1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Jan '14 14:30
    http://phys.org/news/2014-01-21st-century-miller-urey-life.html

    To all you creationists out there, this is the separate science of life origins, it is NOT part of evolution.

    This is a totally different scientific discipline.
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Jan '14 17:564 edits
    The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.

    I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.

    Also, I think there should be an attempt to somehow simulate repeated drying and wetter of tidal pools that existed on early earth because, according to the best theory I know of, such repeated drying and wetting promoted the right chemistry for the start of life. Although I would imagine that might be a rather awkward experimental setup, I think it would be worth it.

    I also think there must be some continuous turbulence in the reaction chamber to simulate the subtle effects of the combination of both wind and waves -perhaps by putting a tiny fan into the reaction chamber pointed downwards to constantly make tiny ripples on the liquid surface below it. Or maybe by constantly blowing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    21 Jan '14 22:49
    Originally posted by humy
    The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.

    I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.

    Also, ...[text shortened]... owing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
    This is completely moronic and I ought to know.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    22 Jan '14 12:57
    Originally posted by humy
    The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.

    I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.

    Also, ...[text shortened]... owing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
    The only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.

    I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    22 Jan '14 19:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.

    I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
    NEWS FLASH: Future results coming in a million years.
  6. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    22 Jan '14 19:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.

    I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
    I see you have faith in them.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jan '14 00:271 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I see you have faith in them.
    You do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.

    It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced that can pick up some metals.

    You simply insist on calling such things faith because you want everyone to identify that word as if it had religious significance, that somehow, my religion is science.

    Sorry, I don't play that game.

    Religion=unchanging dogma. "I am a jealous god'' will remain just that in the future as it was in the past. That is religious dogma.

    Science has the ability to change upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.

    Religion will NEVER have that capability.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    23 Jan '14 05:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.

    It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced tha ...[text shortened]... upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.

    Religion will NEVER have that capability.
    Truth does not need to change like science so-called.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jan '14 11:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Truth does not need to change like science so-called.
    Science "so-called''. Your anti-science stance is pretty clear here. That statement refutes all the times you say you are not against science, only that which refutes your precious bible.

    Clearly not true, you are interested in those sciences that helps you and your family survive but that is about it.

    The rest you could care less. You are a Luddite.
  10. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    516214
    23 Jan '14 15:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2014-01-21st-century-miller-urey-life.html

    To all you creationists out there, this is the separate science of life origins, it is NOT part of evolution.

    This is a totally different scientific discipline.
    The point is the creation of amino acids.

    Nothing about origin of life or anything. Everybody in science knows perfectly well, that a soup of amino acids being left alone is nothing than nourishing soup.

    The point is not to prove that live has begun in a round bottle flask, but to disprove the thesis that amino acids can only be made by organisms, as some still claimed in the 20th century. To make a working cell from a soup of amino acids would be a completely different endeavor and probably even the (reproducible) making of an oligoamnioacid by use of some structural catalyst (take granite or clay) could win a Nobel.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    23 Jan '14 15:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Science "so-called''. Your anti-science stance is pretty clear here. That statement refutes all the times you say you are not against science, only that which refutes your precious bible.

    Clearly not true, you are interested in those sciences that helps you and your family survive but that is about it.

    The rest you could care less. You are a Luddite.
    No relation to the Luddites.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jan '14 16:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No relation to the Luddites.
    21st century version.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    23 Jan '14 16:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.

    It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced tha ...[text shortened]... upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.

    Religion will NEVER have that capability.
    Faith is believing in something that you can't see. You believe that they will come up with something even though they have not done it. You believe in something that can't be seen. You have faith.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    23 Jan '14 17:35
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Faith is believing in something that you can't see. You believe that they will come up with something even though they have not done it. You believe in something that can't be seen. You have faith.
    I have expectations of available futures. I will not call that faith. You insist on the word faith because in your mind it equates science and religion, you think them to be one and the same so every scientist is working from faith.

    NOT TRUE.

    A true scientist has ZERO faith in his experiments.

    He has maybe some expectations of what he thinks will happen but time and time again the experiments come out 100% opposite to what he originally thought.

    There is NOTHING faithlike in that kind of endeavor.

    You only use that term to cast credibility to your YEC views as if we are supposed to think a 6000 year old Earth idea comes from some kind of science.

    THAT is faith.

    You KNOW what you expect.

    Your faith keeps you pointed in the same direction at all times.

    Science on the other hand, goes down roads it never knew existed.

    For instance, you of course know of the invention of Teflon, a complete accident from an experiment gone 'wrong'. There was no faith the dude was going to come up with something new, he had no idea there could EVER have been such a thing as teflon, till his experiment blew up.
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    23 Jan '14 17:482 edits
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    The point is the creation of amino acids.

    Nothing about origin of life or anything. Everybody in science knows perfectly well, that a soup of amino acids being left alone is nothing than nourishing soup.

    The point is not to prove that live has begun in a round bottle flask, but to disprove the thesis that amino acids can only be made by organisms, a ...[text shortened]... f an oligoamnioacid by use of some structural catalyst (take granite or clay) could win a Nobel.
    I think you misunderstand just a bit. People that have studied modern abiogenesis theories like I have would generally think that life cannot spontaneously appear from amino acids and this is not the way it could have happen. The currently thinking is that RNA-like molecules spontaneously formed that functioned simultaneously as both genetic and enzymatic molecules and were engulfed by oily 'microspheres', that would have also spontaneously formed, to form protocells which later evolved into what we would more easily recognize as living cells today (there is already some amazing experimental evidence of how these microspheres would have formed on the Early Earth ) . Those first protocells probably had no amino acids (or at least didn't need them ) and certainly had no complex proteins or any of the complexity of modern living cells. Only evolution could have made all that complexity that gradually came later.
Back to Top