Posted on 10/17/2008 7:44:28 AM PDT by Soliton
A classic experiment exploring the origin of life has, more than a half-century later, yielded new results.
The original samples used by Stanley Miller to study the origins of life. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller, then a graduate student of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, put ammonia, methane and hydrogen — the gases believed to be in early Earth’s atmosphere — along with water in a sealed flask and applied electrical sparks to simulate the effects of lightning. A week later, amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, were generated out of the simple molecules.
Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel the origins of life with simple chemistry experiments.
The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was much different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still unsolved problem of the origin of life.
After Dr. Miller’s death in May last year, Dr. Jeffrey L. Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, who had been one of Dr. Miller’s graduate students, discovered cardboard boxes containing hundreds of vials of dried residues collected from the experiments conducted in 1953 and 1954.
Consulting Dr. Miller’s notebooks, Dr. Bada discovered that Dr. Miller had constructed two variations of the original apparatus. One simply used a different spark generator. The second injected steam onto the sparks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Miller-Urey ping
Can anyone say ‘contamination’?
Miller has been debunked so many times it’s old hat. Move on Darwinists. Nothing to see here!
"The Swiftboat Vets for Truth have been debunked so many times it’s old hat. Move on Kerry haters. Nothing to see here!" This "has already been debunked" tactic is as dishonest as it irrelevent. Miller-Urey was rejected by many scientists because they do not believe that the early atmosphere was't like the atmosphere in M-U's vials.
The significance of this new research is that the injection of steam that M-U did in some experiments would have replicated the conditions near tidal volcanoes that DID have the gases. They also found many new amino acids in the M-U vials using more sensitive methods than were available to M-U in the 50s.
To duplicate conditions for the formation of complex organic molecules and eventually life, it would probably be necessary to run the experiment for a billion years or so.
Amino acids are easily created in laboratories. They have also been found in meteorites. All you need is a means of assembling these into proteins.
This takes us to the "ribosome world" hypothesis. Scientists have found recent evidence supporting this hypothesis.
One simply used a different spark generator. The second injected steam onto the sparks.
In other words, they still required some kind of intelligent tweaking.
Thanks.
Placemarker
One simply used a different spark generator. The second injected steam onto the sparks.
All you need is a means of assembling these into proteins.
Yup..."all you need" is some form of intelligence behind the experiment to make it happen. We realized this a long time ago. Thanks anyway.
If you consider volcanoes intelligent, then yes.
The experiment replicated an environment known to have existed once steam was added. Presumably, you believe that God created that environment. If you disagree with His work, complain to Him.
If you consider volcanoes intelligent, then yes.
Volanos recently belched out building blocks of life? When? Where?
Please read the articles before criticizing them
I read it, I’m criticizing your ridiculous conclusions!
Have no fear, it's just science crawling through Miller's goo.
I didn't write the article. They are the conclusions of the scientists that will be published in a peer reviewed journal.
The experiment replicated an environment known to have existed once steam was added. Presumably, you believe that God created that environment. If you disagree with His work, complain to Him.
You continue to keep missing the point: this is about the false conclusions YOU assert, not the article, and most certainly not God's creation...
1. The experiment needed human intervention to make it work, ie intelligence behind the design of the experiment.
2. YOU presume to somehow know the environment that YOU state happened billions of years ago, which is impossible.
3. Your intent in posting this article is once again to somehow keep God out of science/darwinism. Your interest has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You failed. Again.
Put me on your ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.