Why evolution is true

Originally posted by RJHinds
No evidence of the truth of evolution here.

Of course it has nothing to do with evolution. As we have patiently explained to you and you fail completely to understand, or understand and continue to obfuscate, the Urey-miller experiment was a life origin experiment, what happened BEFORE life arose. This is a chemical soup experiment having nothing to do with life but having to do with the chemical combinations that eventually led to life forms.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course it has nothing to do with evolution. As we have patiently explained to you and you fail completely to understand, or understand and continue to obfuscate, the Urey-miller experiment was a life origin experiment, what happened BEFORE life arose. This is a chemical soup experiment having nothing to do with life but having to do with the chemical combinations that eventually led to life forms.

The left hand is the only one that counts to makes life.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The [b]left hand is the only one that counts to makes life.[/b]

So what is YOUR left hand doing lately? You are so full of shyte you can't see the real world any more.

We were talking about the Urey-Miller experiment which you correctly pointed out was not evolution.

It is one path on the road to understanding the origins of life, the REAL origins of life not your goddidit El Toro Poo Poo plan.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what is YOUR left hand doing lately? You are so full of shyte you can't see the real world any more.

We were talking about the Urey-Miller experiment which you correctly pointed out was not evolution.

It is one path on the road to understanding the origins of life, the REAL origins of life not your goddidit El Toro Poo Poo plan.

It's long been known that the atmosphere of the early Earth probably didn't include the gasses used by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in their famous Miller-Urey experiments. Conventional wisdom among origin-of-life theorists holds that when you try to conduct Miller-Urey type experiments with the actual gasses present on the early Earth, you don't get amino acids.

Theorist David Deamer explains: "This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model.

Likewise, the journal Science states:

The so-called Miller-Urey experiment simulated the prebiotic atmosphere by mixing molecules they presumed were present on the early Earth: methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. They then zapped this soup with an electrical charge to mimic lightning, which in turn produced small amounts of amino acids--the building blocks of proteins, which are critical to all living things. "That study had a tremendously important role in making chemists aware that the whole question of origin of life could be approached by lab experiments," says NSCORT's Arrhenius. "It became an acceptable field."

Yet today, Arrhenius and many other researchers dismiss the experiment itself because they contend that the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation. Basically, Miller and Urey relied on a "reducing" atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an "oxidizing" atmosphere.

(Jon Cohen, "Novel Center Seeks to Add Spark to Origins of Life," Science, Vol. 270:1925-1926 (December 22, 1995)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/on_the_miller-u_1066341.html

YouTube

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It's long been known that the atmosphere of the early Earth probably didn't include the gasses used by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in their famous Miller-Urey experiments. Conventional wisdom among origin-of-life theorists holds that when you try to conduct Miller-Urey type experiments with the actual gasses present on the early Earth, you don't get amino ...[text shortened]... html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r76g23XbNes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHk_93Wn-ZU

Do you understand this yourself?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you understand this yourself?

Sure, don't you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model.

It's possible you didn't read my rebuttal to "Icon 1", so here it is again (relevant text highlighted for your convenience):

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments
of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's
envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one
with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle
spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid
chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than
Miller had. Interestingly, they found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the
most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules,
which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam.
The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in
this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these
molecules form peptides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Originally posted by C Hess
It's possible you didn't read my rebuttal to "Icon 1", so here it is again (relevant text highlighted for your convenience):

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments
of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's
envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also ...[text shortened]... ecules form peptides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

A likely story. Why didn't they reproduce the tests and publish their results so others could verify them? Even if this is true, I don't see how this proves anything about evolution. So what? Who cares?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if this is true, I don't see how this proves anything about evolution. So what? Who cares?

Who cares? Anyone who is the least bit interested in knowing how natural chemistry can
give rise to amino acids, that's who. And of course this has nothing to do with
evolution. That's what we've been saying all along. It's you creationists who thinks life
origin is a problem for evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by C Hess
Who cares? Anyone who is the least bit interested in knowing how natural chemistry can
give rise to amino acids, that's who. And of course this has nothing to do with
evolution. That's what we've been saying all along. It's you creationists who thinks life
origin is a problem for evolutionary theory.

It is fine for chemists to learn how they can synthesize amino acids, but to claim that life came about by chance, by a process they completely controlled themselves, is going beyond the extreme of conjectures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is fine for chemists to learn how they can synthesize amino acids, but to claim that life came about by chance, by a process they completely controlled themselves, is going beyond the extreme of conjectures.

The whole point of an experiment such as this is to see if amino acids can form
through the laws of chemistry specifically without human intervention, duh. When we
have the right conditions we can't help but get amino acids, and since the experiment
mentioned above did run under conditions similar to what the early earth was like
(according to the link you served earlier), well, I'll just let you connect the dots; to feel
special.

Originally posted by C Hess
The whole point of an experiment such as this is to see if amino acids can form
through the laws of chemistry specifically without human intervention, duh. When we
have the right conditions we can't help but get amino acids, and since the experiment
mentioned above did run under conditions similar to what the early earth was like
...[text shortened]... ng to the link you served earlier), well, I'll just let you connect the dots; to feel
special.

Who created the laws of chemistry and for what purpose?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who created the laws of chemistry and for what purpose?

So now you accept that amino acids, the "building blocks of life", could have formed
through natural chemical processes? Well, that's good; progress even. To answer your
question we'd have to enter the realm of physics I think, and that really isn't my strong suit.

Originally posted by C Hess
So now you accept that amino acids, the "building blocks of life", could have formed
through natural chemical processes? Well, that's good; progress even. To answer your
question we'd have to enter the realm of physics I think, and that really isn't my strong suit.

Yes, with intelligent input. But that has been my position all along. Nothing has changed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, with intelligent input. But that has been my position all along. Nothing has changed.

No, not intelligent input. With the right chemicals in the right place, amino acids form. It's
not a lottery when the required ingredients was all over the place.