Miller & Urey

Kais_1

Established
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
324
Likes
51
#1
The Miller Urey Experiment

Miller–Urey experiment

I read about this experiment in the Dan Brown book Origins

is there any truth to this and what are your peoples thoughts on this matter?

any feedback is appreciated

Thanks in advance.
 





Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
267
Likes
439
#2
The Miller Urey Experiment

Miller–Urey experiment

I read about this experiment in the Dan Brown book Origins

is there any truth to this and what are your peoples thoughts on this matter?

any feedback is appreciated

Thanks in advance.
It's absolutely true, and has been replicated countless times, most recently in 2007. Organic molecules can be created from inorganic materials. This supports abiogenesis being a likely explanation for the origin of life on earth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...up-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,532
Likes
7,119
#3
It's absolutely true, and has been replicated countless times, most recently in 2007. Organic molecules can be created from inorganic materials. This supports abiogenesis being a likely explanation for the origin of life on earth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...up-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/
What they neglect to point out is:-

1: The necessity of a trap in the Miller experiment as the capacity of UV and electricity to destroy amino acids is orders of magnitude greater than their creative potential.

2: The absence of a trap in the "warm little pond" on the early earth.

3: A brick, or even a pile of them does not a house make.
 





Last edited:

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
267
Likes
439
#4
What they neglect to point out is

1: the necessity of a trap in the Miller experiment as the capacity of UV and electricity to destroy amino acids is orders of magnitude greater than their creative potential.

2: there is no trap in the "warm little pond" on the early earth.

3: A brick, or even a pile of them does not a house make.
There wouldn't need to be a trap on early earth, just sufficiently deep water. Water is very effective at blocking UV light.

Your analogy is misleading, but ultimately correct. No one claims that the Miller experiment achieved abiogenesis, but creating organic compounds from inorganic sources does indicate that abiogenesis might be possible. To reuse your analogy, a bile of bricks is not a house, but it might be a pyramid.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,532
Likes
7,119
#5
There wouldn't need to be a trap on early earth, just sufficiently deep water. Water is very effective at blocking UV light.

Your analogy is misleading, but ultimately correct. No one claims that the Miller experiment achieved abiogenesis, but creating organic compounds from inorganic sources does indicate that abiogenesis might be possible. To reuse your analogy, a bile of bricks is not a house, but it might be a pyramid.
The question my professors at Uni hated was what they judged to be a minimum viable cell type and biochemistry for replicable life and how many perfectly ordered amino acids would be required to reach that point.
 





Alanantic

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
236
Likes
295
#6
"God sleeps in the rocks, stirs in the plants, dreams in the animals, and finally awakens in man." -- Vedic Quote
 





Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
267
Likes
439
#7
The question my professors at Uni hated was what they judged to be a minimum viable cell type and biochemistry for replicable life and how many perfectly ordered amino acids would be required to reach that point.
Ahhhh the good old god of the gaps argument. "Answer my super specific question, or your entire theory is false. God did it I win." The fact that neither I nor your professor can answer this question has no effect on the findings of the Miller experiment or the conclusions drawn from those findings. The idea that life can arise as a result of inorganic natural processes is perfectly reasonable. It is also the best explanation we have for the existence of life on this planet.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,532
Likes
7,119
#8
Ahhhh the good old god of the gaps argument. "Answer my super specific question, or your entire theory is false. God did it I win." The fact that neither I nor your professor can answer this question has no effect on the findings of the Miller experiment or the conclusions drawn from those findings. The idea that life can arise as a result of inorganic natural processes is perfectly reasonable. It is also the best explanation we have for the existence of life on this planet.
Does the mix of right and left handed forms of the amino acids produced not trouble you?
 





Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
2,003
Likes
2,959
#9
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." -fred hoyle

if anything could form from millers concoction that one could possibly be described as being alive (if self-replication is enough of a factor), it would have to be a transposon (or maybe a prion). its not a 747, but a 'spirit of st. louis'. the next step up, a bacteriophage, is far too complex IMO.


FTR, i am not coming at this from a religious perspective. i believe in the intervention theory for life on earth, but beyond that smaller picture, i think consciousness creates life (another story).
 





Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
267
Likes
439
#10
Does the mix of right and left handed forms of the amino acids produced not trouble you?
No, it doesn't, and you are repeating tactics. I can't give you a satisfactory answer to this question, I doubt anyone can, but regardless of that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic sources. This supports the idea that life could ultimately arise from inorganic physical processes. This is the best explanation for the existence of life on this planet.

Stop trying to hide God in pockets of scientific ignorance. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", but I will never submit to "I don't know therefor God did it."
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,532
Likes
7,119
#11
I try to be fair in my criticisms, so I would have to agree that asserting a negative (the unlikely route from a racemic mixture of amino acids of the Miller Experiment to a functional cell) does not "prove God".

For Gods existence (and nature) I suggest you look for the positive evidences that suggest it, rather than simple negation of other plausible options.

As to the scientific issue I have here, this summarises it well...

"Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life."

https://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
 





Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
267
Likes
439
#12
I try to be fair in my criticisms, so I would have to agree that asserting a negative (the unlikely route from a racemic mixture of amino acids of the Miller Experiment to a functional cell) does not "prove God".

For Gods existence (and nature) I suggest you look for the positive evidences that suggest it, rather than simple negation of other plausible options.

As to the scientific issue I have here, this summarises it well...

"Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life."

https://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
Again, your "scientific issue" is not an issue. No one claims that the Miller experiment produced life. Everything that you have raised is an issue regarding the change from non-life to life. The Miller experiment simply demonstrated that the building blocks of life can, via natural processes, can form from inorganic mater. Certainly, there were many more processes and conditions involved in the creation of life, than just those in the Miller experiment. But it is likely that the process that occurred in the Miller experiment contributed to the creation of life on early earth. None of the issues you have raised have challenged that conclusion.

As to looking for evidence for God, that is a wonderful thing to do. But first you have to know what you are looking for. How do you define God? What are his characteristics? How would you know when you found him?