if we evolved from such orginisms that wern't poisend by it, would't that be going backwards in evoloution for that to be now hazerdous for us humans? Yet we are "evolved" from them in other ways. Is there any advantage in having cyanide be extreamly poisonous to us humans, the "pinacle of evolution?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2004 10:38 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 11-04-2004 4:01 PM JESUS freak has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 115 (155927)
11-04-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
11-04-2004 10:30 AM


I think that it is a part of evoloution, but whatever my opinion is about it, the miller-urly experiment is being used extensively to premote evoloution everywhere from my textbooks to National Geograpic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 11-04-2004 10:30 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 11-04-2004 3:58 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2004 4:01 PM JESUS freak has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 115 (155930)
11-04-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 3:54 PM


Can you link me to an example of this? you mentioned "popular science" - is this a magazine?
I have to ask, you understand the difference between evolution and Abiogensis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:54 PM JESUS freak has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 115 (155937)
11-04-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 3:51 PM


quote:
First, I have read that it is, though this may be incorrect. Second if we evolved from such orginisms that wern't poisend by it, would't that be going backwards in evoloution for that to be now hazerdous for us humans? Yet we are "evolved" from them in other ways. Is there any advantage in having cyanide be extreamly poisonous to us humans, the "pinacle of evolution?"
You seem to be have misunderstood evolution - we don't become "better" when we evolve - we become better for the enviroment that we exist in.
Do you understand the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:51 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 5:05 PM CK has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 13 of 115 (155938)
11-04-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 3:54 PM


More care, more thought
I think that it is a part of evoloution, but whatever my opinion is about it, the miller-urly experiment is being used extensively to premote evoloution everywhere from my textbooks to National Geograpic
It happens that your, unsupported, "thought" doesn't really cut it. If various texts or National Geographic are misusing the Miller-Urey experiment then that is a problem with them. They are wrong to do so.
You're going to have to start supporting what you say with specific references. I strongly suspect based on your misunderstanding of the science involved that you may not be reading these sources correctly. We now need to see quotes from these sources so they may be evaluated.
I suggest you spend more time reading over posts here before you continue posting. We do have a forum to help people learn how to debate and you may earn a spot there in record time if you continue on your current vein.
If you have any questions about exactly what problems are perceived with both the content and the style of your posts please post to the questions and suggestions forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 3:54 PM JESUS freak has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 115 (155942)
11-04-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 9:38 AM


Re: Needs work
I have an actual undergraduate text book - Mark Ridley's Evolution (2nd Edition - 1996) I would report on what it says about the Miller-Urey experient but it seems to be absent entirely. It's so important to Evolution that one of the most comprehensive textbooks around doesn't even mention it.
Nor does Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is - also intended as an undergraduate level text.
Perhaps you can explain why you feel that the esperiment is one of the "most popular arguments for evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 9:38 AM JESUS freak has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 115 (155950)
11-04-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JESUS freak
11-04-2004 9:38 AM


Re: Needs work
JESUS freak writes:
Creating amino acids sounds good, until you learn that these amino acids had to be individually contained while they formed so that all the poisonous tar that that the experiment made would not kill them, making it most definitely un-natural.
What does "individually contained" mean? I've never heard this mentioned before in relation to the Miller/Urey experiment, and can't imagine what it might be referring to. I found this diagram on the Internet, I don't know how accurate it is:
Moving on:
The experiment has been tested again with the correct atmosphere and this time formed life-forming organic molecules cyanide, and formaldehyde. At least that’s what my science book says.
I agree with you, it doesn't seem like cyanide and formaldehyde could be pathways to teh chemicals of life, but poking about on the web I found that Miller/Urey discovered that these are intermediate products on the way to producing amino acids, which are essential for life (http://www.rednova.com/...stories/2/2004/07/23/story101.html). Your science book might have garbled the explanation.
At that same website, and also poking about at other places on the web, I came across some information that says that in the later experiments (Juan Oro, 1961, is usually mentioned) amino acids were formed from "hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in aqueous solution" (http://www.chem.duke.edu/...uise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html).
In any case, scientists would not consider a process whose end products were cyanide and formaldehyde as indicative that the chemicals necessary for life could be produced on the early earth, so it makes sense that these were actually intermediate products.
Which biology book are you using? My kids are both taking biology now, maybe it's the same one. In any case, I'll check the book tonight and see what they have to say about the Miller/Urey and subsequent experiments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JESUS freak, posted 11-04-2004 9:38 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by JESUS freak, posted 11-05-2004 3:34 PM Percy 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