On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Your selective citations are unethical and a bit backwards The Miller-Urey experiment is a early successful experiment but many more advanced experiments hve been conducted since and Oparin-Halden theory are based on science and old and knowledge has evolved since,. Modern abiogenesis is based on the origin of life in Mid-Ocean Vents. The problem with the origin of the chemicals was in the atmosphere and that is no longer the Modern hypothesis for a biogenesis. Aspects of the Oparin--Haldane re still valid but our knowledge has advanced since.

oparin-haldane theory of origin of life
The Oparin-Haldane theory proposes that life on Earth originated from simple organic molecules, like amino acids, which formed in the primitive Earth's atmosphere through chemical reactions fueled by external energy sources like lightning, eventually leading to the formation of complex molecules and ultimately, primitive life forms in the early oceans; this theory was independently developed by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British scientist J.B.S. Haldane in the 1920s.

They are all based on science, there has been many discoveries and research since that has increased the knowledge of the origins of life since. Many of the discoveries and research I have posted on this forum.

Sorry that you do not understand the science.
For instance, and you may object, obviously your right to do so. I'd rather have their word over your personal ideas.
"Several seminal experiments in this topic have been conducted at the University of Chicago, including the Miller-Urey experiment that suggested how the building blocks of life could form in a primordial soup." The origin of life on Earth, explained.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry that you do not understand the science.
For instance, and you may object, obviously your right to do so. I'd rather have their word over your personal ideas.
"Several seminal experiments in this topic have been conducted at the University of Chicago, including the Miller-Urey experiment that suggested how the building blocks of life could form in a primordial soup." The origin of life on Earth, explained.

Don't apologize for your dishonest selective use of references and ignorance of science.

True the Miller-Urey and related experiments are valid based on science and valid early contributions to the science of abiogenesis, but the Modern hypothesis for abiogenesis has evolved based on far more discoveries and research.

What is your objection to the evolving knowledge of abiogenesis based on the earliest discoveries and research like all the sciences?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Ok so none of those things exist. Is that what you are saying?

I see them and You did get my message.

Enjoy,

I can see that you lack the ability to reason. Just because none of those are "absolute facts" does not mean that the opposite is true. Once again, there is no such thing as an "absolute scientific fact". In the sciences all facts are provisional. Even if it was an "absolute fact" (and that is a bogus term if there ever was one) it would still not be an "absolute scientific fact" because science never proves things absolutely true. They may have the right answer in some matters but they can never be absolutely sure.

This is a typical problem with people that do not know how to reason and are trying to make excuses for their own beliefs that have been shown to be wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good! I said was that the miller urey experiment is linked by scientists to the theory of abiogenesis. It obviously didn't show what actually happened. Since then there have been other theoretical proposals.
"Miller-Urey experiment marked the beginning of a new scientific field - prebiotic chemistry; it is now the most commonly cited evidence for abiogenesis in science textbooks."
Yes, there are scientific refutations of the experiment. Primordial soup was edible: abiotically produced Miller-Urey mixture supports bacterial growth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then give me the evidence that life started as you believe it did. Nothing tried has created life yet.

I read the article and all I learned was that the think.

Enjoy,

You do not seem to listen very well. Abiogenesis still has some unsolved problems. Not too many are left, but of course like all of the sciences the easiest problems are always answered first. But even if we do have all of the answers that in no way means that we could do the same and get life to arise naturally ourselves. It might take far to high of a percentage of the Earth to do so practically. Or it make take to long to accomplish. We know of various ways that we could theoretically travel to other stars. That does not mean that we could do so. The expense would probably be far more than anyone would be willing to pay.

And your demand for evidence appears to be a bit disingenuous. You probably do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. Would you be willing to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good! I said was that the miller urey experiment is linked by scientists to the theory of abiogenesis. It obviously didn't show what actually happened. Since then there have been other theoretical proposals.
"Miller-Urey experiment marked the beginning of a new scientific field - prebiotic chemistry; it is now the most commonly cited evidence for abiogenesis in science textbooks."
Yes, there are scientific refutations of the experiment. Primordial soup was edible: abiotically produced Miller-Urey mixture supports bacterial growth.

No, that article does not refute the Miller-Urey experiment. You read a sentence out of context or misunderstood it. They were not talking about refuting the Miller-Urey experiment. They were talking about refuting aspects of their own hypothesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that article does not refute the Miller-Urey experiment. You read a sentence out of context or misunderstood it. They were not talking about refuting the Miller-Urey experiment. They were talking about refuting aspects of their own hypothesis.

Perhaps you would like to go over the following from the same article:
"Yet sixty years after this seminal experiment, the debate is still ongoing whether it represents a definite argument for spontaneous life emergence, or even whether the brown soup produced in this experiment can support life14. It has been argued that, besides highly toxic for some organisms gaseous CO, as well as aldehydes and cyanides in solution, the Miller-Urey mixture (MU mixture) contains D-amino acids that, according to some research15,16, can also be toxic to biological organisms14.

Some of the above argumentation can be easily refuted. For instance, for methanogenic archaea, carbon monoxide is a nutrient. Furthermore, Kun and Somerville have obtained in 1971 a strain of Escherichia coli that could metabolize several D-amino acids, including D-alanine and D-glutamic acid17. But in general, there has been a surprising lack of experimental proof that the MU mixture produced from simple gases can indeed support life of primitive organisms. Here we attempted to fill this gap."

 

[YoursTrue]

Don't apologize for your dishonest selective use of references and ignorance of science.

True the Miller-Urey and related experiments are valid based on science and valid early contributions to the science of abiogenesis, but the Modern hypothesis for abiogenesis has evolved based on far more discoveries and research.

What is your objection to the evolving knowledge of abiogenesis based on the earliest discoveries and research like all the sciences?

"Therefore, primordial Miller-Urey soup was perfectly suitable as a growth media for early life forms." from the same article. Primordial soup was edible: abiotically produced Miller-Urey mixture supports bacterial growth

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps you would like to go over the following from the same article:
"Yet sixty years after this seminal experiment, the debate is still ongoing whether it represents a definite argument for spontaneous life emergence, or even whether the brown soup produced in this experiment can support life14. It has been argued that, besides highly toxic for some organisms gaseous CO, as well as aldehydes and cyanides in solution, the Miller-Urey mixture (MU mixture) contains D-amino acids that, according to some research15,16, can also be toxic to biological organisms14.

Some of the above argumentation can be easily refuted. For instance, for methanogenic archaea, carbon monoxide is a nutrient. Furthermore, Kun and Somerville have obtained in 1971 a strain of Escherichia coli that could metabolize several D-amino acids, including D-alanine and D-glutamic acid17. But in general, there has been a surprising lack of experimental proof that the MU mixture produced from simple gases can indeed support life of primitive organisms. Here we attempted to fill this gap."

The Miller-Urey and the better versions performed later never represented a definitive argument for spontaneous origin of life. All it represented was the formation of organic molecules from inorganic molecules necessary for life. Later experiments using better environmental and/or atmospheric conditions known in the early earth were successful also but again these experiments re limited in scope concerning the overall research and discoveries since.. Research since has shown the the environment of the fluids from the Mid Ocean vents and meteorites provide abundant chemicals necessary for life.

Simulating Early Ocean Vents Shows Life's Building Blocks Form Under Pressure - NASA

Where did life first form on Earth? Some scientists think it could have been around hydrothermal vents that may have existed at the bottom of the ocean 4.5

www.nasa.gov

Where did life first form on Earth? Some scientists think it could have been around hydrothermal vents that may have existed at the bottom of the ocean 4.5 billion years ago. In a new paper in the journal Astrobiology, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory describe how they mimicked possible ancient undersea environments with a complex experimental setup. They showed that under extreme pressure, fluid from these ancient seafloor cracks mixed with ocean water could have reacted with minerals from the hydrothermal vents to produce organic molecules — the building blocks that compose nearly all life on Earth.

In particular, the research lays important groundwork for in-depth studies of such ocean worlds as Saturn’s moon Enceladus and Jupiter’s moon Europa, which are both thought to have liquid-water oceans buried beneath thick icy crusts and may host hydrothermal activity similar to what’s being simulated at JPL. This area of research belongs to a field of study known as astrobiology, and the work was done by the JPL Icy Worlds team as part of the former NASA Astrobiology Institute.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good! I said was that the miller urey experiment is linked by scientists to the theory of abiogenesis. It obviously didn't show what actually happened. Since then there have been other theoretical proposals.
"Miller-Urey experiment marked the beginning of a new scientific field - prebiotic chemistry; it is now the most commonly cited evidence for abiogenesis in science textbooks."
Yes, there are scientific refutations of the experiment. Primordial soup was edible: abiotically produced Miller-Urey mixture supports bacterial growth.

Yes, the Miller-Urey experiments were a hallmark discovery beginning the science of abiogenesis. Yes, they have been, not refuted, but did not adequately explain the evolution of inorganics to organics in the environment necessary for life to begin. Research and discoveries have determined other sources for organics like meteorites, and research and discoveries concerning Mid-Ocean Ridges. See post #369.

 

[Dimi95]

Perhaps you would like to go over the following from the same article:
"Yet sixty years after this seminal experiment, the debate is still ongoing whether it represents a definite argument for spontaneous life emergence, or even whether the brown soup produced in this experiment can support life14. It has been argued that, besides highly toxic for some organisms gaseous CO, as well as aldehydes and cyanides in solution, the Miller-Urey mixture (MU mixture) contains D-amino acids that, according to some research15,16, can also be toxic to biological organisms14.

Some of the above argumentation can be easily refuted. For instance, for methanogenic archaea, carbon monoxide is a nutrient. Furthermore, Kun and Somerville have obtained in 1971 a strain of Escherichia coli that could metabolize several D-amino acids, including D-alanine and D-glutamic acid17. But in general, there has been a surprising lack of experimental proof that the MU mixture produced from simple gases can indeed support life of primitive organisms. Here we attempted to fill this gap."

You are taking this out of kontext.

Once we know more about the conditions , it's game over.
It may be also that life came under certain circumstances or by certain natural force by which inorganic substances interacted and that is how they became organic molecules.
I am more and more convinced that is by the force of some deep ocean phenomena that we haven't discovered.

And if we do find it , and i belive that we will , we will just enter another hole and start over again with another set of questions that will be there to study the next thing on the list.
However you see it , it is interesting from science point of you , everyone will keep their mind and body busy.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Therefore, primordial Miller-Urey soup was perfectly suitable as a growth media for early life forms." from the same article. Primordial soup was edible: abiotically produced Miller-Urey mixture supports bacterial growth

It has been found since the primordial soup of the miller-Urey experiment was in and of itself formed organic molecules but the environment of the primordial soup and on the surface of the earth was toxic to the formation of life. I mentioned before that discoveries and research since on different environments resulted eventually that the Mid Ocean Ridge environment ws the most suitable for the origins of life and the evolution of inorganic molecules. Other recent research done since cited in this thread has determined that the Mid=Ocean thermal vents is the most suitable for the origin of life,

toxic world of the miller urey experiment summary

The "toxic world" aspect of the Miller-Urey experiment refers to the fact that while it successfully produced amino acids (building blocks of life) under simulated early Earth conditions, the experiment also generated a significant amount of potentially harmful chemicals like cyanides and carbon monoxide, raising concerns about the viability of life forming in such a potentially toxic environment, even if the necessary organic molecules were present; essentially, the conditions that could create life's building blocks might have also been too harsh to allow for their survival and further development into complex organisms.


Key points about the "toxic world" of the Miller-Urey experiment:

• Presence of toxic compounds:
  The chemical reactions in the experiment, while producing amino acids, also created other molecules like aldehydes and cyanides which are considered toxic to living organisms.
  
  
  
• Debate about early Earth conditions:
  Some scientists argue that the gas mixture used in the Miller-Urey experiment may not have accurately represented the early Earth's atmosphere, potentially overestimating the presence of highly reactive chemicals.
  

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you would like to go over the following from the same article:
"Yet sixty years after this seminal experiment, the debate is still ongoing whether it represents a definite argument for spontaneous life emergence, or even whether the brown soup produced in this experiment can support life14. It has been argued that, besides highly toxic for some organisms gaseous CO, as well as aldehydes and cyanides in solution, the Miller-Urey mixture (MU mixture) contains D-amino acids that, according to some research15,16, can also be toxic to biological organisms14.

Yes, the concentrated chemicals could be deadly for today's life. But that is now what would have formed. Nor would they be that concentrated. And even worse, the chemicals probably did not come from rainclouds in the first place. The most likely source today is oceanic rifts.

Some of the above argumentation can be easily refuted. For instance, for methanogenic archaea, carbon monoxide is a nutrient. Furthermore, Kun and Somerville have obtained in 1971 a strain of Escherichia coli that could metabolize several D-amino acids, including D-alanine and D-glutamic acid17. But in general, there has been a surprising lack of experimental proof that the MU mixture produced from simple gases can indeed support life of primitive organisms. Here we attempted to fill this gap."

Right, dd you read that? You do not appear to have understood it. They are not talking about refuting Mille-Urey there. They are talking about the ability of that matter to feed modern day life. That was their hypothesis that could have been refuted. Not the Miller-Urey experiment. And please note, they may have been unaware that we now know that oceanic rifts are the likely source for prebiotic chemicals. Your article is almost ten years old and it appears that they were on the wrong trail.

The Miller-Urey experiment still holds up as proof of concept. In fact since there are multiple sources of prebiotic chemicals now that is all that it can be. We do not know right now which source was the ultimate one. But since it was first it will always be correct as a proof of concept even if we find that rain clouds were not the ultimate source.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are taking this out of kontext.

Once we know more about the conditions , it's game over.
It may be also that life came under certain circumstances or by certain natural force by which inorganic substances interacted and that is how they became organic molecules.
I am more and more convinced that is by the force of some deep ocean phenomena that we haven't discovered.

And if we do find it , and i belive that we will , we will just enter another hole and start over again with another set of questions that will be there to study the next thing on the list.
However you see it , it is interesting from science point of you , everyone will keep their mind and body busy.

"The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified. " The origin of life on Earth, explained.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the concentrated chemicals could be deadly for today's life. But that is now what would have formed. Nor would they be that concentrated. And even worse, the chemicals probably did not come from rainclouds in the first place. The most likely source today is oceanic rifts.

Right, dd you read that? You do not appear to have understood it. They are not talking about refuting Mille-Urey there. They are talking about the ability of that matter to feed modern day life. That was their hypothesis that could have been refuted. Not the Miller-Urey experiment. And please note, they may have been unaware that we now know that oceanic rifts are the likely source for prebiotic chemicals. Your article is almost ten years old and it appears that they were on the wrong trail.

The Miller-Urey experiment still holds up as proof of concept. In fact since there are multiple sources of prebiotic chemicals now that is all that it can be. We do not know right now which source was the ultimate one. But since it was first it will always be correct as a proof of concept even if we find that rain clouds were not the ultimate source.

The origin of life on Earth, explained. "The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" (Hey have a good one!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The origin of life on Earth, explained. "The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified" (Hey have a good one!)

Now you are just trolling. That does not help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you are just trolling. That does not help you.

You don't have to believe the article.

 

[YoursTrue]

It has been found since the primordial soup of the miller-Urey experiment was in and of itself formed organic molecules but the environment of the primordial soup and on the surface of the earth was toxic to the formation of life. I mentioned before that discoveries and research since on different environments resulted eventually that the Mid Ocean Ridge environment ws the most suitable for the origins of life and the evolution of inorganic molecules. Other recent research done since cited in this thread has determined that the Mid=Ocean thermal vents is the most suitable for the origin of life,

toxic world of the miller urey experiment summary

The "toxic world" aspect of the Miller-Urey experiment refers to the fact that while it successfully produced amino acids (building blocks of life) under simulated early Earth conditions, the experiment also generated a significant amount of potentially harmful chemicals like cyanides and carbon monoxide, raising concerns about the viability of life forming in such a potentially toxic environment, even if the necessary organic molecules were present; essentially, the conditions that could create life's building blocks might have also been too harsh to allow for their survival and further development into complex organisms.


Key points about the "toxic world" of the Miller-Urey experiment:

• Presence of toxic compounds:
  The chemical reactions in the experiment, while producing amino acids, also created other molecules like aldehydes and cyanides which are considered toxic to living organisms.
  
  
  
• Debate about early Earth conditions:
  Some scientists argue that the gas mixture used in the Miller-Urey experiment may not have accurately represented the early Earth's atmosphere, potentially overestimating the presence of highly reactive chemicals.

"The Miller-Urey Experiment​

Another crucial milestone in the theory of abiogenesis occurred in 1952 with the now-famous Miller-Urey experiment. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey proved how organic life could spontaneously arise from inorganic molecules in the conditions described by Haldane and Oparin." What is the Theory of Abiogenesis?.

 

[icant]

Confusing statement as to what science doe and does not know about abiogenesis. you basically assert opinions based on your religious agenda without ny knowledge of science.

Well you just asserted an opinion based on your scientific religion.

Reality is that science or scientist have been unable to produce life.
So, you have faith that somewhere in the future that science will be able to create life.

I believe in reality, why do you think I ask for evidence about everything?

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

They are all based on science, there has been many discoveries and research since that has increased the knowledge of the origins of life since. Many of the discoveries and research I have posted on this forum. See post #333 for an important discovery for the formation of the first life around Mid-Ocean vents at the ocean floor.

So. is science any closer today of creating life where there is none than they in the 1950's?
How many billion years do you think it will take to fix the problem rather than ignore it?

Enjoy,