We all know the story of the Miller-Urey experiment. In 1953, a young graduate student named Stanley Miller ran an off-the-wall experiment: he ran water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a sealed flask with a pair of electrodes to produce a spark, and from those simple building blocks discovered that more complex compounds, such as amino acids, were spontaneously produced. Stanley Miller died in 2007, and in going through his effects, the original apparatus was discovered, and in addition, several small sealed vials containing the sludge produced in the original experiment were also found.
This isn't too surprising. I've gone through a few old scientists' labs, and you'd be surprised at all the antiquities they preserved, all with notes documenting exactly what they are. It's habit to keep this stuff.
Now the cool part, though: the scientists who unearthed the old samples ran them through modern analysis techniques, which are a bit more sensitive than the tools they had in the 1950s. In 1953, Miller reported the recovery of five amino acids from his experiment. The reanalysis found twenty two amino acids and five amines in the vials. He was more successful than he knew!
Moles (relative to glycine = 1) of the various amino acids
detected in the volcanic apparatus vials. Amino acids underlined have not been previously
reported in spark discharge experiments. Values for amines are minimum values because of loss due to their volatility during workup.
Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas.
Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used. However, the volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.
So good work, Dr Miller!
Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 322(5900):404.
- Log in to post comments
I saw this on New Scientist this morning, it's great news. One step closer unlocking a potential mechanism for naturalistic origins.
Wow, this is going to present an archivist some amusing problems with conservation. Any idea which museum will receive this collection and whether it will be displayed for public consumption?
You are right about most academic scientists keeping everything. Modern analytical techniques can get down to nanomole and picomole amounts, so it isn't surprising that a lot more amino acids were seen. Good find.
This is fascinating. Even though I'm not much a biology kind of guy, I really think this is cool :D
I'm still a supporter of Cairns-Smith's "clay gene" hypothesis. "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life" is a damn good read even though thy made fun of it in Expelled when Ruse quoted it.
Of course, I'm not a scientist who specializes in this stuff and I understand that all-organic models have made strides since "Seven Clues" came out. Still, I'd recommend it as a great example of good accessable scientific argument about a difficult subject.
Speaking of clay. I work in the aquarium trade and always say that zebrafish are the toughest fish out there. That's not quite right. Gambusia are much tougher. I once saw a large milky puddle that was milky white with kaolin. I hate to think what the pH must have been. There were some Gambusia doing just fine in there, though I think they would have starved in a few days. Fortunately rain came that night which must have washed them back to the main creek.
Reminds me of when I used to keep my lunch labeled "sensitive experiment do not open" in the science lab fridge.
That is truly astonishing! 22 amino acids? Isn't that nearly all of them?
This story just makes me laugh from happiness :)
Yeah, but what does this prove? The original atmosphere of the Earth probably wasn't like the one Miller & Urey used anyway, so there's nothing saying this happened on Earth. No evolution; therefore an Intelligent Designer. QED.
Then again, since the Earth is clearly fine-tuned for life, the early atmosphere would have to have been even more conducive to self-organising chemical reactions than the environment Miller & Urey used, so, therefore, um....
YOU ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS!!
Well, okay, sure. There are more amino acids than originally believed. But they're still of the amino acid type -- it's not like any of those molecules spontaneously evolved from a chicken!
[No need to respond to my post above. I was just pre-empting trolls.
To the trolls: Relax guys! I got this one covered. Go back to the 7th Heaven DVDs you ordered off the internet so as not to have to encounter minorities at Best Buy.
Paper Hand, many of the listed compound are isomers of the normal amino acids not usually found in nature. I counted about 9-10 AA's normally found in proteins (my amino acid nomenclature is a bit rusty).
I'm watching Touched By an Angel, thank you very much!
I...I have no words. That's beautiful.
Brownian
I popped on here hoping for a giggle before going to bed.
You gave me two giggles a gufaw and one minor snort.
Thank you.
Why thanks, ggab! Glad I could be of service!
Well, what are the odds? My girlfriend (bio major) was just telling me about this experiment being on her midterm exam today, and then I find it here. PZ, clearly you also have powers of clairvoyance.
This is awesome, by the way. As if that weren't obvious. :P
Azdak: I thought Touched By an Uncle was more your speed... (It's on right after CSI: Boise, remember?)
Interesting. PZ can you break it down further? Which amino acids are found in organisms, and are any not? How many amino acids haven't they reproduced?
I read about this recently, it's great that the Miller-Urey experiment is even more fascinating than was previously thought. It makes me want to set this up in my garage for fun.
Then again, since the Earth is clearly fine-tuned for life, the early atmosphere would have to have been even more conducive to self-organising chemical reactions than the environment Miller & Urey used, so, therefore, um....
That's a good point. Why would creationists even have a problem with abiogenesis? Jesus could easily "poof" some abiogenesis.
All creationist arguments that try to "prove" the impossibility of scientific arguments are all hypocritical creationist arguments because, according to their own beliefs, there is nothing that is impossible. Jesus can "poof" whatever he wants.
Any creationists who have a problem with a scientific theory are just blowing out hot air to make some noise and whine and complain about stuff because they don't like it. Because, according to their own beliefs, all scientific theories are possible.
Creationist = big bag of hot wind gas. Pppffhhhlllrrttt...
Now now, we need to redo this experiment for the sake of scientific rigor!
I find it particularly fascinating since large volcanic eruptions also produce lightning along with changes in localized atmosphere. Perhaps the only necessity was for these amino acids to form in whatever atmosphere was available and the whole process found its niche among the different environments possible on a young planet
or update it with a picture of what would actually be going on... we might get all the amino acids this time!
Even more advanced scanning techniques will reveal that the AAs developed a system of writing, the most widespread specimens starting:
This is so cool!! I remember having to learn about this experiment as an undergrad for the history of life course and that it was (and probably still is) one of the questions in the first exam!! So good to know that the results were actually better than originally thought!!
Hah, I'd not heard that one. I had to YouTube it.
What's fun is that Comfort-esque arguments really don't lose anything when you apply them in novel situations -- they retain all of their delightful wackiness.
The god-of-the-gaps is running out of hiding places. Any theists visiting here want to explain why you still believe in a magic fairy? Is it because you're stupid, insane, gullible, childish, cowardly, or what?
For those asking, the amino acids among those produced that are common in eukaryote proteins include: Gly(cine), Ala(nine), Ser(ine), Asp(artic acid), Val(ine), Glu(tamic acid) and Phe(nylalanine).
Interesting, some prokaryotes also utilise orn(ithine) and several other of the molecules.
Maybe a silly question, but is it possible that some of the amino acids in the sludge had formed after the experiment? Or doesn't the chemistry allow this?
Very interesting, even for someone like me who knows very little about biology or chemistry.
Do you hear that? It's one more nail being driven into the coffin of creationism...
We wish. Three days in the tombs they call churches and they'll raise the old life-can't-come-from-non-life chestnut from the dead.
#30
I believe the whole idea is that amino acids don't generally form under what we consider "normal" conditions. So it's very unlikely to see any forming after his experiment, since he stopped producing the necessary conditions long ago.
Big old grin here. This ranks right up there with Clyde Tombaugh's finding Pluto. great stories and great science.
I still say we reproduce the experiment again... just to prevent the creotards from having any wiggling room.
See! Scientists can't even agree on how many amino acids were created! They keep changing their story! Darwinism is a Theory in CRISIS!
(Sorry, Brownian, didn't mean to steal your shtick.)
When I learned about this in college it really pulled a lot of thoughts together for me and led me to dump religion. Oddly enough, a lot of help was also provided by two fundamentalist Christians that I took general chemistry with (young earthers at that). It was a sort of compare and contrast scenario, and there was just no comparison.
What I've Been Learning About Science:
If the results look good and make sense the first time, it's interesting.
If they still look good and make sense years later, it's a breakthrough.
This is way cool. But it's not too surprising. After all, the original experiment and this recent analysis are examples of basic scientific inquiry. And basic scientific inquiry is, as we observe, the discipline that keeps on giving.
So, you're the other one that read those books? ("Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life" is a more detailed read...if you enjoyed the 7 clues). I did an undergrad dissertation on that whole clay thing as an off-the-wall project, but when I started researching it I realised that Graham Cairns-Smith was actually a chemistry professor across the street in the chemistry department of my university. Of course I made it over there post haste with reams of paper and notes and he was thoroughly accommodating. A wonderful thoughtful polymath of a guy...although from my meetings with him over that year I got the feeling that he didn't really believe it himself (I could be wrong) and it was more of an intellectual exercise in could this, or something like it, be true? he got more into the whole consciousness debate over the years too, and seemed to me he lost interest in the clay thing. Thanks for reminding me of that, it's been decades since I thought about it.
@KenG
Thanks for expanding a little more!
i love this shit... i'll re-read in the morning... too many sierra nevada pale ale... i can't type anymore tonifgh
#34
Thanks!
Oh, you can find all sorts of fun things in old professors offices and labs. My Invert. Zoology prof was telling us when he was cleaning out the storage office of the last professor that taught the course 25 years ago, he found a large jar full of apple vinegar stashed under the sink. Sure enough, it was filled with quite happy Turbatrix (vinegar worms).
Posted by: Joshu | October 16, 2008 11:50 PM
Well, what are the odds? My girlfriend (bio major) was just telling me about this experiment being on her midterm exam today
Pity the exam is not on Monday, the extra info would knock the socks off the examiner.
That's amazing! I look forward to beating a few creotards over the head with that in future ;)
However, all contact with the team that uncovered the vials with lost. The last transmissions were confused and filled with frightened shouts of "get it off me!" and "too many dimensions!"
Another team was sent in to investigate, but they found only an empty lab, an unsettling residue on the floor and the word "CROTOAN" carved into one wall.
I remember first hearing about that experiment sometime in my high school years. I never realized it happened back in the 1950s.
I was never a believer, but learning that amino acids could be created from simpler compounds just by jolting them with enough electric discharges certainly weakened the religious arguments my classmates tried to make.
-jcr
Is this that miracle thing where you shake the vial and the contents turn liquid?
Embarassingly, for a supposed student of science history, I hadn't heard of this experiment until I saw a rebuke of Expelled on some site around the place. The 'film' dismissed it by saying "nothing happened"; the blogger in question said 'that's not quite true' and linked to a description of this spontaneous generation of amino acids and I just about spat my drink over the keyboard. "Nothing happened" indeed.
Who cares whether the "extra" amino acids have formed since the original experiment or just were not detected at the time? Even if the former is true, it does nothing to detract from the validity of the experiment ..... the worst it says is, they underestimated the timescale a bit.
If you were trying to measure the date when life began on Earth, I think you'd be excused an error of about 55 years.
E. Roston mentions some of the follow-up experiments
in 'The Carbon Age'. When the experiment was rerun with
only nitrogen & CO2, very little happened. But with the
addition of some iron & carbonates (very reasonable) most
of the amino acids returned.
Who cares whether the "extra" amino acids have formed since the original experiment or just were not detected at the time?
It's relevant to the claim that Miller didn't detect them because he lacked sufficiently sensitive analysis tools.
Even if the former is true, it does nothing to detract from the validity of the experiment
No one said it did.
Whilst I'm exceedingly chuffed about this new analysis of the old experiment, I'd hate people to go away with the impression that this is the be all and end all of abiogenesis research. It's a bit technical perhaps, but check out "The Emergence of Life" by Pier Luigi Luisi. It's a cracking good review of the current state of play and it really blows creationist drivel out of the water.
Louis
To those calling for Miller's experiment to be repeated - er, it has been.
By Jeffrey Bada. Sci Am article here with a basic description:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evoluti…
And the results are better than ever! Seems like physics just 'poofs' life all by itself.
CD
@30 & 42:
My thoughts are that ideally you'd want to run a spec' on a "before" sample as well to provide a baseline in case there was minor contamination, for example from washing the glassware in phenol, etc. This won't "excuse away" the amino acids seen in the results, though.
(Naïvely speaking, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at seeing phenylalanine in the results. I haven't read the paper, so I'm lacking the full details.)
Don McElroy (the mad creationist Texan dentist/chairman of the science curriculum committee in Texas) is also highly impressed by this experiment, because he reckons Miller and Urey got the Nobel prize for it in 1953 (have a listen to the talk he gave to a class):
http://www.gracebible.org/downloads/sermons/Intelligent_Design/DM05404_…
Creotard is the perfect term for him.
Just a thought: It's maybe good that they didn't find all usual amino acids. Otherwise one could be tempted to think of contamination. If Miller couldn't measure nanomolar concentrations of amino acids, he might not have bothered to avoid contamination in this range.
Look. I am a big fan of leftovers. But some of the old things you find in the fridge are NOT MEANT TO BE EATEN.
Wow! I remember leaning about this last year when I took biology. This is absolutely amazing. Despite it not being the accurate atmosphere, it still is such an important discovery. Twenty-two amino acids. This is exciting.
And I think it's safe to say that 50 year old brown sludge falls into that category.
It's because we lack the charm, courtesy, respect, and cool disinterested objectivity of atheists.
Oh, and because the god-of-the-gaps is not the only theology. And a magic fairy model is as good a model of rational theism as a four elements model is of chemistry.
Martin, is your version of theism rational and sophisticated? Do tell.
Science is so cool.
@ Martin #64:
And the emperor's robes are best made from Chinese silk, not Egyptian cotton.
Oxymoron.
I am closing my eyes, covering my ears and singing, "...Our God is an awesome God he reigns in heaven above..."
I think what's really important about experiments like these is that they show that complicated molecules are _not_ hard to create - they crop up all over the place, from fairly simple constituents. It's a good argument against "life is complex so it couldn't have arisen by chance".
Any possibility that at least some of the newly discovered amino acids were not present in the original sample but formed during the 50+ years this sample was kept in storage? That in itself leads to intriguing possibilities ... also, any evidence of chirality among the newly found compounds? That could go a long way in explaining how chirality came into existence during abiogenisis, whatever the details.
Anyone ever think of redoing some form of this experiment but simulating the environment around one of those deep water volcanic vents? The pressures and temps might produce some interesting results. I am guessing anyway, my chemistry and biology is limited to 101 classes.
All the amino acids made by the experiment should be racemic. If there are any predominantly L-amino acids present it would be a sign of contamination. IIRC, the columns that separate the optical isomers are not a sensitive as columns that separate the amino acids, so that testing probably wasn't carried out.
The why as to the D-sugars and L-amino acids is a very moot point. I recall a paper Asimov described in one of his science collections where certain isotopes when put in a magnetic field would decay preferentially from their "south pole". He indicated that one of the chiral molecules (I think it was a sugar) was destroyed preferentially. Very interesting theory.
Excellent stuff. Can we now please permanently abandon religion and embrace science as a united world???
Another one, here, actually. But I'm as much a Russellite alkaline seepage man, myself.
Don't reaction mechanisms and collision theory explain chirality?
If all reagents and catalysts involved in a reaction are chiral, then due to bits getting in the way of one another, only molecules of the correct chirality can reach the reaction site.
Or, if the reaction site is away from the source of chirality, then the product will have the same chirality as the original reagent, since no bonds have been broken at the chiral end of the molecule.
Obviously, when synthesising chiral molecules from achiral ingredients, you get an even mix of left- and right-handed forms. But it isn't difficult to suppose that a slight imbalance could occur; and when you have reactions taking place that are dependent on chirality, one or the other could easily become dominant.
Nerd @ 72:
Racemic. That's the word I was looking for.
Here's what I love about this: Had "big science" been a "conspiracy" or "dogmatic religion" as some nuts love to charge, it could have taken those 1953 results and proclaimed proof (more or less) of abiogenesis. Case closed. Kick back and take it easy. (Fundamentalists could not have put forth any serious challenge to the claim; they can't even *understand* the results.)
But science didn't do that. It kept on checking and confronting and trying to find flaws in its results, on its own, with no help from religion. And on its own, science found and announced that the original experiment's reducing atmosphere likely isn't a valid representation of early Earth, letting some (but not all!) of the steam out of the experiment's findings.
Can you even imagine religious dogma trying to poke holes in itself, and honestly owning up to the flaws, like science did after Miller's find?
Well, this new bit of info, about the discovery of additional amino acids, shows that science's scrupulously honest self-policing sometimes turns up unexpected rewards. Well done, and well-deserved! Religion, if you tried some honesty yourself, you too might unearth some welcome surprises.
BTW, @mikeg: "... too many sierra nevada pale ale... "
Sir, I have to claim atheism on that point. I do not believe in this "too many" you speak of.
I'm disappointed. I fully expected, when I started reading the post that little fishes would be found.
I'm surprised no one's referenced this Miller concoction yet:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
I love to show that one to fundies who say science can't show chemicals becoming Liiiiiiiffffe!
"Show me the transitional goop!"
@#46
I know what all those words mean, but together they make no sense!
@#64
IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! TAKE COVER IN YOUR NEAREST SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
And now it's time for Theological Whack-A-Mole.
It comes down to this: either your god is observable or it isn't. If it is, then science can determine its nature. If it isn't, then nobody can know anything about it, including those who claim they do. But more importantly, if it isn't observable, its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence.
OK, but if he'd simply believed that God made everything, Miller wouldn't have had to do anything at all.
Why can't you just see the great benefits of "God did it"? Namely, you don't have to get up off of the couch.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I've been watching the horror classic, Night of the Undead Christofascist Lunatics for a year now.
We are in Act 111. The earth is a desolate wasteland with twisted bodies, blown up 401K plans, and wrecked banks littering the landscape. The sun is coming up and the battered remnants of the forces of darkness are retreating to their trailer parks and church basements. The victors, also battered but surviving, including a youngish dark skinned man emerge into a new day. They begin to clean up the mess and prepare for the next outbreak of Zombie Fundie Nihiilists.
These results are very interesting indeed. I am rather excited about them, and what if any further investigations take place in the search for early formations of life. However, this science alone does not necessarily debunk any and all forms of theism.
We can all certainly agree that all of the elements used in this experiment are naturally found on the earth and furthermore the overall universe, and that the conditions that these elements were put through also exist on the planet. So these results are a positive steps towards a potential understanding of how life started.
However, this is just a steping stone to the beginings of "life as we understand it", and in no way has any speculative theories with regards to how existsance started.
I personally have a certain level of faith, although it is not to any of the prescribed organized views. I also have a very strong sense of scientific rigor and support the experimental process. It is here the science and faith diverge. One is not the other and cannot be compared as such. The debate between darwinism and creationism is an argument between science and philosophy (at best).
I find it utterly insulting that a scientific minded indivudual is not open to ideas that they know not the answer to. I find it unscientific that the so called scientists are unwilling to diverge from a single theory and look at other theories (as it stands Darwinism is a good theory but hasn't been proven... and cannot be).
The dangers that I've seen in modern scientists is almost the same as the danger I've seen in modern "beleivers", and that is that they cannot and will not acknowledge anything from the other camp, even when both camps are truely in the dark.
My real question is: Without knowing how the Universe started (if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory -- that was the start), what made it all start. Was it non-existant chemicals reacting with non-existant energies in a non-existant space? In sciencetific terms, the universe has it's own inertia, it is ever growing. What gave the initial universe the energy to start? This is where neither science nor faith can provide an answer. Faith however does provide an theory... I haven't heard any from the scientific camps (not saying that there aren't)...
Science is a great thing for the masses, but faith is a great thing for the individual... I believe with my scientific mind in darwinism, and in a "some-kinda-form-creator-of-the-overall-universe" as I do with my faith based heart. Logic dictates that something exists above us, possibly in one of the other UNOBSERVABLE 23 dimensions that science has concluded as a result of some of the more recent universal theories (String theory comes to mind).
I don't follow the literatures as written by common day creationists, they are too simple and give up when things get tough... but pure atheism seems too random...
Once again, this was a very cool discovery...
Without a catalyst, amino acids don't form from these components in mild (meaning no heating, UV light, electrical sparks) conditions. So probably not. Amino acids themselves are quite stable. If the vials had not been sealed and had contact with oxygen, maybe you could have had some oxidization to form derivatives (ex.: Tyrosine from phenylalanine).
I don't have a lot of strong opinions about evolution or creation, it's just not my issue. Your post made me lol though thinking about my high school physics teacher who also taught anatomy and physiology. The anatomy class dissected a large number of cats in his classroom, which us physics students had to smell and see as the dissection progressed. Then one day, the cats were gone, and so was the formaldyhide stench.
A few weeks later, the SAME cats were back on the lab tables in our classroom, and the anatomy students were back to work on the next dissection phase. I asked my teacher where the cats went in the interim, and he said, "Oh, I just brought them home and put them in the freezer".
I didn't get the impression that he thought this was unusual, but I was thoroughly disgusted. I kept staring at my nerdy science teacher thinking about all the years of dead cats/frogs and god knows what else he might have in his deep freeze. I decided against a scientific profession...
There are chromato columns to separate optical isomers, they're called chiral columns. Like any analysis method though, the sensitivity depends heavily on method optimization. It could in theory be verified for one abundant AA to check for contamination.
The origins of deracemisation are not totally explained, but there are several theories, including the one you mentionned. Another interesting one is an asymetry in what, if I recall correctly, is the "weak atomic force", which would give a very very slight preference for one isomer rather than another. Another theory proposes a local desequilibrium, which turned to the L-series by random chance (Getting an answer to this is one reason I'm very curious about any form of extra-terrestrial life).
The fascinating thing about this is the very little enantiomeric excess that would be needed : crystals are very good at separating and sequestering one isomer more than the other. Macromolecules (Proteins or RNA enzymes) are even better.
So the thing to keep in mind about deracemisation (and abiogenesis in general) is that, like evolution of life itself, it was a lenghty multistep process.
No one said it did. What it does do, however, is severely reduce the need for a supernatural entity to explain it.
Infitine regression argument.
No, it isn't. Creationism makes claims that directly conflict with scientific findings. That isn't philosophy.
Strawman. Scientific minded individuals are open to all ideas for which there is supporting evidence.
Equivocation.
What caused god?
Please, do you really think we haven't heard all this before? It's not new, and it's been debunked soundly.
How about bacteria or fungi? Do we know if sterile conditions were maintained throughout the experiment and storage?
PZ quoted "...island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. ..."
In The Big Splash Dr. Louis Frank proposes that essentially all the earth's surface water is explained by comet deposition. In other words, the oceans came later. Makes sense to me. How could a ball of hot stuff cool to first possess a low-boiling-point surface such as water?
Of course, this takes nothing away from the piece. I am just a fan of "Frank the Crank". He is a science rebel of the class of Harlan Bretz (read Cataclysms on the Columbia).
Not being a scientist of any sort, I can still observe and evaluate. And I see this experiment as another great breakthrough for reason in the fight against the fascism of religion. Arguing with creationists makes no sense. They are not looking for solid facts or debate but are afraid of science continuing to undermine their lazy and deliberately ignorant way of looking at the world.
Kemist, we had a project at work where we used a L-penicillamine/copper(II) complex bound to reverse phase resin for separation of the enantiomers of an amino acid analog we were making. It worked very well for separating the enantiomers of the product and the starting material, but the peaks were broad which reduced its sensitivity. You are correct in that I should have stated that it is a chiral column. After all, no chirality, no separation of the enantiomers.
TiredOfThisSillyFight, what is this "Darwinism"? That sounds like a cult of Darwin. Science has moved far beyond Darwin, who was wrong about a few things, so we talk about evolution.
Keep dreaming, retards. It's what you do best.
Go back only 200-300 years back, and people thought that organic chemicals couldn't be made from non-organic chemicals. Now I'm doing organic chemistry, the impossible, on a daily basis.
I've been attending numberless conferences on nanotech, which is just a fancy name for autoassemblies of different small molecules into litteral tiny-tiny tools. I can no longer honestly believe that "something" has to push things around to make them work in complex assemblies.
I think we view things that way instinctively because we are tool-makers. The watchmaker argument comes from there. There has to be a plan, something behind, something complex. That this doesn't seem to be, when you look closely, is alien to most people. So much that they wear blinders to avoid seeing it.
I don't think it is any different for the origin of the universe. Science is a nerverending process of observation and model building. Our present model explains just so far, the next model will explain better.
I don't need to have everything explained to me. Doubt, not knowing, is the impetus of science. I don't think filling our gaps in knowledge with a creator (with the non-negligible problem of infinite regress, turtles all the way down) is very productive for anything. If it comforts you, fine. But it's nothing beyond that.
For my part, I marvel that these tiny bits of the universe found a way to look back on itself and wonder. Matter contemplating matter...
Surely, the "Hand of God" is electricity.
It's just like your Heidingle Kitty, you peer too closely and lose the perspective with which you should be looking.
I'll pray for you.
Er, what?
Thanks for nothing. Literally.
Materials and methods supplement to their paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/322/5900/404/DC1/1
It's available even if you do not have online access to the journal (like me, even at work... it's not a chemistry journal per se). This is particularly interesting to me since I am an HPLC/mass spec kinda guy.
It does say in here that the amino acid isomers were found in racemic proportions which would be expected.
tsg
Nice to know that you are so "open minded".
Still praying for you to find that spark, despite your evil intentions.
Chiral separation was performed in their analysis by derivatizing the sample with a chiral reagent before analysis using a plain C18 column.
Thomas, if you have physical proof for your alleged god, please show it. Otherwise, god is all in your head. Time for you to get the spark of sanity.
Project much?
You keep doing that. If nothing else, it will keep you busy.
Ignoring the possibility that in 55 years, chemical reactions have occurred in the sample producing more amino acids. Also, what is the "chain of evidence" on these samples, which we can use to guarantee they have not been contaminated in all that time?
OK. Now what? How do you get from fundamental building blocks to actual living organisms? We'll overlook that nobody knows what the supposed early Earth atmosphere was composed of and that this is all scientific conjecture. We'll overlook that science still cannot agree on where or how these building block acids came about (deep ocean, volcanic, ice, etc.) We'll not even bring up the whole oxygen thing, it's existence and affect on amino acids. How did these building blocks form together and build cell walls and nuclei? How many billions of times would each incremental step in the process have to have been repeated before it became stable and could move on to the next? It begins to boggle the mind when you look at all the tiny incremental steps, the survival rate of each and then the time for each step. This just to get to early life forms.
Now, say all that works as theorized and we are here today through the wonders of evolution. Why is there morality? If we all came from nothing and will return to nothing, why do I care about anything other than my own needs? Why don't all living creatures act amoral and just do what feels good to them? And don't bring up procreation and the continuance of species. In and evolutionary world, why would any living thing care about continuing the species? Especially when dealing with single celled organisms.
Mr.Clean, science is looking at the intermediates steps, and they will be filled in without the need for "goddidit".
Your post then veered nonsensically into morality, where science says nothing. But you don't need a god for morality to be defined. Atheists do a very good job of being moral without god, especially compared to fundies, who wouldn't recognize the golden rule of their lord if they tripped over it.
I should point out that the fact that non-racemic results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the sample is not contaminated does not mean that racemic results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the sample is contaminated. Thus, observing that the results are still racemic does not differentiate between contamination and non-contamination.
There is no test that rules out contamination, since the contamination might have been done intentionally and with a mind to baffle tests. If we can't account for the provenance of this sample for 55 years, then the sample is good for nothing. That's a case of "go back and do it over again".
Richard, if the samples were contaminated by human agency or bacteria, there would be non-racemic amino acids present. Since they were all racemic, they were made by non-living means. You just don't like the conclusion. Time for you to show your proof otherwise.
Gotta tell ya, it seriously amuses me how much this stuff seems to flip out a certain species of believer...
I mean, all ya gotta do is find a coupla new residues in a 50 year old beaker, and here they are, frantically proclaiming how little it means... Honest... Really... It means nothing! Which is why we're here declaring It Means Nothing!
Seriously, dudes. Chill. I'm getting maybe this is all terribly unsettling for yer 'Magical leprechauns made the world' hypothesis' or somethin', but y'know, that's just not our problem. We're just trying to have a serious conversation, work stuff out, here. Go hyperventilate somewhere else, if you must. Do a few hail marys, whatever it is you people do...
Or hell, just have a beer. Whatever spins yer crank. As you were, now.
In and evolutionary world, why would any living thing care about continuing the species?
It wouldn't. "The continuation of the species" is a necessary outcome of individuals in a population striving to reproduce --as long as they succeed at a rate sufficient to maintain a viable population. 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, so your mileage may vary, as they say.
If we all came from nothing and will return to nothing, why do I care about anything other than my own needs?
Why do you?
Probably because, being a member of a social species, "[your] own needs" include the well-being and good will of those close to you.
tsg:
Thank you for your point by point monothought disection of my point. I know you don't have the time to explain your counters, but refrer to previous sound debunkings of my ideas. I suppose I'm well behind the curve. I tend to deal with fundamental truths when I can, and when there is no answer, no matter how hard Bible-thumping creationists or textbook thumping darwinsists yell and scream, neither has an answer. There is only evidence towards a direction, but evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove. The fundamental point is that there is not nor ever will be an answer. I'm not trying to convince you either way (not that I could sway your opinion), but you have you faith in your experiments and intermediate results that cannot be questioned as does a strong advocate of religions based faiths. Without a common ground to meet at, you will always be at eachothers throats trying the impossible, trying to sway weaker initiated people to one camp or the other.
Since neither camp can conclusively prove their claims, just demonstrate their assertions with their own adgenda buried in the spin, I choose to encourge open mindedness with respect to theories of things we do not truely understand no matter how arrogant a race we have become.
I'm sorry that my attempt at building a bridge between these two disperate camps was so aggressively shot down with the greatest disregard to the actual point. These two systems can co-exist quite well.
I will refrain from further voicing my thoughts. Enjoy your existance...
Richard, if you are accusing Miller of faking it, why don't you just say so directly.
Personally, I would like to see this run again... and again, and again. I think it would be a great experiment to do as part of science education.
Nerd of Redhead, I commend your belief in science and that it will explain all to you one day.
I find it interesting that with science, a shred of evidence become proof of a theory and elevates it to fact. While with religion, a shred of evidence means nothing.
I may not have segued very well into my morality argument, but my point is why would species continue? This can be looked at in our time and with our intellect as a morality discussion. But in very early evolution, why would there be procreation and the continuation of evolution. At some point why would one organism replicate and tolerate another one depleting it's food supplies?
You're assuming there's a question.
Short of mathematics and logic, nothing can be proven, by your usage of the word. That doesn't mean every possible idea is equally valid.
You're assuming there's a question.
No faith involved.
Your concern is noted.
TiredOfThisSillyFight, I appreciate your comments. I think you are accurate in your assessment of the rivalry. There are just as many holes in either argument and it is our beliefs and desires that fill the holes in our side.
No, there aren't.
tsg, The question is of origins. Which theory is correct?
MrClean, you are confusing several separate issues. First of all, do you have any physical proof for god that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers? I think not. And that is one of the differences between science and theology.
Next you try to bring in morality on why one species survives and another doesn't. It has nothing to do with morality. Any species that is under stress from a changing environment will either adapt or die out. History, in the form of the fossil record, will be written by those who adapt. You just have trouble with the concept that humans are here due to sheer blind luck and not a benevolent god.
Science divorced itself from god a couple of centuries ago and never looked back. And never will. Religion will have to make accommodation to reality.
I find it interesting that with science, a shred of evidence become proof of a theory and elevates it to fact.
I would find that interesting too, even alarming, if it had anything to do with reality; since it is a figment of your overheated imagination, I'm not particularly worried about it.
While with religion, a shred of evidence means nothing.
Less, really, because evidence implies that it might be possible to prove a given religion true, or at least more likely than others, and in that case, wherefore faith?
At some point why would one organism replicate and tolerate another one depleting it's food supplies?
It's replication all the way down. Everything is the way it is because it got that way. Replicating organisms got that way because their ancestors out-replicated their neighbors and rivals. An organism that followed the path you suggest wouldn't leave descendents and other, more fecund, lineages would. As I pointed out above, vastly more species are extinct than extant.
Define "theory" and "correct".
Mr Clean @ #111:
There's the religious method in a nutshell. All the evidence in the world means absolutely nothing if it contradicts dogma. Religion isn't in the evidence business. Religion is nothing more or less than a mass collective delusion. A conscious and deliberate decison to deny reality, and encourage others to do the same. Religon is lying to yourself and to others.
The reason religious nuts don't care about evidence is simple: all the evidence is against them. If the faithful actually found conclusive evidence of the existence of their imaginary friend, do you really think they'd dismiss it as irrelevant? Hell fucking no! They'd be shouting it from every mountaintop! They even do this with obvious frauds and ridiculous "miracles" like the vigrin mary Are you really stupid enough to try to tell us that you think these people would ignore real evidence for their god? Do you think we're stupid enough to believe you?
No, the reason the religious haven't found the slightest speck of evidence for their god is that there is no such evidence, because there is no such god. They reject the very idea of evidence because they can't bear to face this fact.
Want to prove me wrong? Well where's the evidence of your imaginary friend? In all of human history, not one person has ever been able to find such evidence. If you can pull it off where everyone else who's ever lived has failed, you'd be the richest, most famous person in the world. But we all know you can't. Because the evidence doesn't exist. Because your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
There are just as many holes in either argument
No, there aren't.
Uh, yes there are. Conflicting dating methods, conflicting fossil records, lack of consensus withing the scientific community, continued acceptance of false discoveries, faked test results, etc.
You shouldn't, because untrue things aren't very interesting, except from say, an anthropological or comparative literature perspective. Is being wrong interesting to you? If it is not, you might consider cracking a middle- or high-school biology text and seeing exactly how much evidence constitutes your 'shred'.
Ah, the great equivocation. For consistency, I hope you feel the same way about Hinduism, Aztec beliefs, and all the other religions that have 'just as many holes' as yours. If you do not, and aren't in fact an agnostic pantheist (who happens to be scientifically-illiterate) then you are a gross hypocrite.
Any one planning to repeat the experiment with more modern apparatus? With updated ideas of the early atmosphere?
Dating methods are a work in progress, but usually give consistent results, especially radioactive decay methods.
Conflicting fossil records? We never see rabbits in the Cambrian. Sometimes local folding of layers give results that seem out of place. Standing back and looking at the bigger picture gives an explanation.
Lack of consensus, with respect to what?
Continued acceptance of false discoveries. If they are false, they will be repudiated. You may think results are false where scientists do not.
Faked test results. Happens, but it gets fixed.
The papers are recanted, and the people involve usually go into a different line of work. Does theology actually do all this error correction? No.
Conflicting dating methods,
Examples?
conflicting fossil records,
Examples?
lack of consensus withing the scientific community,
Regarding evolution? Not in the big picture sense. Certainly it's an exciting, growing field with plenty of controversies at the margins and differing approaches to interesting problems, but the broad-brush outline of evolution is as settled a theory as you will find in science. Anybody who tells you different is lying and pushing an agenda.
continued acceptance of false discoveries,
Examples?
faked test results,
Happen from time to time, and are discovered and dealt with harshly by the scientific community.
etc.
Examples?
Please. The alternative "theory" is nothing but a blind guess with not even the slightest attempt to see if it's true. It's all hole.
This is just more "it can't be conclusively proven therefore any fool idea is just as valid" fallacy.
Martin #64, you didn't answer my question. Why do you believe in a magic fairy? Are you insane, stupid, childish, cowardly, or all of the above? Try answering my question. I look forward to laughing at your answer.
Your non-answer in #64 makes me think you are 'all of the above'.
Who gives a shit about theology? Theology is a bunch of words about nothing.
I don't have any respect for you god morons for a good reason. It's because your stupidity is breathtaking. No matter how moderate religious assholes think they are, no matter how pro-science they are, they are part of the problem. The problem is the religious insanity that is slowing down human progress and may even wipe out the human race some day.
You Martin, a theist, believe there's a fairy hiding in the clouds. That's insane. You need to grow up. There are no fairies in the universe. And don't complain about your imaginary god being called a fairy. It's a fair description of the magic man you idiots believe in.
Hail Marys would be the last thing on creationists' lips. That's a Catholic prayer: not only does the Vatican approves the teaching of evolutionary theory, but also the author of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.
"Conflicting dating methods, conflicting fossil records, lack of consensus withing the scientific community, continued acceptance of false discoveries, faked test results, etc."
Leaving aside how grossly inaccurate your picture is, I now invite you to list the strengths and weaknesses for the other side. Whatever the other side may be, you guys have been rather vague in this thread on what that other side is. Young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, some sort of intelligent design, I-ain't-no-monkey-ism, start talking about it. Claims of equivalence may impress your friends who don't know anything about science (or, most likely, religion), but they're not going to wash here.
"conflicting dating methods"
Code phrase meaning, "I have no idea how things are dated."
But he got to it by doing science, so what's your point?
Nice write-up. 200% less confused than the wired.com write-up of the same story.
Isn't there a sad human story being overlooked here though. Didn't Miller have a stroke before he died, one that left him unable to talk? He had many many different and ongoing chemistry of life experiments that the university disassembled because they caught a whiff of the word "cyanide". Didn't he have to see a great number of his experiments thrown away while he couldn't say anything about it?
Glad they found one of the earliest ones but the whole story can be compelling as well.
Ha! I wouldn't have guessed that a sillier argument than "if evolution is true why don't organisms eat their young" was possible. But there it is: If evolution is true why don't organisms stop reproducing????
"I've gone through a few old scientists' labs, and you'd be surprised at all the antiquities they preserved"
Heh, never say "old scientist's lab" to anyone who worked in the Safety Dept. of a research university. The wonder here is that what was left behind was useful and interesting, rather than unstable and life-threatening.
What I used to find doing lab clean-outs was usually more along the lines of peroxidized isopropyl ether, well-aged diazomethane solutions, and weird volatile toxics (methyl fluoroacetate, anyone?)
Excellent! I read about this last night on NS.
We should redo the experiment, add all the other ingredients, and see how long it takes to make something that is actually living!
By the way, Creationism got the Darwin Award from me, long ago!
Thanks, but I just filled up on parathion and phospholine at lunch.
Why not wait to see how long until something smarter than the average creationist evolves? I mean, if you don't mind tacking an extra few weeks (at the most) on to the experiment.
"The reanalysis found twenty two amino acids and five amines in the vials."
It's a goddamn miracle!
I just got to have champagne and celebrate the publication with the graduate student who re-ran the samples! super cool!
Besides dreaming we create, discover, and build. This is why the 21st century looks a lot different from the 11th century. Fundie morons are merely a bit a sand in the gears.
PS If you don't like the benefits of science such as running water, electricity, and the internet, there is nothing stopping you from living like a medieval peasant. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Those shreds of evidence turn into mountains of evidence before a theory becomes fact.
What is peculiar is religion which got things wildly wrong thousands of years ago. Centuries after anyone with a brain realized it, the fundie morons are reduced to lying a lot and occasionally threatening to kill scientists.
Why is it that the "spiritual" only seem to get their morality intertwined with biology? I've heard countless variations on the theme of "survival of the fittest means I should do X" where X is some horrid depravity from the darkest depths of a fevered mind.
But I never hear the crazies ranting about gravity. Shouldn't someone out there be stalking about, flinging the contents of every table they encounter to the ground? I mean, clearly, gravity wants everything to be at the lowest point possible. Obviously, water is a holy substance since it naturally seeks the lowest point, as god and gravity (G & G?) intends. If god doesn't want me to stay all comfy and horizontal in my bed (which I keep on the ground, no blasphemous box springs elevate me above the level G & G says I should prefer), who am I to argue?
And don't even get me started on people who live on the second floor. Heathens, every last one of 'em.
If we confuse descriptions of how the world is with prescriptions for how the world should be, that is.
Biochem has progressed rapidly 1953 - 1993, Nobel Awards been given to Laureattes. From '93 to '08 it's been 15 yrs but not even a single living cell has ever been synthezied with all those advanced equips. Guess evolution can only occur naturally and will remain e--v--o--l--u--t--i--o--n, a myth because it can't be sped-up or proven.
When I was a lad, god could make sucrose but man couldn't. Guess what, sucrose has been synthesized. The same will be true of single celled organisms. A Nobel prize is waiting for the one who first carries this out, and people are already trying. It will happen.
Now what will you say Oprahress when this is done? What is your next retreat?
Checking through the Nobel site ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all ) after looking at Luger Otter Robinson's #59, I found that both Miller and Urey had won prizes.
Merton H. Miller, Economics 1990
Harold C. Urey, Chemistry 1934
Theory tested against discoverable facts: Fail.
What is the current time it's thought it took for recognised life to occur from reasonable temperature and water conditions being around? A billion years? Time for a lot to happen. Fifty-five years without intensive work leaves us a lot of catching-up if we want to re-enact abiogenesis.
In that time, though, clouds of amino acids, and possibly other organic chemicals have been discovered in outer space (does anyone have links?); presumably produced from clouds of mixed atoms.
Something happened to the Urey link. Trying again:
Harold C. Urey, Chemistry 1934
We always need nerds, thanx.
1953 to 2008, it's a long period of rapid progress, in genetical-engineering, medics etc.
You mentioned god, yes, God is the only source of LIFE.
More than that He is also a Sustainer.
Bertrand Russell is a pessimist when he said ''mankind has no future whatsoever''. Sadly he did not believe that The Creator is also a Sustainer, who has been preserving this earth from nuclear disasters many times.
My point is science is needed, for progress and welfare but not for production of killing machines. Relying only on science and human philosophies will only prove that Russell was right.
Make it short, if you want to see my affiliation, bibleinfo.com
Oprahress, your god doesn't exist, never did. Where is your next hidey hole when advances in science make you uncomfortable. You need to lose the woo, and come over to the rational side. No physical proof, no belief, no dissonance. Try it, you might like it.
Like religion?
I see how well Christianity has done through the ages sustaining life... I'll give you a hint: it involved a lot of death.
How many of you believe that you can live without Oxygen? Hmmm, none I bet. Get the real details on the experiment. Even if you can make amino acids in a non-realistic (no oxygen) environment...how can you make those amino acids come to life? Simple. You can't. If you think you can, put a frog in a blender for 30 seconds. You'll have amino acid soup. Go ahead...zap it with electricity (as much as you want) a billion times until you get life. When it suddenly creates either a living organism you come get me...and then maybe I'll believe their isn't a God.
There is a God...regardless of which religion you subscribe to! I believe that God gave us a sacrificial lamb, and his name was Jesus. But, you are free to believe what you want.
Matthew, you are a big liar. The solvent used was dihydrogen monoxide, better known as water. Oxygen was present. The earliest forms of life are presumed to be anaerobic bacteria, which can live without molecular oxygen being present. Their energy source is usually sulfates or sulfites which do contain oxygen. Only after cyanobacteria (alge) started producing dioxygen did it become more than an insignificant portion of the atmosphere. If you don't fully under what you are talking about, you shouldn't speak.
Just as well the hypothesis isn't that humans came from clay, it just wouldn't work!
Okay scientists, stop trying. Matthew says it's impossible.
You got evidence of the one you call God?
Aaaand after the brief circle-jerk between one concern troll and a creotard D'Orc, both handily skewered by the regulars, it seems a new crop of substandard creotard D'Orcs are here to continue blabbing that their ignorance is equal to or superior to painstakingly earned knowledge.
I long for the days of proper trolls, o Phyrangulites. These D'Orcs are worth a mere 25 XP apiece. Barely worth noticing, what? Somewhat like mere dragons only not so entertaining.
The MadPanda, FCD
(Pedantic footnote: D'Orc is short for Discussion Orc, which is an annoying entity but not as skilled or capable at their art as a proper troll. Credit for the term goes to skyotter...)
Nerd of Redhead, you may need to go back to school and learn what a compound is...and how tight of a bond H2O has before you think that oxygen suddenly broke off of oxygen to sustain life. But go back to my other point if you want a science lesson: Zap a frog straight out of a blender and make life.
Feel free...I'll be waiting.
I feel so bad for you...
Where do you think the dioxygen in atmosphere comes from? It comes from water.
I used to teach ignoramuses like you in earlier in my career. I suspect you flunked general chemistry. You have my pity for being so dumb, even so dumb as to believe in god. He doesn't exist. Come over to the rational side.
@TiredOfThisSillyFight: "However, this science alone does not necessarily debunk any and all forms of theism."
Doesn't debunk Leprechauns, either! Win!
@Matthew: "I believe that God gave us a sacrificial lamb, and his name was Jesus. But, you are free to believe what you want."
Great! I believe that the Great Leprechaun Shecky O'Seamus gave us the Silky-Maned Pony, and its name was Lollipoppy. Science has never disproved this!
Matthew, you might yourself want to learn about the different compounds out there, there's this one called 02.
remember: early life lived in the water. Abiogenesis doesn't hypothesise that we started life on land, Genesis does that!
No higher metazoans. Many microbes. Ever hear of "beer" or "wine". These are made by yeast by anaerobic fermentation. Oopps, you are stupid, that means no oxygen.
As do the microbes in your gut which is low in oxygen. Anaerobic microbes are quite common.
Oxygen is a product of life, photosynthesis. Before that process evolved, the earth was low in free oxygen. Metazoans didn't exist.
BTW, whether we can exist without oxygen and whether we evolved (we did) has nothing to do whatsoever with a belief in god or not. Most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. Creationism is just a product of perverted twisted pseudoxian death cults.
Final Post From Matthew:
Go ahead..."Low" is not the same as "none"!!! Try the experiment for yourself, but allow oxygen in the air...Many have done so! And you know what? You're not going to get the same results. I'm not here to prove any points, just to tell you that the results were bogus.
Call me what you want, but go ahead and see for yourself...these "results" won't even come close to occuring if you have Oxygen in the environment...yes, raven, even a little.
Nerd of Redhead said, "I used to teach ignoramuses like you in earlier in my career."
I'm excited to see you may still be getting paid to tell students that the Theory of Evolution is true and the Geological Column (which was aribtrarily made up by a man quite some time ago) is fact. Let me guess...the fossils date the soil, and the soil tells you how old the fossils are?
Incase you never heard this quote: "Professing to be wise, they became fools." Please remember that quote, and don't tell anyone that I never told you.
@Defaithed: That's just silly. When you find evidence that your Leprechauns exist or at least have a reason to believe they exist, other than you probably claim your anatomy may be a result that your father being a Leprechaun...(couldn't help but blast back on such a rediculous post.) If you have nothing valid to input, perhaps it is best not to let people know how clueless you are.
Very interesting indeed! I have to say I digg this kind of stuff...
It cracks me up (and saddens me) to see a forum like this turn into ridiculous "discussions"--which are more like pompous ad hominem attacks by people who evidently have some sort of childhood axe to grind.
Time to get over ourselves and move on to better things folks - truth is deeper than science, religion, and forums like this. Life is a gift, whether your philosophy warrants that or not. Let's not waste it on trying to prove to people how ridiculously rude we can be when we're not talking face to face. Grow up and move on.
Well running it with oxygen would never give results pertaining to the origin of life. The origin of life happened long before there was free oxygen in the atmosphere. Not to mention it probably happened under water.
Do you like conducting straw men?
"Incase you never heard this quote: "Professing to be wise, they became fools." "
Heard it dozens of times. It doesn't become any less insipid with repetition.
I notice my challenge in #120 hasn't been taken up yet. Nope, we just get more blather about how we can't strike a liquified frog with lightning and bring it back to life. Probably because these folks know that they have nothing (they sure as heck don't have a deity that could bring said frog back to life).
"Life is a gift, whether your philosophy warrants that or not. Let's not waste it on trying to prove to people how ridiculously rude we can be when we're not talking face to face."
Your concern is noted. And worthless.
IsLifeAgift wrote:
No, it's not. It just is - no more, no less. Familiarise yourself with Douglas Adams' analogy of the sentient puddle.
Matthew wrote:
There's as much evidence for leprechauns as there is for Jesus. You have the bible; I have Darby O'Gill and the Little People. Sean Connery is da bomb.
Well it may be deeper than religion, but if it's out there science will find it. Stop concern trolling.
Let's see, matthew has less than a grade school understanding of science. He thinks if you put a frog in a blender that it proves that god exists and the earth is 6,000 years old.
All that proves that matthew is ignorant, stupid, and crazy and that is it.
Another mind damaged by home schooling and a sick, perverted pseudoxianianity. BTW, matthew your cult doesn't speak for anyone but your cult of hate filled morons. Most xians don't have a problem with evolution or science in general.
You are obviously scientifically illiterate and crazy. You just made that up, and have no idea what would happen with oxygen present. "If we put a frog in a blender and lie a lot then god exists." Lying is disgraceful.
Matthew, I used to teach general and organic chemistry at the college level. So you can't try to bullshit me on chemistry. The fact that you tried shows a real lack of intelligence.
I am not a biologist, but I do read science magazines. If you have a scientific theory other than evolution for how life got from the early earth to know, why don't you publish it. A Nobel prize is waiting for somebody to show evolution is wrong. Oh yeah, in science god cannot be a conclusion or explanation. There goes your idea
Sir, you are a fool if you think you can come here and BS us and not get called on it. Until you show me physical proof for your illusional god you will remain a BSer.
1) This explains *my* refrigerator in a way that I couldn't.
2) "Proud Quaker": There's your oxymoron for the day. Did you ever notice how many early scientists were of a Quaker tradition? (Probably not. Too much dang humility.) Quakers might discern something like Intelligent Design as happily obvious, but they(/we) would also never, NEVER allow that conclusion to become a bridge from what we do know to what we don't. Only science is that bridge -- only the crucible of debate-testing-reproducible-results.
Have faith, y'all.
And get to work.
"Science RULES!"
Posted by: MrClean | October 17, 2008 1:11 PM
"Now, say all that works as theorized and we are here today through the wonders of evolution. Why is there morality? If we all came from nothing and will return to nothing, why do I care about anything other than my own needs? Why don't all living creatures act amoral and just do what feels good to them?"
-- Most animals DO act immoral and just do whatever feels good to them. Most do whatever is in their own best interest, whatever meets their needs. Most do not have any sense of morality. Does a lion have a moral sense? Does a fish have a moral sense? Does a bird have a moral sense? No, it's ridiculous to suggest that they do. They have some degree of memory, and they have some ability to think, yes, and make decisions on how best to stay alive but that's it. They don't look out for the sake of others.
Humans MAY have a moral sense. I don't know. Let's think about that. For over 90% of recorded history, there has been a war somewhere in the world. Killing each other, including innocent civilians along the way - is a way of life. Even today enormous sums of money are spent on new and better ways to kill en masse. America for example spends more on its military than the next 5 countries combined (and most are allies) but we are far from the only ones...the recent wars in Africa were exceptionally bloodthirsty and killed millions - where was the rest of the world's response to stop the conflict? Where was the moral outrage? Most people turned their heads and ignored it. Not in my backyard, not my problem - that was the response. Some people got on TV and said a few things but no one made any real EFFORT...those lives just weren't worth it...biggest conflict in the world since World War II, but nah, not worth stopping it. We'll just let them kill.
Slavery was practiced by countries all over the world until only a couple hundred years ago - America being one of the last countries to officially practice it. Today, roughly 1/3 of the world lives on the equivalent of $2 per day or less...that's BILLIONS of people without shelter, without sufficient food, without medical care of any kind, without education...people who will suck on gravel or eat dirt because they are so hungry. Meanwhile, we have people like Lehaman Brother's CEO who made $300 million over the past 7 years while running his company into the ground, or the executives of AIG Insurance who just took a special retreat right after getting bailed out at taxpayer expense.
You call humanity "moral"? It's pretty questionable. I'd say we just have brains large enough that we can see things beyond our own interest. SOME of us - unfortunately, it's a minority of us - choose to act in the interest of others at least part of the time. Most people choose to indulge their own interest quite freely, and history proves it.
Turns out it's a highly successful survival mechanism. As for a darwinian path...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
It's a great folly that theists keep looking to morality as proof of the divine. It shows they understand so little about both evolution and the concept of morality.
WHY ARE THE NEWEST COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM?? The most recent comments should be on top. These comment sections are annoying.
TiredOfThisSillyFight (#84):
The only connection creationism has to philosophy is as a compendium of illustrative examples for the more common logical fallacies. It has no more merit as philosophy than it does as science.
Let's just ignore the fact that evolutionary biology has been expanded and revised repeatedly since Darwin set the ball rolling, and that several additonal mechanisms (e.g., genetic drift, endosymbiosis etc) have been incorporated into the mainstream of evolutionary theory.
But setting that aside, if you can come up with a theory that is sufficiently distinct from the modern theory of evolution and is equally successful at predicting and explaining the facts of biological diversity and complexity, I can guarantee that scientists will look at it. However, no-one has come up with such a theory, so you can hardly blame scientists for not looking at that which doesn't exist.
Oh, and since no empirical theory can be "proven" in the strictest sense of the word, the fact that "Darwinism" has not been proven in this sense is hardly a badge of dishonour.
No, and you'd know this if you'd read even an elementary introduction to modern cosmology.
Actually, the only people who are working on (and providing) any answers to this question are scientists. Faith offers nothing but the empty non-explanation "Goddidit", which is a theory only in the sense that a paper aeroplane is a space shuttle.
Nope, logic dictates nothing of the sort. And the additional dimensions posited by string theory are unobservable because they are (to use the standard metaphor) "curled up" very, very small, so that only entities on the smallest scales are actually extended within them. Not much room to hide a god in them, I'm afraid.
Incidentally, why do I get the impression that you don't really know what the terms "inertia", "energy" and "dimension" actually mean? For someone who claims to respect science, and is prepared to lecture people on what is and isn't "scientific", you sure don't talk like someone who understands a damn thing about it.
It would help if you stopped calling evolution Darwinism. We don't call electricity Faradayism, because it's not a cult of personality around the discoverer. Darwin came up with the theory and produced the evidence, he was right on some things and wrong on others.
You can't "prove" in science, for proof requires mathematics. You can empirically demonstrate which is what has been done with evolutionary theory. Basically you have a 4.5 billion year old earth, simple life being present from about 3.8 billion years ago, complex life being present for about 700 million years, and that complex life is a gradual emergence of different types. You don't see any tetrapods until about 375 million years ago, mammals until about 220 million years ago, humans until about 200,000 years ago. Life had a gradual emergence on this planet; it evolved. Speciation has been observed.The reason we don't look at creationism is that the evidence doesn't support creationism. The rocks are old, life emerges gradually and we are in a universe where we look billions of years back in time when observing distant galaxies. Creationism has been vetted extensively, it doesn't fit the evidence. Evolution does fit the evidence. Of course there are scientists who look for alternatives to the theory, for instance check our Lamarkian evolution. The theory also undergoes modification, so scientific idea is ever complete so as new evidence comes to light, the theory changes. Though evidently I don't think you'll be able to understand that point given your use of the word Darwinism.Most people actually try and get some rudimentary knowledge before opening their mouths, and they do so because if they don't they will be mocked. You have no clue whatsoever and you are completely ignorant of how science works. You don't know what is scientific and what is not!
Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." He felt that natural selection would preserve individuals with the best modifications. When a butterfly egg hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, then goes into the pupal stage in which its organs dissolve into a thick liquid from which a butterfly forms. Thick liquid has no selective advantage over caterpillars. Neither could successive slight modifications to either a caterpillar or to the thick liquid into which it dissolves ever produce either a butterfly, or any of its complex organs. Darwin's theory breaks down under the weight of the butterfly! --T. H.
Stop wanking T.H.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311_1.html
T.H. doth intone :
That is a common quote mine - the VERY NEXT sentence is "But I can find out no such case."
Initiate error :
Actually, the butterfly forms from discs and rings of tissue that were set aside IN THE EMBRYO, and remained under the body wall the whole time.
The larval tissues degrade, but those batches of cells divide to form the adult structures in the pupa. This has been known for decades now; why are you so slow to hear about it ? It is REALLY wise to pontificate about things you know little/nothing about ?
Good thing that, IN REALITY, butterflies do NOT develop from thick liquid. A selective advantage could be the fact that the larval state and the adults eat different foods (less competition from others of same species; less chance the adults have already eaten all the food before larvae hatch), or live in different locales (mayfly nymphs live underwater; adult stage is terrestrial for their short lives), or ease of growth (wings are a heavy investment; not needing to shed them and regrow larger versions an advantage).
You 'determined' that HOW, exactly ?
Given the FACT that the adult structures of a butterfly derive from pools of cells set aside during embryogenesis, blithering about 'dissolving into thick liquid' be quite silly. Altering the timing of when the adult structures start growing explains much - for example, cicadas and grasshoppers have incomplete metamorphosis (wings of the adult form obviously present, but very small).
Initiate addle-pated posturing :
The strawman version that your ilk prefer to construct and psychotically flog, yes; the ACTUAL one, no.
"Darwin's theory breaks down under the weight of the butterfly!"
What is it about evolution that makes even the most clueless and uninformed idiots think they can propound on it?
T.H. (#172):
This is just a variant on the irreducible complexity fallacy - the idea that evolution can only add the developmental stages of an organism in linear succession.
You can just see how T.H. thinks butterflies are supposed to have evolved - first there were caterpillars, then caterpillars evolved into caterpillars that turned into goo, which in turn evolved into caterpillars that turned into goo and then turned into butterflies.
Silly creationist.
Gentlemen can anyone here explain the importance of chirality in amino acids , especially as they relate to the Miller -Ury experiment of 1952 , and the Bader re-experiment in 1983 ?
Were there in fact left-handed Amino acids produced , and are they in fact necessarry in steps leading to form any primitive life form ?