The lies behind the Miller experiment

quote:

---

Welcome to the atheist indoctrination camp for christians.

---

Actually, it's the scientific indoctrination camp for creationists. This is where your creo cohorts learn what it is like to support a scientific theory.

quote:

---

1) First off, though the quote does say something about ammonia not being in the earth’s early atmosphere, it left out other thinks that Miller used that also were not.

---

And without ammonia other researchers were able to produce amino acids in similar fashion. It is a shame that the article did not include the other gases that were not present in Earth's early atmosphere but were present in Miller's experiment. However, this point needs to be made. Miller's experiment was constructed using the knowledge of his time. That is, the atmosphere in the Miller experiment reflected the 1950's theories on the Earth's early atmosphere. Miller was not trying to create an atmosphere that was easier to produce amino acids in. Rather, he was trying to use the most accurate models available to him. For that he should be rewarded, not bad-mouthed.

quote:

---

a) Miller used a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, meaning the atmosphere was mostly hydrogen. Scientists now believe that little or no hydrogen was present in earth’s early atmosphere. Who’s leaving out facts now?

---

If this was a scientific paper, it should have been included. However, this is an article for lay people such as yourself. It was not written for the scientific community. Also, further research without hydrogen has also yielded amino acids, so the point is really moot.

quote:

---

2) Secondly, Miller and Urey were careful to make sure that no oxygen got into their atmosphere. (quote from a middle school biology book used today) Of course they were careful to make sure no oxygen got in, as oxygen would have broken down the amino acids. However without oxygen, we would not have the atmosphere that we need. Without an atmosphere, no life could have lived, because not only would large meteorites always be striking the earth, but earth sans atmosphere could not have supported life because the UV rays from the sun would fry every living thing, if there was anything living, since no life yet existed.

---

Life can survive without oxygen. For early photosynthetic plants, oxygen was actually an overabundant by product and it was shed into the atmosphere. Also, some bacteria can't grow in the presence of oxygen. These types of bacteria are called strict anaerobes. In fact, these types of bacteria are actually killed by oxygen. I know because I grow them on a regular basis. Sorry, but oxygen is not a requirement for life.

quote:

---

a) Second, this is somewhat off topic, but even if the earth existed without oxygen back when life started, when and how did we get all of the oxygen and nitrogen that we have now? No other planets near us (or in our solar system for that matter) have nitrogen or oxygen to give us?

---

It was produced by photosynthetic single celled organisms, and later by mutlicellular photosynthetic organisms. It is a byproduct of making sugars from sunlight and carbon dioxide. What the organisms didn't need for respiration was shed into the atmosphere.I was also curious about your claim that the textbooks used the Miller experiment to support evolution. If this is true I will send an ugly email to the publishers on your behalf.

quote:

---

I think, in the spirit of boot camp, that you all should let him know that fessing up or admiting to jumping to conclusions or even admiting to lying will not cause the wrath of EvC posters to come down on him but rather that he would be gaining a measure of respect for being honest.

---

I second this motion. I, for one, would have MORE respect for JF if he came out and said "I was mistaken". As I said in another post, if a textbook is using the Miller experiment to support evolution I will PERSONALLY email the publishers and chew them out on JF's behalf.

quote:

---

If JF isn't lying, it would make more sense that the author(s) and publishers are not part of mainstream science.

---

I would send an email regardless. Anything put forth as science is going to be treated equally, regardless of the opinions of the publishers or authors. It is a possibility that JF is reading a creationist science text book, but regardless bad science is bad science and should be confronted.

quote:

---

Just for clarification, I never called JF a liar.

---

I think all of us here, with a few minor exceptions, understood that you were not calling JF a liar. In fact, you were trying to prevent it from happening. I think we are battling a removal of Common Sense.

quote:

---

So what if it was thought to be the right atmosphere then? That was fine then, but now, even though we arn't sure exactly what earth's early atmosphere consisted of, we are almost positive that it was not at all like the miller-urey experiment

---

And we aren't sure if life formed under an atmosphere at all. Life could have originated in deep sea vents, in mud deep below the surface, or even in amino acid containing meteorites. What we are positive about is that amino acids can be made in very simple conditions. Given that amino acids can be found in meteorites is strong evidence that even if Miller's conditions are not met that amino acids can still form through natural mechanisms.As a sidenote, amino acids may not even be required for life to come about through abiogenesis. Recent research shows that RNA may be a viable pathway.

quote:

---

Secondly, the miller experiment does have a lot to do with evoloution. Without a life form to multiply get through many generations get better suited for for his enviroment, evoloution is impossible. Without divine intervention, 0 multiplied by 5 billion years still =0

---

Do you have to know where metal came from to build a car? Do you have to know where the sun came from in order to predict storm patterns? Do you have to know where germs came from in order to study infectious diseases? Of course not, but yet you are making the same leap of illogic. Evolution assumes that life existed at some point, and how it got there is irrelevant to evolution. There is a separate theory that deals with where that first life came from, and that theory is abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment was one of the first experiments that dealt with the theory of abiogenesis.

quote:

---

that said, someone needs to reproduce the experiment based on our current data on the atmospheric composition of early earth, and the early sun for that matter (the suns energy would have a great effect on the outcome of reactions) and then we can talk about that.

---

We also can't ignore other possible energy sources including meteor impacts and wave action.I haven't been able to read the actual research papers as of yet, but those experiments have been done. From http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

quote:

---

One, my cyinide argument has not been proved wrong.

---

Cyanide is highly reactive (as Percy mentioned). The toxicity of cyanide is due to its affinity for heme, the chemical in red blood cells that binds oxygen. Therefore, victims of cyanide poisoning die of suffocation since there RBC's are irreversibly binding HCN instead of O2. Since the first life would not have needed heme or red blood cells (or even oxygen for that matter), cyanide would not necessarily be "bad". [as a side note, did cyanide get it's name because it causes cyanosis?]. As Percy also mentions, cyanide is actually an intermediate chemical NEEDED for the production of amino acids (as is formaldehyde). Next, if peptides are able to bind to a solid support, the cyanide and formaldehyde can be diluted through wave action or tidal force if it occurs in a tidal plain. Your cyanide argument is wrong, cyanide would not prohibit the construction of an imperfect replicator hypothesized by those who work in abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Two, I will admit that my posts may have been misleading to some. This was not intentional, and if it is so misleading, I will try to be more clear, and will have proof posted soon, within the week almost definitly.

---

Good, that is all we wanted. I am hoping that you can post large chunks including the paragraphs containing the pertinent info as well as the paragraphs in between. Context is everything in scientific literature.

quote:

---

Three, you and Ned are right, there are a whole bunch of cults that claim to be christian that blow up abortion clinics and stuff like that. There are also cults that claim to be Muslim, and crash airplanes into tall buildings in GOD's name. Luckily, I do not fall into either catorgory.

---

Extremists can be found in every walk of life. I don't blame christians for the sins of a few misguided souls. I hope you do the same for everybody, regardless of their religion or worldview.