The lies behind the Miller experiment

What I have understood is that you evolve because you are better as a result of natual selection.

Um... no.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

I'm going to jump in though this is Charles's to talk about.It seems that your understanding is so far off base that getting it worded a number of different ways might help so I'll toss in my two cents. I'm not sure what you mean in detail by this so I may explain things that you already understand. Excuse me for being overly pedantic if I do that.First:
"You" don't evolve. An indivdual doesn't evolve at all. An individual animal is born and reproduces before dieing more or less successfully.What does "evolve" is a population of animals. If a specific trait helps one or more individuals in the population to reproduce better than there may well be more of that trait in the next generation of that population.That is, there will be a change in the mix of genes in the population from one generation to the next. Evolution is just that: a change in the mix of genes in a population over time.Next:
"You", an single animal is NOT better because of natural selection (NS). The single animal is possibly better because it happens to have a particularly good set of genes inherited from it's parents and/or it may have a brand new form of a gene that was a result of a mutation and not from it's parents genes.Then, if that change is in some way helpful for the animal to reproduce, there will be more of that form of the genetics of that individula in the next population generation. This is what "natural selection" is. It is the fact that the total environment will allow some individuals to produce more offspring than others. That is some are "selected" by nature around them.So the population is changed because not all genes in the previous generation make it through this selection process. Some do well, some don't. The popultion is changed by a combination of new genetic features arising AND by a selection process that allows some to carry on and some not. That is what evolution is.If there are no difference between the offspring in a new generation then there will be nothing for selection to work on. (This is a significant simplification since there can be changes in the genetic makeup of a population by other than NS) but for now let's not get to complicated.I hope that helps. I think I've gotten a bit too wordy. I hope Charles does better.(edited to change worky to wordy -- blush)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-04-2004 05:31 PM

No I think that's fine Ned, I think that a discussion of the basics* is required (no disrespect intended Jesusfreak).Jesusfreak - anything there you don't get or would like us to expand on?* (what is a theory?, what is a scientific fact? and some general evolution stuff)This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-04-2004 05:24 PM

To add to Nosy's comments, evolution does not proceed from worse-to-better, and is not a linear process.As examples, we are poorly "evolved" for life above the Arctic Circle, or at the bottom of the ocean near a deep sea vent. Other forms of life have evolved to survive well under those conditions. That does not mean that humans, polar bears, or thermophilic bacteria are any more or less evolved than the others - they are simply best suited to their environments.

JF.Just to let you know, you are making a common mistake amongst people who are new to science and evolution. You are confusing evolution (the changes in species over time acted upon by natural selection) with abiogenesis (life arising from inorganic origins). Both are compleatly different sciences. One deals with species (organisims), the other is largely chemestry.Because of this you could NEVER cite the Miller-Urey Experiment as anything other than proof of Abiogenesis. It has never been claimed (correctly at least) to support evolution.Just a heads up.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 06:14 PM

A word of advice for JESUS freak:Don't go near the deep end of the pool if you don't know how to swim. In other words: if you want to criticize scientific research, you need to know what you are talking about. Obviously, you don't. You're out of your depth here.

---

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

Actually, I was going to tell him that a couple days ago but realized that he was just going to pull that "I know everything there is to know" crap like so many others. I say we just ignore him and let him find out the humiliation on his own. Personally, I'm sick of having to save these people from future humiliations. People like J_f should learn the hard way when they happen to start blowing hot air out of their buttholes in front of real live people instead of an internet forum.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

I agree Lam. But the problem is that most of the real live people JESUS freak will meet, are likely jesus freaks themselves. So high scores on the humiliation front are not to be expected there. Some gentle humbling on this forum just might do the trick. That, and the Socratic method.Oh, and of course the occasional yelling through Dan Carrol's megaphone.

---

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

I have looked into this in multiple places a bit back and what I read said that the experiment created almost all tar. They realized this and filtered it out so the amino acids could live.To anwser your second question, Biology is next year. I have another year of earth science, ug, and the miller experiment is talked about in chapter 22, section four of Glencoe Mcgraw-Hill "Earth Science;Geology,The Enviroment and the Universe", copyright 2002
ISBN 0-07-821591-9

You haven't even taken biology and you're trying to debate with real live biologists on a subject of biology?This message has been edited by Lam, 11-05-2004 03:41 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

You are correct and I have not been clear about what I have said. The method that was tested false by the miller experiment is needed to create even somthing that might be called life. That is, short of a fusion reaction that happened to fuse the atoms of life together.

Personally, I'd prefer the frog's method of "beating them over the head with it."

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

And what does this books say that the experiment tells us about Evolution rather than Abiogensis? http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/earthscience/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}is this the book?This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-10-2004 02:45 PM

Dude, do you even know anything about what you just said? Fusion reaction to fuse atoms of life??? This is Earth, not Middle Earth or whatever fantasy land you live in.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!