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


Message 61 of 115 (157213)
11-08-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JESUS freak
11-08-2004 9:50 AM


Re: An explanation of evolution
The Urey-Miller experiment didn't fail - it was a great success. Urey thought that it wouldn't produce anything interesting at all.
Here's what Miller said in '96
quote:
...The first thing he [Urey - PK] tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JESUS freak, posted 11-08-2004 9:50 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 115 (157216)
11-08-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JESUS freak
11-08-2004 9:50 AM


Here's your problem
First, in your OP you said that the Miller experiment was used as evidence to support Evolution.
Many people here have pointed out to you that it has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution deals with what happened after life formed, not with how life formed.
Second, you have claimed that the experiment failed and the reason you claim it failed was that a later experiment produced cyanid. Well, again, people have pointed out to you that there are critters that live in such an environment.
How life started is still very much an open question. But it is also one that will very likely be solved during your lifetime if not mine. The Miller experiment was from 50 years ago and much has happened since then.
In summary, the Miller experiment has nothing to do with Evolution or the Theory of Evolution. Even if it is totally wrong it has no effect on the TOE.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JESUS freak, posted 11-08-2004 9:50 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:00 PM jar has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 115 (157234)
11-08-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Yaro
11-05-2004 4:20 PM


Re: An explanation of evolution
also that the fate of any science does not rest on the results of one experiment, especially one 50 years old and back when knowledge of original conditions was less complete than it is today.
experiments are done to test theories, and when they fail only the specific theory being tested fails (and when they succeed then only the specific theory being tested is validated ... but not "proved" ...)
this just sends scientists back to look at the basics, review the data and develop new theories that also include the previous test results in the background data.
thus recent experiments show how the first membrane systems could have occured:
Nature - Not Found
It is an experiment you could do in a school chemistry lab. But it produces weird growths that, although made purely from inorganic materials, share some of the characteristics of living organisms.
Maselko and Strizhak mixed calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, copper chloride, sodium iodide, hydrogen peroxide and starch. They found a fungus-like, soft membrane grows out of the mixture, enclosing a hollow cavity up to 1 cm across. Chemicals diffuse through this membrane, react inside the cavity, and then diffuse out, creating swirling clouds of violet liquid in the green base solution.
Rather than reaching equilibrium, this process persists. The reactions, say the researchers, are reminiscent of the way living cells sustain themselves, driven from equilibrium by the flow of chemicals and energy across their membranes.
Maselko and Strizhak even saw a kind of replication in their chemical brew. Sometimes the cell structures grew into forms with several lobes, or sprouted buds that split off from the parent membrane.
But although they look impressive, can these structures tell us anything about the origin of true life-forms? It seems the answer might be yes, because the differences between the two processes are not as fundamental as one might assume.
Maselko is keen to follow up his discovery to see just how far the parallels with life run. "This is only the beginning," he says. "We will see many other systems like this. The next step will be to get these systems to evolve."
then there is:
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html
... this new work shows that the early chemical steps believed to be important for the origin of life do not necessarily require an already formed planet to occur. Instead, they can readily be taken in the depths of space long before planet formation occurs. This implies that the vastness of space is filled with compounds which, if landing in a hospitable environment, can help jump-start the origin of life.
"Instead of finding a handful of molecules only slightly more complicated than the starting compounds, hundreds of new compounds are produced in every mixed ice we have studied," space scientist Scott Sandford said. He continued, "We are finding that the types of compounds produced in these ices are strikingly similar to many of those brought to Earth today by infalling meteorites and their smaller cousins, the interplanetary dust particles. ... Thus, much of the organic material found on the Earth in its earliest years probably had an interstellar heritage."
"A number of years ago I found that some of the extraterrestrial organic compounds brought to Earth in the Murchison meteorite could form membranous vesicles when they interacted with water," said team member Dave Deamer, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz. ... "When I learned of the ice experiments at NASA Ames, I went to the Astrochemistry Lab intending to find out what would happen when their complex organic mixtures were allowed to interact with water. To our surprise and delight we found that vesicular structures formed that looked very much like those we saw in the Murchison material."
"We now know that of the hundreds of new compounds we make in these interstellar ice simulation experiments, many have properties relevant to the origin of life," said biochemist Jason Dworkin. "Upon the addition of liquid water to the organics produced during ice irradiation, some of these new compounds, with no outside help, organize themselves into tiny vesicles with complicated structures. Other new compounds formed are so much more complex than what we started with that they glow when exposed to UV light. Not only that, but these molecules, which can convert energy from the ultraviolet light to the visible range, become part of the self-formed vesicles," continued Dworkin.
hmmm ... cell-like membranes concentrating chemicals where they can react together ...
a whole bunch of experiments if not a whole field of scientific inquiry inspired by one experiment 50 years ago ... I would call that a resounding success myself.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Yaro, posted 11-05-2004 4:20 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:06 PM RAZD has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 64 of 115 (157237)
11-08-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JESUS freak
11-08-2004 9:50 AM


Re: An explanation of evolution
It's irrelivant weather it faild or not. It cann't be sited as even an ATEMPT to prove evolution. It has NOTHING to do with evolution.
It is an expiriment dealing with ABIOGENISIS.
Do you understand the difference between the two theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JESUS freak, posted 11-08-2004 9:50 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:02 PM Yaro has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 115 (158040)
11-10-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
11-08-2004 10:02 AM


Failure
Fine, the first miller experiment didn't fail compleatly. Yes it did form some amino acids along with the poisonous tar. If they had used the right atmusphere, it might have proved something. At the time of his experiment, miller was depending upon harold urey's theories about the atmosphere. Though the hydrogen rich enviroment was a commen theory back then, almost no credible scientist today would tell you the atmosphere was like the one that miller used in his chamber. As a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution said in the 1960's, "What is the evidence for a primitive methane ammonia atmosphere on earth. The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it." Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers in the 1970's, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, said that miller used the wrong gas mixture. The first miller experiment proved that in the right man made conditions, a few amino acids can form and float around doing nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 11-08-2004 10:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2004 5:16 PM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 88 by CK, posted 11-13-2004 5:30 AM JESUS freak has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 115 (158045)
11-10-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
11-08-2004 10:04 AM


Re: Here's your problem
Fine, let's say that the miller experiment has nothing to do with evoloution. This doesn't change the fact that it is being used as evidence in school courses. My point remains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 11-08-2004 10:04 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2004 2:03 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 2:06 PM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 74 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 4:39 PM JESUS freak has not replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 115 (158049)
11-10-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Yaro
11-08-2004 10:37 AM


Re: An explanation of evolution
That was my point, it may not have anything to do with evoloution, but IT IS BEING USED AS PROOF OF evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Yaro, posted 11-08-2004 10:37 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2004 11:02 PM JESUS freak has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 115 (158052)
11-10-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:00 PM


This doesn't change the fact that it is being used as evidence in school courses.
Well, yeah. Evidence that you can derive organic molecules from inorganic chemical processes. Which you agreed is what the experiment proved in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:00 PM JESUS freak has not replied

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


Message 69 of 115 (158058)
11-10-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:00 PM


School textbooks
When I was in grade 7 the socials text book we had dated the demise of the dinosaurs at 5 million years. I knew that was dead wrong. I never did find out if the text had a mistake or it was soooo old that it was using a current date from decades before. This was, after all, only a decade after radiometric dating became available. -- They coulda gotten the right date for the demise of the dinos from my birth certificate since it was about the same time I was born.
The fact that a text is wrong is a problem. So make a fuss and get it fixed.
You haven't however, that I recall, given us the ISBN of the text book or an exact quote from it. If you don't supply enough information for others to judge the text it is about as likely that you simply got it wrong. Wouldn't be the first time would it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-10-2004 02:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:00 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:07 PM NosyNed has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 115 (158059)
11-10-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
11-08-2004 10:35 AM


Re: An explanation of evolution
One, the elements in your first experiment were not on earth when it was created. Secondly, you want a brane to form? Just leave your soup out at room temprature for a hour or two, you call that organic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 10:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2004 4:43 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 8:55 PM JESUS freak has replied

JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 115 (158063)
11-10-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 2:06 PM


Re: School textbooks
Yes I did give you the ISBN and the other guy found the book. I'll get others and quote from the one I have when I get the time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 2:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 2:14 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 83 by CK, posted 11-11-2004 6:44 AM JESUS freak has not replied

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


Message 72 of 115 (158070)
11-10-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:07 PM


Re: School textbooks
I didn't find where you gave the ISBN, but Charles seemed to have found it anyway. He then asked where it was being used as evidence for evolution cause he couldn't find it and you didn't give it.
Perhaps you should get clear what you are objecting to exactly since it has become a bit muddled over the course of this thread.
You have yet to substantiate your use of the word "lies" as well. That is a bit harder than to just show that something is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:07 PM JESUS freak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-10-2004 2:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 73 of 115 (158086)
11-10-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 2:14 PM


Re: School textbooks
quote:
...but Charles seemed to have found it anyway.
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/earthscience/... is the link given by Charles Knight, back in message 29. I don't see anything to do with abiogenesis on the page. Perhaps a different page of the same general source?
{BTW, the non-admin mode likes the cited site - Hopefully will explore it further later.}
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 2:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 11-11-2004 6:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 115 (158122)
11-10-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:00 PM


I don't doubt that it is mentioned as a problem in many schools
particularly those that teach a Creation based point of view. But so far you have not shown where it is taught as part of a study.
If it is being used, then the teacher simply does not understand the subject. It has nothing to do with evolution.
But let's go on to the next step.
You say that there were lies behind the experiment. Can you support that assertion?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:00 PM JESUS freak has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 115 (158127)
11-10-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by JESUS freak
11-10-2004 2:06 PM


Just leave your soup out at room temprature for a hour or two, you call that organic?
Is soup inorganic or organic? Since you can eat it, and it's made from plant and animals, why don't you tell me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JESUS freak, posted 11-10-2004 2:06 PM JESUS freak 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