Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

As for the messenger, I believe he deserves scrutiny (as does anyone who claims to write with authority). I don't like his conclusions (available for such scrutiny on websites and YouTube) which seem to be that Genesis is the only true story of our origins (not to mention any white supremacist affiliations he might have) but that doesn't mean he can't make a valid point along the way. Nevertheless, I'd suggest there are better sources which challenge the Miller-Urey experimental findings which might carry more weight in the court of public opinion.

Can you post or link some of these sources? Always good to know more on the subject from multiple angles.

Remarkably, none of the skeptics have addressed anything relating to the actual substantive content in the OP. Was it just yesterday Linda was complaining about proponents being unwilling to have a discussion of issues, in favor of "[putting] down 'the skeptics' with varying degrees of rabidity"?

Lol.

If I’m interested in knowing the state of the art in abiogenesis, Answers in Genesis wouldn’t be my first choice for information (maybe not even my hundredth). And I’m guessing that an experiment from 65 years ago isn’t the last word.

Paul has referenced a bunch of interesting papers in the Darwin thread which appear to be more up-to-date. Would there be a problem with discussing them instead? I didn’t read all of them, but what I read was informative.

Linda

Strangely, the RationalWiki article gets the name of the association wrong too.

It's not this organization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A...ite_People

Oh yes, I see the article drops "for the Advancement of." Ha, that's even funnier!

Hang on, then. Perhaps it's this organization:

http://napwp.org/

~~ Paul

Remarkably, none of the skeptics have addressed anything relating to the actual substantive content in the OP. Was it just yesterday Linda was complaining about proponents being unwilling to have a discussion of issues, in favor of "[putting] down 'the skeptics' with varying degrees of rabidity"?

I wouldn't generalize from this one case. Clearly, we skeptics love a good discussion as much as you do.

But in this case, really, I've got better things to do with my time. I had a nice nap this afternoon.

~~ Paul

Can you post or link some of these sources? Always good to know more on the subject from multiple angles.

Ah, you put me on the spot - thanks!

I had heard of Miller-Urey and was aware that it was one of the original "prebiotic soup" experiments. I was also under the impression that its significance had been diminished in the intervening years so as to be practically ignored now apart from its historical significance. I'd also read something about it in one of Meyer's books. So I assumed there would be a wealth of articles saying why it was no longer regarded as significant to today's understanding of the problem - for the very reason that the origin of life remains an acknowledged problem regardless of more than half a century having elapsed since Miller-Urey.

Alas, it seems is is still supported in abiogenesis circles and it is difficult to find criticism without running across the extreme creationist sites I was trying to avoid. Nevertheless, I'll offer these few links for further perusal. 

Of course, Evolution News has an article here: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/

I don't think this is a religious blog but it sums up some of the problems: http://premapbiology.blogspot.co.nz/2013...t-its.html

Furthermore, there are no ways of proving the actual components of the primitive atmosphere, and many scientists have suggested that the gases Miller and Urey use are not as abundant. Instead, they believe that the gases emit by the volcanoes, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen make up most of the early atmosphere. The ingredients of the experiment are an important factor that may turn Miller’s result upside down. Consequently, it is still uncertain that his results are entirely reliable due to the controversy to his assumed atmosphere.

The Miller-Urey experiment gives the world an insight of how life may have formed on our planet. Each gas in the primitive atmosphere is completely inorganic, but once they are put together under complex procedures, it results in amino acids. However, the limitations presented above have reflected that it is unlikely that under the suitable circumstances, life can derive on earth spontaneously.

Then there's an article in the New York Times suggesting that the M-U experiment was pretty much dead but a recent updated version using different atmospheric chemicals might have revived it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17life.html

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.

But again these later experiments seem to have problems too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313823/

And again, Evolution News has an article addressing these later experiments too.

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/squeezing_the_l/

Remarkably, none of the skeptics have addressed anything relating to the actual substantive content in the OP. Was it just yesterday Linda was complaining about proponents being unwilling to have a discussion of issues, in favor of "[putting] down 'the skeptics' with varying degrees of rabidity"?

Why rehash what has been said in the thread Karmarling started?

I wouldn't generalize from this one case. Clearly, we skeptics love a good discussion as much as you do.

But in this case, really, I've got better things to do with my time. I had a nice nap this afternoon.

~~ Paul

I'm not generalizing, nor was it intended as a broad critique of you or other skeptics. It was a response to Linda's ridiculous assertion the other day, which this thread made a wonderful example of.

Lol.

If I’m interested in knowing the state of the art in abiogenesis, Answers in Genesis wouldn’t be my first choice for information (maybe not even my hundredth). And I’m guessing that an experiment from 65 years ago isn’t the last word.

Paul has referenced a bunch of interesting papers in the Darwin thread which appear to be more up-to-date. Would there be a problem with discussing them instead? I didn’t read all of them, but what I read was informative.

Linda

Nor are rationalwiki, or Steve Novella's site, or a multitude of other sources shared here by the skeptic crowd my first choice for info. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP - just pointing out the hypocrisy. Mocking Valmar for sharing from a source that perhaps isn't the best isn't effective or productive, and like he and others pointed out, this "Answers in Genesis" character could be wrong about lots and lots of things, but that doesn't render everything he says automatically invalid. 

In any event, this was just a nice example of why you shouldn't just critically generalize. Didn't even take a day for you to look like a hypocrite.

It's not this organization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A...ite_People

Oh yes, I see the article drops "for the Advancement of." Ha, that's even funnier!

Hang on, then. Perhaps it's this organization:

http://napwp.org/

It is the National Association for the Advancement of White People, according to the source cited by RationalWiki, but RationalWiki calls it the National Association of White People.