[_ Old Earth _] The Origin Of Life. (Question)

[John]

Why do textbooks continue to imply that the Miller-Urey experiment shows how life could have developed when it actually uses an arbitrary and unrealistic set of conditions and produces amino acids which could not possibly lead to life? Only a few of the required amino acids have ever produced and even those are an unusable mixture of stereotypes. Why was oxygen excluded, even though, rocks in the earth's crust indicate oxygen has always been present? Doesn't the origin of life remain a total mystery?

 

[proponent]

Your final words don't really add up with the rest of your post. The origin of life IS a mystery, and the Miller-Urey experiments simply propose 1 theory of how life could have began.

 

[John]

Your final words don't really add up with the rest of your post. The origin of life IS a mystery, and the Miller-Urey experiments simply propose 1 theory of how life could have began.

So we have:
Miller-Urey
Space Aliens (which would have need of a definite beginning as well)
or god.

any others?

 

[Jayls5]

Your final words don't really add up with the rest of your post. The origin of life IS a mystery, and the Miller-Urey experiments simply propose 1 theory of how life could have began.

So we have:
Miller-Urey
Space Aliens (which would have need of a definite beginning as well)
or god.

any others?

Before you make threads like these, it would be nice to do some preliminary reading on the subject matter. If you did a wiki search of abiogenesis, you'd know that what you said is sort of... dumb.

Miller's experiment is but one of many speculations on the origin of life, none of which have significant scientific support as of yet. The fact that Miller was probably wrong yet still managed to produce some essential building blocks of life in a short period of time is pretty interesting though.

 

[John]

Your final words don't really add up with the rest of your post. The origin of life IS a mystery, and the Miller-Urey experiments simply propose 1 theory of how life could have began.

So we have:
Miller-Urey
Space Aliens (which would have need of a definite beginning as well)
or god.

any others?

Before you make threads like these, it would be nice to do some preliminary reading on the subject matter. If you did a wiki search of abiogenesis, you'd know that what you said is sort of... dumb.

Miller's experiment is but one of many speculations on the origin of life, none of which have significant scientific support as of yet. The fact that Miller was probably wrong yet still managed to produce some essential building blocks of life in a short period of time is pretty interesting though.

Yes is neat that he did that, but it is evidance for squat.

 

[proponent]

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, "God did it" is NOT the default answer to questions such as these, and only once another theory is completely proven is yours proven wrong. Yours have the burden of proof just as much as any theory.

 

[John]

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, "God did it" is NOT the default answer to questions such as these, and only once another theory is completely proven is yours proven wrong. Yours have the burden of proof just as much as any theory.

The evidance of god is in his creation.

 

[proponent]

Your logic is circular, as you have not proven that it IS his creation. Try again.

 

[John]

Your logic is circular, as you have not proven that it IS his creation. Try again.

No, you just don't want to accept it.

 

[Snidey]

Your logic is circular, as you have not proven that it IS his creation. Try again.

No, you just don't want to accept it.

No, it's illogical. Is rain evidence for a rain god? There was, after all, a time when that exact thing was argued. Then later we found out where rain comes from.

 

[Barbarian]

Miller-Urey was since confirmed by the Murchison meteorite, in which abiotic amino acids and peptides were found. So it turns out the experiment made a valid prediction.

Of course, it's not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is about the way living populations change, not how life began.

 

[Bryce]

A little off topic but,

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Name a few?

 

[Deep Thought]

A little off topic but,

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Name a few?

Surely we don't need to go through this again? There are plain as day inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible which has lead to extraordinary explainations/excuses from Christians who hold the Bible literally (although we've already shown that John Muise doesn't literally believe everything in the Bible)

 

[Patashu]

Why do textbooks continue to imply that the Miller-Urey experiment shows how life could have developed when it actually uses an arbitrary and unrealistic set of conditions and produces amino acids which could not possibly lead to life? Only a few of the required amino acids have ever produced and even those are an unusable mixture of stereotypes. Why was oxygen excluded, even though, rocks in the earth's crust indicate oxygen has always been present? Doesn't the origin of life remain a total mystery?

Oxygen wasn't present in any significant amount until life emerged to make it, so that is a correct assumption.
(see http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348 for example)
I'd like to see you back up your assertion that 'rocks in the earth's crust indicate oxygen has always been present', btw.
Origin of life...mystery? Yep? Completely? No way. Progress IS happening in the field, and we already have extensive knowledge in biology/chemistry/physics/et cetera we can draw apon.

Oh, and keep in mind that once upon a time organic molecules were considered impossible to make abiotically until one was synthesized completely by accident. What Miller-Urey shows is that amino acids can form spontaneously naturally. It's showing a step in the right direction, an environment more favourable for abiogenesis, not the whole thing. Any textbook that says it does is flawed, yes.

 

[proponent]

A little off topic but,

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Name a few?

A human being coming back to life 3 days after death.
Leprosy being cured by the touch of a hand.
Water being parted in such a way that people can walk through the middle with the touch of a staff to the ground.

 

[Skavau]

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, "God did it" is NOT the default answer to questions such as these, and only once another theory is completely proven is yours proven wrong. Yours have the burden of proof just as much as any theory.

The evidance of god is in his creation.

You have not provided evidence that a creation even happened. Your logic is circular and it is the equivalent to me saying that the evidence of Thor is in his hammers. I have simply assumed that hammers are indicative Thor and provided no reason why. You have simply assumed the world is indicative of God and provided no reason why.

Thanks, Skavau

 

[Free]

A little off topic but,

More evidence than a 2000 year old book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

Name a few?

A human being coming back to life 3 days after death.
Leprosy being cured by the touch of a hand.
Water being parted in such a way that people can walk through the middle with the touch of a staff to the ground.

These are neither scientific inaccuracies nor contradictions.


One must remember that the Miller-Urey experiments were done in a controlled environment by an intelligent being. They hardly prove anything at all other than it takes intelligence to make things happen.

 

[jmm9683]

These are neither scientific inaccuracies nor contradictions.


One must remember that the Miller-Urey experiments were done in a controlled environment by an intelligent being. They hardly prove anything at all other than it takes intelligence to make things happen.

All the experiment did was simulate the conditions that are believed were present on the early Earth.

"At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 2-3 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

 

[Jayls5]

One must remember that the Miller-Urey experiments were done in a controlled environment by an intelligent being. They hardly prove anything at all other than it takes intelligence to make things happen.

Are you serious? So by analyzing and putting together natural things, we would be proving that it requires intelligence? That doesn't seem to follow, unless you're trying to say that our efforts to make life were completely impossible without our help. Assuming we created life with simulated natural processes, it would follow that it could occur naturally.

 

[John]

One must remember that the Miller-Urey experiments were done in a controlled environment by an intelligent being. They hardly prove anything at all other than it takes intelligence to make things happen.

Are you serious? So by analyzing and putting together natural things, we would be proving that it requires intelligence? That doesn't seem to follow, unless you're trying to say that our efforts to make life were completely impossible without our help. Assuming we created life with simulated natural processes, it would follow that it could occur naturally.

Not "our help...but by a higher power, namely God.

Miller-Urey experiments were an utter fail.