Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment [biogenesis]

Science Magazine ^ | May 2003 | Jeffrey L. Bada and Antonio Lazcano

[js1138]

The A team is busy at another website, and isn't helping as much as they could.

That's why my puny weapons were able to defeat their superior intellect.

[VadeRetro]

If you truly believe that "something" annoted one molecule next to millions with a special gift--and that gift had no effect on its identical (or nearly so in some cases), then you believe in a Creator. Congratulations.

All you do here is make it obvious where your difficulties in comprehension arise. As LaPlace explained to Napoleon why his text on celestial mechanics omitted mention of God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Where is annointing necessary? Catalysts happen. Something somewhere will catalyze formation of a molecule identical to itself. When that happens, the world changes.

Care to refute my "imaginings?" If you cannot analyze my arguments, I guess you then cannot debate this issue.

But I have analyzed your arguments in detail. For some time now, they've been arm-waving chemo-babble from a person who cannot tell "species" from "isomer," abiogenesis (pre-replication) from evolution (post-replication). There's really no there there.

Miller created certain non-polymerized, lower energy amino acids from polymerized precursors.

No, he didn't. He made aminos in a very unguided process, a little warmth and some elecrtrical arcing, from simple gasses and water. He went in a simulated early Earth environment from inorganics to organics, which was the significance of his experiment. That you get even this wrong, that you claim he broke his simple aminos down from polymers, shows you ain't never never never gonna get any of this. Hydrogen is not a polymer. Methane is not a polymer. Ammonia is not a polymer. Water is not a polymer. With the main article of this thread right in front of you, you state this falsehood. Here, look:

Miller had applied an electric discharge to a mixture of CH4, NH3, H2O, and H2--believed at the time to be the atmospheric composition of early Earth. Surprisingly, the products were not a random mixture of organic molecules, but rather a relatively small number of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids, hydroxy acids, and urea. With the publication of these dramatic results, the modern era in the study of the origin of life began.

You're being Ignorant for the Lord, so to speak. Who knows, of course, maybe you don't know what the words mean. A polymer is a long chain of simpler elements, like RNA or nylon.

When the slow learners in the third grade have trouble with long division, they don't advertize their difficulties as a refutation of the discipline of arithmetic. They may be lazy or a bit thick, but long division is there and it works for anyone who wants to learn it.

Your typical disinterested reader, encountering an article such as this one on abiogenesis may very well have questions or even objections which the article does not answer. Having no axe to grind, however, and knowing he is not the world's foremost authority, he probably makes some allowance that the scientists involved have made a far more thorough study of the subject in getting to where they currently are.

But not the creationist. Unlike the slow-learner third-graders or the guy with no axe to grind, his every confusion, even his ignorance, is proof that all of the scientists whose work he questions are wrong. He not only concludes this, but logs onto the Internet to announce his findings to the world.

It doesn't work that way. If you ever get truly curious, read some articles in the area. A good book is J. William Schopf's Cradle of Life, although Schopf's main claim to fame and the centerpiece of that book has been questioned: 3.5 billion-year-old "cyanobacteria" lookalikes in Australian chert may be geologic artifacts. For all that, it's a very good text on the early Earth and abiogenesis issues.

That's if you ever actually discover any real curiosity on the subject. For now, you aren't fighting to learn but rather to stay confused. You have thus picked a fight you can't lose.

[PatrickHenry]

But not the creationist. Unlike the slow-learner third-graders or the guy with no axe to grind, his every confusion, even his ignorance, is proof that all of the scientists whose work he questions are wrong. He not only concludes this, but logs onto the Internet to announce his findings to the world.

That's good. Very good. You might want to add some of this to your "holy warrior" material. Or, perhaps better, make it a separate essay.

[VadeRetro]

I could probably credit Physicist, whose freepmail on the departure of--I won't go there--made a similar point.

[PatrickHenry]

That reminds me of something from 1984:

The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

It's that last slogan which is in play here ...

[VadeRetro]

1984.

Gotta read that one someday. (Saw the Richard Burton movie.)

After buying a 1984 Chrysler LeBaron, I used to joke "It's pretty nice but you get the feeling you're being watched." (It didn't hold up well, either. Bought it new and got almost nothing for a trade-in on it after six years.)

[PatrickHenry]

After buying a 1984 Chrysler LeBaron ...

I used to see them on the road, and I always wondered what kind of poop-head bought cars like that. It's all starting to fit together ...

[VadeRetro]

I used to see them on the road, and I always wondered what kind of poop-head bought cars like that.

Looked good in the showroom. It was even worse buying cars in the 70s, but at least it didn't take much money.

[Loc123]

VadeRetro says: All you do here is make it obvious where your difficulties in comprehension arise. As LaPlace explained to Napoleon why his text on celestial mechanics omitted mention of God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Where is annointing necessary? Catalysts happen. Something somewhere will catalyze formation of a molecule identical to itself. When that happens, the world changes.

But he is necessary under your model. There is no reason that--and I will say it again-- one molecule would suddenly be endowed with a unique gift amongst millions. If a hole region of molecules did somehow, then there are the intractable complications I mentioned regarding the catch-22 scenario (which is still refuse to address, or maybe cannot).

VadeRetro says: But I have analyzed your arguments in detail. For some time now, they've been arm-waving chemo-babble from a person who cannot tell "species" from "isomer," abiogenesis (pre-replication) from evolution (post-replication). There's really no there there.

I'm sorry, but you haven't even quoted them--so how could you analyze them. You made a big deal about me using the term species--a relevant term, though not the most precise. I have corrected this diction error but you are still hung up on it. Now please address my question in the original paragraph, replacing "species" with achiral/chiral molecule.


I said: Miller created certain non-polymerized, lower energy amino acids from polymerized precursors.

VadeRetro says: No, he didn't. He made aminos in a very unguided process, a little warmth and some elecrtrical arcing, from simple gasses and water. He went in a simulated early Earth environment from inorganics to organics, which was the significance of his experiment. That you get even this wrong, that you claim he broke his simple aminos down from polymers, shows you ain't never never never gonna get any of this. Hydrogen is not a polymer. Methane is not a polymer. Ammonia is not a polymer. Water is not a polymer. With the main article of this thread right in front of you, you state this falsehood. Here, look:

I made a terrible diction mistake here. I meant to say pre-polymerized (meaning before they were polymerized, not that they were polymerized before). Honestly, your rebuttal to this diction error is honest. I know they were not simply hydrolysized polymers--that is ridiculously apparent. I was meaning they were non-polymerized organic molecules. Sorry for this confusion.


VadeRetro says: [a diatribe of unwarranted ad homenims]

Are you sure you are not a DU liberal trolling here? I make a single (or perhaps two if you count the "species" word) diction error and automatically every argument I have made--without serious opposition--is discredited. That is not very honest. You have not touched my specific arguments at all, though you do give huge focus to specific wordings. I am beginning to wonder if you understand physics and chemistry at all, or if you just are reciting a set of talking points.

I would really appreciate you copying my specific chemical objections and then underneath telling me why those objections are not valid. Saying "it just had to be that way" or referrencing some cultural quotation doesn't help anyone. If you really have problems comprehending my specific arguments about thermochem and entropy then I could simplify them for you. I was just under the impression that you had some kind of scientific background to be able to debate this stuff. But since you continue to ignore specific chem/physics objections to the abiogenesis model I am led to believe that you have simply read abiogenesis talking points and just post the specific point prescribed by a keyword or heading.

[VadeRetro]

Shameless. Know when nobody and I mean nobody is fooled anymore.

[Loc123]

You are incorrect, sir. For if you truly believe you have addressed my objections, then you contiune to fool yourself.

Don't take this as an insult, but you really need to learn the specifics of a theory before you advance it. If you don't understand it on a chemical model level, then you don't understand it.

[PatrickHenry]

The game is so blatantly obvious that it would be madness to persue it.

[PatrickHenry]

pursue

[PatrickHenry]

[Loc123]

Isn't a troll someone who enters a forum only to post some sort of talking points for the purpose of riling up the populace. If so, how do I fit that descrip? Haven't I asked very specific questions regarding the thermochem of abiogenesis as well as the model of chirality selection?

Speaking of questions: where is your response to my post 196 that was directed to you? You, like VadeRetro, insulted an idea of mine--but when I asked for reasoning behind the insult you, like VadeRetro, ignored the challenge and continued on.

[VadeRetro]

"RELATIVELY infinite" placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Tractionless P L A C E M A R K E R

[VadeRetro]

I think I figured it out. My baby sister is 48. I'm 53. My age is RELATIVELY infinite.

[Loc123]

Lol...you should debate diction instead of trying to debate science. It seems like all of your arguments that are not recycled from an actual scientist's generalizations are about word choice.

Since I appear to have damaged my credibility by my imprecise diction, I will gracefully offer you this one pointer about science (of which I am a student). In order to fully understand a system and its mechanics, try to visualize it with all of its mechanisms and variables. It makes adding new information to the system RELATIVELY easy. And, when this new information doesn't seem to fit, you can question why and perhaps ask for more information (as I tried to with you).

Doing this will make it easy to actually understand the system and its mechanisms, instead of merely not comprehending it and searching for generalized talking points.

Good luck, and I'm sorry if talking to me caused you to become unpleasant to your family (if you have one).

[PatrickHenry]

Your latest contribution to human knowledge is infinitely appreciated. Relatively speaking.