|
4 registered members (kiamonster, AndrewAMD, 2 invisible),
3,991
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#79519
06/27/06 19:58
06/27/06 19:58
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Actually, the experiment simply shows what is possible when elements are guided by the hand of intelligence. In other words, there was a "creator" (in this case, a scientist) that put together his little world (in this case, the test with the supposed early earth atmospher) and the result was his creation. It is really no more or less simple than that. However, we do so that the experiment proved they were very poor creators as compared to the one that made planet earth  .
The idea that the scientist "guided" the molecules together is indeed a little funny. Believe me, Dan, those molecules were completely unguided by a higher intelligence. The scientist didn't "guide" them, he just provided a big pot that contained an early earth enviroment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79520
06/27/06 20:42
06/27/06 20:42
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
JCL, you need to think a little bit here. The english language is a bit fluid, you know. What I meant by "guided" is that the scientist planned out the experiment. He determined what items he would need. He determined what elements he would include in his environment. He determined the amount of electricity. He even determined what he hoped would be the outcome of putting all of this together. He "guided" the experiment in many, many ways. In other words, had the scientist not planned the experiment and then took action to cause the experiment to come into existance (i.e. to place all the elements, turn on the electricity, etc) then NOTHING would have happened at all ... NOTHING. Therefore, the scientist did indeed guide the experiment from start to finish. Let's break this down from the very link you provided to see if we can get you to understand: Quote:
The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).
It is obvious that the scientists CHOSE these elements. They did not come into existance on their own. In fact, these elements were chosen because the scientists believed these were elements "present on an early earth".
Quote:
The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes.
Who sterilized the array of glass tubes and flasks? Did this process happen by random chance? Who connected all of this together? Did that also happen by random chance? Who placed the chemicals in this array and sealed them there? Did this happen by chance as well? What about the electrodes? Was it chance that caused them to be hooked into this system?
Quote:
The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired through the atmosphere and water vapor to simulate lightning, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
Was it a random chance thing that the water was heated? How long was the water heated? How long was it allowed to cool? Was this random as well or, rather, was it a part of the scientists plans? Who started the flow of electricity so that lighting was "simulated" in the array of flasks and glass tubes? Did not the scientists realize that this process, this cycle would cause something to happen?
I could go on, but if you look at this is seems pretty obvious that the scientists GUIDED this experiment. From the gathering of the materials (the chemicals, the glass tubes and flasks and the electrodes) to the timing of the siimulated lighting, heating and cooling periods ... this entire experiment was guided by an outside intelligence (the scientists) in the hopes of getting a desired result.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#79521
06/27/06 22:25
06/27/06 22:25
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Eventhough I understand your point, how can we mimic something without acting accordingly? The fact that we guided it doesn't prove that it was guided, all things that happened could happened by chance too. This wasn't the point of this experiment either, it was to show how these aminoacids could have come into existence, wether guided or not was not part of the experiment, since you can't mimic an uncreated and into existence comming by chance of aminoacids within a human lifetime... Everything we do can be seen as 'creating' or 'guiding things', in this case it's a bit strange to say we may do nothing but throw all ingredients together and wait, since that's most definately not what happened. (Infact, like you've said, an experiment like that, will do nothing, because nothing happened.) There's more needed to trigger an effect, and since we could not wait for chance, they helped a bit. This experiment doesn't prove it infact happened by a creator, since I doubt a God would have used glass tubes and heaters, so tell me, exactly how did he do it?  Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: PHeMoX]
#79522
06/27/06 23:10
06/27/06 23:10
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
No, the experiment does not prove there was a creator and it also does not prove that life could have originated in this manner either. Actually, it does not really prove anything when it comes to the origins of life. It really only proves what happens if you connect together a bunch of glass tubes and flasks, mix in certain chemicals, add electricity and allow for periods of heating and cooling and then do this for week . There are so many assumptions going on in this experiment that it is not even funny. They assumed what the original atmosphere was like on an "early earth". Frankly, we don't know. They assumed the amounts of checmicals, electricity, etc. Once again, we do not know. Even the same Wikipedia site states something similar to this: Quote:
There have been a number of objections to the implications derived from these experiments. It is now believed that Earth's original atmosphere did not contain as large a quantity of reducing molecules as was thought at the time:
The following statement also shows more of the scientists assumptions:
Quote:
Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment may imply.
And, has someone else has pointed out, this experiment, for intents and purposes, was a failure. Considering the fact that many scientists dispute what the "original" atmosphere was then what point does this experiment really prove? Like I said before, it only proves what you get under the conditions the scientists provided.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#79523
06/28/06 00:09
06/28/06 00:09
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
I think JCL summed up nicely what the experiment does prove and what it's original purpose infact was ... Quote:
The purpose of the Urey-Miller experiment was proving that complex amino acids could have formed in the early earth atmosphere just from water and carbon dioxide.
This was not a proof of the origin of life. It was just a final rebuttal of the creationist faith that information gain - complex structures coming out of simple structures - were "impossible".
Most claims based upon this experiment say that it's probably possible to create life, so I don't see why some of you people handle this as if this experiment wrongly proved the creation of life in a lab.
As far as I know, no lifeform has been created in any lab yet, however this experiment has partly shown that it "might be possible to do so".
Assumptions or not, you can hardly do any experiment without them. Apart from that, it's not that impossible to find out how the early earth atmosphere might have been, but yes we may never be 100% sure.
Part of the experiment also said "if the conditions of early earth were as mimicked in the experiment, then ... ", so I don't see any error at all ...
Besides, what if scientists DO succeed in creating life in a lab, would that still mean the conditions were wrong? No, because they succeeded. But also yes, because we can't know for sure? How can they falsify that? I don't think that's possible, unless they succeed in creating life in several different ways, but I think most scientists would agree that that most probably will not be possible.
I know this is just a 'what if ..' argument, but it's valid nonetheless ...
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/28/06 00:14.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: PHeMoX]
#79524
06/28/06 04:42
06/28/06 04:42
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Most claims based upon this experiment say that it's probably possible to create life, so I don't see why some of you people handle this as if this experiment wrongly proved the creation of life in a lab.
I can jump .9 meters into the air, and then claim I can jump over a skyscraper, but that doesn't mean much, does it?
I'll elaborate in a bit...
Quote:
The fact that we guided it doesn't prove that it was guided, all things that happened could happened by chance too.
What's interesting is that if they did create life, it would almost make it seem like there was some cosmic scientist, who created a huge chemistry lab (the universe) within which to watch life flourish. But I digress.
Quote:
so I don't see why some of you people handle this as if this experiment wrongly proved the creation of life in a lab.
I've already named several reasons that you seem to have a hard time remembering. The amino acids are in a useless, racemic mixture. Even if scientists force only left handed amino acids into their experiments, the amino acids quickly revert to a racemic mixture on their own.
The second one can probably best be illustrated by an example JCL used a while ago. You had some speaker and you turned objects in certain directions and got a pattern of noise. Well your random energy you added to it acheived a pattern. The energy of the lightning bolts acheived a pattern of amino acids.
However, now imagine turning whatever objects in certain directions to get a noise that contains information, like say talking. THEN. Somehow turning those objects another way so that the information can be interpreted. I think you people underestimate the miracle of genetics.
DNA is more than just information. Cells have the ability to store information, copy it, and translate information among other things. Its unimaginable that random nonesense will become not only information, but the ability to understand the information as well as manipulate the information and copy the same information with almost perfect accuracy.
Quote:
Assumptions or not, you can hardly do any experiment without them. Apart from that, it's not that impossible to find out how the early earth atmosphere might have been, but yes we may never be 100% sure.
Here's how we know what the early atmosphere was like.
1). God didn't create life, so the conditions must be different than they are now. Because the conditions as they are now are dangerous for pre-life.
2). We know conditions are dangerous as they are now, so they must have been more friendly at some point.
Voila! There's your proof. Nevermind the circular reasoning; 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'
Quote:
Besides, what if scientists DO succeed in creating life in a lab, would that still mean the conditions were wrong?
This would require more than I think we're capable of right now, assuming its possible.
We would have to wait for amino acids to randomly collect themselves into information, then we would have to have this information pop up thousands, if not millions of times, including some way to keep the information intact, then we would have to wait for this 'rna world' type situation to lead into DNA, proteins, and then these even more complex molecules would have to lead to complex combinations of cells. Assuming for a moment that it makes rational sense that this could happen (nevermind the 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros chances), it would require a lot of waiting, and a lot of failures before success. And that's only if we exaggarate the conditions and step in to help things along on the way. Otherwise we might have to wait billions of years.
Quote:
I know this is just a 'what if ..' argument, but it's valid nonetheless ...
If your position is 'there is no creator' a priori, then I suppose its valid. Otherwise....
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/28/06 04:42.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79525
06/28/06 05:22
06/28/06 05:22
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
JCL, you need to think a little bit here.
Check your own thought process first Dan. He wasnt being so literal; he was referring to actual chemical processes which werent guided, but occured on their own. The organic chemistry is sound and suggestive.
The experiment showed that many amino acids CAN be produced in an environment that MAY have existed at a given time and place on Earth. It shows that life could possibly have developed in this way, and as such, refutes the supernaturalist position that it is impossible.
It doesn't prove life did in fact arise this way, and even if the experiment did produce life, it couldnt PROVE that ALL life came that way. There no way to prove any of this absolutely. In much of science we dont have mathematical or logical perfection, but only more or less evidence.
But the weight of the evidence is tipping much closer to the principle of abiogenesis, partly becasue of this experiment, and succeeding similar experiments.
Dan, Irsh: this thread was started becasue of a comement by Irish claiming that Urey-Miller somehow proved that life COULDNT possibly have arisen this way. As we have shown, this is a grossly distorted, turned inside-out version of the true results and conclusions made from the the experiment.
So once again we see how creationists use very a limited knowledge of science--its methods and purposes--to warp it to their already warped pre-conceptions.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79526
06/28/06 05:41
06/28/06 05:41
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
If only for my point on racemic mixtures, this experiment proved how it couldn't start.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79527
06/28/06 15:23
06/28/06 15:23
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
If your position is 'there is no creator' a priori, then I suppose its valid.
Well yes off course, that's what the current evidence clearly shows, or should I say the current lack of evidence in favor of a creator??
Quote:
I can jump .9 meters into the air, and then claim I can jump over a skyscraper, but that doesn't mean much, does it?
It does mean much, but your conclusion to it is totally wrong.
By jumping you've proven to temporary be able to go against the forces of gravity. (duuh  ) That hasn't proven it's possible to fly, but it has made it more likely that we once will be able to go even further against the forces of gravity. Which we can now, albeit with a little help of technology.
The only valid claim would be that it 'might be possible to fly' since you've proven to be able to get "loose" of gravity's force. Read my previous post again and you'll see that the scientists do not even claim to be able to "jump over skyscrapers because they can jump".
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79528
06/28/06 15:24
06/28/06 15:24
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
|
The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was was to prove that complex organic molecules can be created under certain environment conditions, without any need for supernatural interventions by an external intelligence. I think we can all agree that this was the outcome of the experiment, regardeless of semantic discussions about what "guided" means.
Whether the original earth atmosphere or electrical energy was matched by the experiment can be disputed. However, amino acids were also created in experimental variations of the atmosphere and other parameters. We're finding them even in meteorites, so obviously they form under a wide range of environment conditions.
While the precise composition of the early earth atmosphere is not yet 100% clear, we know that it contained water vapor, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, but no oxygen. We also know that UV radiation provided the energy to break up H2O and CO2 molecules and create organic monomeres. And liquid water provided a protected environment for the building of polymeres. So, everything theoretically required for abiogenesis was there.
The Miller-Urey experiment produced 13 of the 21 required amino acids within a few hours in a small pot. Organic polymeres had hundreds of millions of years in a much bigger environment for evolving self-replicating proteins.
|
|
|
|
