The Miller-Urey experiment revisited:

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure why you think that is a big deal. You could be jumping up and
down because someone figured out a way to create a letter "r" and claim
that is beginning of language. It isn't the pieces, it is how they are put
together! So getting everything that should be left handed, those that should
be right handed, the specific orders required to form whate ...[text shortened]... om living things that has the proper arraignment already
built into their life forms.
Kelly

billions of RNA threads would have spontaneously formed before life and with random sequences of RNA bases.
Note I say RNA and not DNA; the first protocell/protocells would have almost certainly have been an RNA cell with no DNA ( nor complex proteins for that matter -none needed for a protocell )
The current evidence is very strongly in favour of the RNA world hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis


also:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

“...RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. …
…..
…It was prescient of Crick to guess that RNA could act as an enzyme, because that was not known for sure until it was proven in the 1980s by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Thomas R. Cech (2) and others.
…
….”

there are other alternative theories to the RNA world hypothesis but they all have major problems that the RNA world hypothesis doesn't so the RNA world hypothesis is currently by far the most credible.

http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html

and more recently:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
“...An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.
John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.
The feat, never performed before, bolsters the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals.
"This is extremely strong evidence for the RNA world. We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all," says Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London.
...
…
...”

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I find it funny is that you express your opinion as if it were the end all be all
of the discussion.

More than a few do here from time to time.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
billions of RNA threads would have spontaneously formed before life and with random sequences of RNA bases.
Note I say RNA and not DNA; the first protocell/protocells would have almost certainly have been an RNA cell with no DNA ( nor complex proteins for that matter -none needed for a protocell )
The current evidence is very strongly in favour of the RNA wo ...[text shortened]... ppen at all," says Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London.
...
…
...”

As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly, there were life
forms that were alive and stopped being alive, not because they were not
put together correctly they just died of natural causes, their DNA was intact,
yet death.

If it were only chemicals why, since the chemicals were there?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly, there were life
forms that were alive and stopped being alive, not because they were not
put together correctly they just died of natural causes, their DNA was intact,
yet death.

If it were only chemicals why, since the chemicals were there?
Kelly

A living thing is made purely from chemicals interacting with one another.

DNA is not the only chemical.

DNA interacts with other chemicals in a support system.

Larger life forms have more complex support systems.

If that support system is disabled then the life form dies.


However death is not necessarily a system wide instantaneous event.


For example we have organ donation as an option because in the event of
a persons brain dying it might well be possible to keep their other organs
(the heart for example) alive and well and then put them into someone else
who's organs are damaged or dying.


You as an individual die if or when the neurons making up your brain structure
are killed or disrupted destroying the intricate patterns that make up your mind.

However many of the cells in your body will continue on after that has occurred until
they run out of oxygen and or fuel and the chemical processes in those cells stop
functioning correctly.


There is no life force or magic running the process, just chemicals following the laws of physics.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly, there were life
forms that were alive and stopped being alive, not because they were not
put together correctly they just died of natural causes, their DNA was intact,
yet death.

If it were only chemicals why, since the chemicals were there?
Kelly

Yet as black and white as you put it, it isn't that black and white. What you might think is dead, can be brought back to life, and what appears to be alive, may have no hope of a future (and thus be essentially dead).
If we take a cell, and take out the nucleus, is it dead or alive? If we put the nucleus back in, or put it in another cell, have we created life?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly, there were life
forms that were alive and stopped being alive, not because they were not
put together correctly they just died of natural causes, their DNA was intact,
yet death.

If it were only chemicals why, since the chemicals were there?
Kelly

As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly,

Can you give us a specific example of just one “ dead life forms” that was never alive? ( if that is what you are implying here? )
If you cannot, then what point you are trying to make here? -I DO already know what would be meant by something like “something once living but now dead” -so what?

If it were only chemicals why, since the chemicals were there?

nobody is claiming that the only requirement for a life form to be “alive” ( I will ignoring here the issue of the significant vagueness of the meaning of the word “alive” ) is that it must have all the required chemicals merely “there” with no regard to how the molecules are arranged relative to each other or how the cell is structured ( is the cell membrane permanently ripped wide open? etc ) or if it is fatally poisoned/deactivated with a currently present toxin etc .

For the first viable protocell/protocells to form, regardless of how you define what is “alive” or regardless of whether you would define those first protocell/protocells as “alive” ( this is purely an academic question of semantics -it makes no difference to the arguments here whether you say they were "alive" or "not alive" or "dead" ) , all that is required is that they can spontaneously replicate ( we have extremely good experimental lab evidence that the first one did it by water turbulence causing smaller cells to bud-off from them and then grow ) and pass on genetic information ( almost certainly in RNA and not DNA ).

Originally posted by KellyJay
More than a few do here from time to time.
Kelly

It certainly may seem that way if you don't bother to look at the reasons they give for what they think.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

It showed more amino acids than even Miller thought was there and that experiment lasted only a week.

This experiment makes abiogenesis look more likely now. I would like to see longer term experiments of this type, see what pops up.

Creationists, you may be on your last legs.

I have just read that link and learned something new for it says that more resent research indicates that the early Earth was much richer in hydrogen and for much longer than previously thought and this gives more favourable conditions for the formation of organic molecules. It says:

“...
The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature....”

if I recall correctly, it was one of the common crazed creationist arguments that there was not enough hydrogen in the early atmosphere of Earth to form complex organic molecules such as RNA ( as if these anti-science religious nuts would know what they are talking about when talking about science ). I guess this new research destroys what very little credibility such an argument may have had.

Originally posted by humy
I have just read that link and learned something new for it says that more resent research indicates that the early Earth was much richer in hydrogen and for much longer than previously thought and this gives more favourable conditions for the formation of organic molecules. It says:

“...
The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simul ...[text shortened]... I guess this new research destroys what very little credibility such an argument may have had.

It probably means they took the argument seriously, to make such claims now. Otherwise, they they would not have worried about it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by galveston75
hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth.....suggests.....might have.....some evidence suggests......might have....it was thought.....it is likely......results may question ......possibly....... I think.....possibly providing.......to infer .......assumed to share......This suggests ..... has estimated ...... researche ...[text shortened]... d......The group suggested......there could have

Hum.....Sounds like a fact to me!!!! Right.

That's science for you. If they were talking about certainties, it would be religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It probably means they took the argument seriously, to make such claims now. Otherwise, they they would not have worried about it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

It probably means they took the argument seriously,

“they” being the anti-science religious nuts who continually demonstrate they don't understand what is a logical argument.
emmm right, we really should take the argument seriously because those morons do 😛

Originally posted by Vartiovuori
That's science for you. If they were talking about certainties, it would be religion.

yes, and irrational dogma...and delusional dogma...and immoral dogma...and dangerous dogma.

Originally posted by humy

As I pointed out before, getting it put together doesn't mean it will be alive.
There are dead life forms that were put together correctly,

Can you give us a specific example of just one “ dead life forms” that was never alive? ( if that is what you are implying here? )
If you cannot, then what point you are trying to make here? - ...[text shortened]... and then grow ) and pass on genetic information ( almost certainly in RNA and not DNA ).

"Can you give us a specific example of just one “ dead life forms” that was never alive? ( if that is what you are implying here? )
"

Uh, no.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy

It probably means they took the argument seriously,

“they” being the anti-science religious nuts who continually demonstrate they don't understand what is a logical argument.
emmm right, we really should take the argument seriously because those morons do 😛

I was referring to your researchers from the University of Waterloo and University of Colorado who conducted experiments in that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules.

This indicated that they acknowledged that it was not hospitable enough for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules like the creationists had said. So they had to do some more monkeying with the figures to make them come out better. Praise the Lord! HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was referring to your researchers from the University of Waterloo and University of Colorado who conducted experiments in that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth [b]could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules.

This indicated that they ...[text shortened]... re monkeying with the figures to make them come out better. Praise the Lord! HalleluYah !!! 😏[/b]

It indicates nothing of the sort.

The fact that new research indicates that the likely conditions on the early earth were more
hospitable to the formation of life does not mean that the previously thought to exist conditions
were too inhospitable for life to form.


You, and other creationists like you, are the ones that distort and fudge the facts and cherry pick data
to try to make your point.

Science on the other hand has a deserved reputation for honesty and transparency as well as much
less biased and more honest motives.

Science is generally done by people who want to find the truth, whatever that is.

You want to pre-decide what the truth is and then cherry pick data to support that.

You are the ones with a history of lying at every available opportunity.