duduspace:

You have my sincere apologies, mistook you for an ally of our resident hypocrite.

thank you, my dear resident illiterate. Its easier to bleat than to think.

davidylan:

thank you, my dear resident illiterate. Its easier to bleat than to think.

Shut up bonehead, yu're crappin my style, can't you be original for once?

besides, don't recall any mention of davidylan in my post but it is cool to know that you now realise that you are an hypocrite. There might be hope for you yet.

@Davidylan

Before you start questioning KAG further, I can't help but point out that your selective reading demons have come haunting once again. You clearly forgot to either read other portions of the Wikipedia article on the Miller Urey experiment or in your hurry to discredit it deliberately left them behind.



You questioned KAG's statement about other experiments giving similar results to the MU experiment and here is your answer.

Other experiments

This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, which molecules were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[11] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[12] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[13]

There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.

K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[14] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture [15].

More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[16]

To Address your concerns about primitive earth conditions, here is your answer

Earth's early atmosphere
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear.[17] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[18]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[19]

More recent results may question these conclusions. 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.[20] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept,  I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[21]

To Address your concerns about the presence of oxygen, here is your answer


However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of the Miller–Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[22] These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller–Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[23]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[22]

Conditions similar to those of the Miller–Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the driving force for chemical reactions. The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, darkening surfaces of these bodies.[24] The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis.


To show you that active research continues in this area unlike your creation story which has been debunked as being a blatant lie a long time ago and to which your fellow fanatics can only come up with convoluted tales trying to bring it in alignment with recent scientific discoveries

Recent related studies
In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one.[25]

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.[6][26]

Duduspace why are you still responding to that block headed pseudo scientist who is infected with demons of selective reading? Every body knows that he is a charlatan who only wants people to believe that he has erudite knowledge of science. How can you take a fool that believes in Jacobs model of genetic engineering seriously?

duduspace . . . again the sheer dearth of intelligence with you guys never ceases to amaze me. Anyone can copy and paste from here:

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Miller-Urey_experiment

I keep repeating, enough of this shoddy job of pasting rubbish from anonymous non-peer reviewed websites. Perhaps you shld start reading from Miller's two papers i posted earlier to get a better appreciation of the experiments you pretend to talk about. sheesh!

davidylan:

duduspace . . . again the sheer dearth of intelligence with you guys never ceases to amaze me. Anyone can copy and paste from here:

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Miller-Urey_experiment

I keep repeating, enough of this shoddy job of pasting rubbish from anonymous non-peer reviewed websites. Perhaps you shld start reading from Miller's two papers i posted earlier to get a better appreciation of the experiments you pretend to talk about. sheesh!

It is you showing a complete lack of intelligence in your failure to look beyond points which seem to support your point of view and cowardice in facing up to an insecurity which stems from the fear that your baseless beliefs will somehow turn out to be untrue.

I have indeed read the papers you posted, but I've been able to place them within the context of the larger picture. The MU experiment (which took place in the 1950s) was a breakthrough in the production of organic amino acids from inorganic material in conditions similar to what the earth's environment might have been like in the past. Research has advanced from this earlier experiment and other interesting results have been obtained (which you seem clearly incapable of studying and appreciating).

There is also an active and healthy discuss going on about the interpretation and validity of those results, the same of which cannot be said for your cock and bull bible story which was at a time supposed to be a mystery understandable only by the clergy and not subject to any peer review whatsoever.

I find it odd that a man of science would trust a book that arose from a politicoreligious convention ordered by an emperor while he distrusts and denigrates experiments following proper scientific procedure, I however will not find such a disposition odd in a man of deception.

Unfortunately, you cannot see this because it threatens your pat creation story and belief in God.
I am of the opinion that you might not question the MU experiment so much if you didn't see it as being antagonistic of your religious beliefs, mind you the experiment is not a silver bullet that proves the inexistence of God, it is the whole body of knowledge out there that has disproved the bible story (at the least literarily) so that all you are left with is recourse to schizophrenic babbles you call colourful names such as revelations and mysteries which of course appeals only to the most gullible of men who we unfortunately seem to have a lot of in our dear country.

again i get tired of the same offtopic, vitriollic rants. What has all the bull above got to do with the issue of Miller-Urey? 

duduspace:

It is you showing a complete lack of intelligence in your failure to look beyond points which seem to support your point of view and cowardice in facing up to an insecurity which stems from the fear that your baseless beliefs will somehow turn out to be untrue.

Perhaps when you can post a completely independent opinion on Miller-Urey then you can make use of words like "intelligent".

duduspace:

I have indeed read the papers you posted, but I've been able to place them within the context of the larger picture. The MU experiment (which took place in the 1950s) was a breakthrough in the production of organic amino acids from inorganic material in conditions similar to what the earth's environment might have been like in the past. Research has advanced from this earlier experiment and other interesting results have been obtained (which you seem clearly incapable of studying and appreciating).

1. Miller's conditions, from recent evidence, has been met by very strong dissent among several leading scientists who themselves are not even christian. I posted 3 (THREE) academic papers earlier . . . 2 of them from Nature Review (any scientist here shld know that nature review is about one of the world's if not the world's number one science journal) . . . all three peer-reviewed that debunk Miller's claims with very strong evidence.

Do you people pay attention to facts?

2. Research has advanced - sorry but which "research" exactly? Do you believe that if other scientists had been able to successfully generate amino acids from primordial elements we would still be talking Miller-Urey today?

duduspace:

There is also an active and healthy discuss going on about the interpretation and validity of those results, the same of which cannot be said for your cock and bull bible story which was at a time supposed to be a mystery understandable only by the clergy and not subject to any peer review whatsoever.

You crow about the bible being not subject to peer review . . . the biggest fraud however is that you and KAG have CONSISTENTLY produced hopeless websites that are NOT peer reviewed in support of your shaky theories. Before you cast stones make sure you dont live in glass houses.

duduspace:

I find it odd that a man of science would trust a book that arose from a politicoreligious convention ordered by an emperor while he distrusts and denigrates experiments following proper scientific procedure, I however will not find such a disposition odd in a man of deception.

The problem with Miller's experiment is not one of distrust . . . rather it is one that is built on unquestionably limited knowledge as at the time he was designing it.

duduspace:

I am of the opinion that you might not question the MU experiment so much if you didn't see it as being antagonistic of your religious beliefs

Actually it goes both ways. You wont have any idea who Miller is if not that his experiment is just one more weapon in your fight against religion. Going by your poor responses on him it is clear you dont have any basic understanding of the issue . . . its simply something else for you to parrot.

duduspace:

mind you the experiment is not a silver bullet that proves the inexistence of God, it is the whole body of knowledge out there that has disproved the bible story (at the least literarily) so that all you are left with is recourse to schizophrenic babbles you call colourful names such as revelations and mysteries which of course appeals only to the most gullible of men who we unfortunately seem to have a lot of in our dear country.

What is new? They post tomes and 95% is insults no sense.

davidylan:

again i get tired of the same offtopic, vitriollic rants. What has all the bull above got to do with the issue of Miller-Urey

Pardon me, I somehow always manage to forget that your mind is only polarized in the religious axis.

davidylan:

Perhaps when you can post a completely independent opinion on Miller-Urey then you can make use of words like "intelligent".

I've already done that but I can't help it if your undestanding of independence is different from that of the dictionary and is possibly tucked somewhere in your holy book.

davidylan:

1. Miller's conditions, from recent evidence, has been met by very strong dissent among several leading scientists who themselves are not even christian. I posted 3 (THREE) academic papers earlier . . . 2 of them from Nature Review (any scientist here shld know that nature review is about one of the world's if not the world's number one science journal) . . . all three peer-reviewed that debunk Miller's claims with very strong evidence.

Do you people pay attention to facts?

Atimes you do sound intelligent like a scientist, atimes you sound like Kuns and atimes you sound like those bible waving charlartans which is why I came to the conclusion that you are capable of appreciating the doubts your religion's story throws up but simply unwilling to acknowledge them hence my calling you an hypocrite.

1. Those articles did not debunk MU, they only pointed out assumptions in the experiment they didn't totally agree with and I did attest to this when I pointed out that there was an healthy discuss going on about the experiments.
2. There are other equally peer reviewed papers which support the MU experiment which you will find in the same wikipedia page that discusses the experiment(so don't stupidly ask me for them).

davidylan:

2. Research has advanced - sorry but which "research" exactly? Do you believe that if other scientists had been able to successfully generate amino acids from primordial elements we would still be talking Miller-Urey today?

There you go into charlartan mode again, we will continue to talk about Miller-Urey long after you and I are long gone because it was a pioneering effort just like Newton's laws or Charles Babbage's Difference Engine, even though Newton never went to space and Babbage never browsed the internet but they opened the human mind to possibilities in motion and computing with their novel thinking.

davidylan:

You crow about the bible being not subject to peer review . . . the biggest fraud however is that you and KAG have CONSISTENTLY produced hopeless websites that are NOT peer reviewed in support of your shaky theories. Before you cast stones make sure you don't live in glass houses.

I'm flattered and I'm sure KAG would be if you are attributing as much authority and authenticity to our writings as you do to the Bible, only problem is that we were just expressing our opinions while you claim that the bible is unquestionable.
2 major points you should note though:

1. While the wikipedia is not peer reviewed, it's sources are usually given and are often peer reviewed articles and other authoritative sources, the same of which you can't say for your bible.

2. You are actually the first to harp about peer review here possibly in some psychological attempt to reinforce your distorted babblings as superior opinion.

davidylan:

The problem with Miller's experiment is not one of distrust . . . rather it is one that is built on unquestionably limited knowledge as at the time he was designing it.

I was tempted to agree with you on this until you used the phrase "unquestionably limited knowledge" as you have no way of knowing this (so much for your independent opinion). The general consensus at present supports the MU experiment with a recent publication in the science daily actually indicating that some of his experiments which were not published even yielded more organic matter.
You are definitely not going about your argument in a scientific manner at all, the title of the MU experiment was "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions", note the use of the word "Possible" he never said it happened exactly that way. Science deals with possibilities first and never considers anything absolute as new knowledge/understanding may emerge over time.

davidylan:

Actually it goes both ways. You wont have any idea who Miller is if not that his experiment is just one more weapon in your fight against religion. Going by your poor responses on him it is clear you don't have any basic understanding of the issue . . . its simply something else for you to parrot.

There you go manifesting your religion polarized mind again, you speak for yourself as I was simply looking for an alternative and more beleivable explanation to our origins when the 7 day creation story by a mythical being I was brought up with became an insufficient explanation to my sincerely curious mind.

davidylan:

What is new? They post tomes and 95% is insults no sense.

Here comes the hypocrite, I fully understand it making no sense to you since you are often clueless in that department but in what way was it insulting?

another long tome that conveniently avoids the issue the thread is meant to deal with.

*YAWN*

duduspace you have done an excellent job in exposing that clumsy fraud for who he really is, the only straw he now has to grab is  the*YAWN* straw which makes him look more petty and silly. davidylan all this long post from you only to be exposed as a fraud? what a shame am really loving this. ok i want you to go ahead and explain the jacob genetic engineering model. dudduspace you've done well ohh, thanks once again for exposing that shameless fraud, people should not engage christains when it comes to science until they tell us what they really understand as a rainbow, is it a phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the earth's atmosphere or a covenant between the biblical god and his people that appears in the cloud as written by the bible writers who wrote on stones and lived in caves? davidylan is talking about peer review when most of the christains i know here in europe do not believe in the seven day creation story, jacobs genetic engineering model, talking donkeysand the rainbow explanation as written in the bible etc. christains all have different conception and understanding of the biblical god yet this fraud of a pseudo scientist does not see that, all he sees is what is wrong with the MU experiment, which has explained far more than they mythical creation of light and sun through words of mouth(probably hebrew) by his imaginary child killer god. what a load of bull.

davidylan:

KAG, first let me reiterate once again that your responses are simply one-way traffic - insults! Very little attempt to address the subject matter at all, which leaves us wondering what your real goal is.

You're being dishonest. That you think my responses are simply "insults" with "very little attempt to address the subject matter" is telling in itself. It's either you aren't able to read other people's posts or won't. That, and you're being dishonest.

davidylan:

[quote]where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH3 side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen.

No proof!

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.

[/quote]I read and re-read this and i honestly don't see your point here. Besides i already posted IN BOLD FONTS the chemical equation for the Miller-Urey experiment for the generation of glycine . . . based on the fact that the eqn has a very low Km and u require the complete destruction of the produced glycine to drive the forward reaction . . . spontaneous production is IMPOSSIBLE.

Your equation was wrong. I posted the right one. The point was there is no conspiracy, no magic, and their experiment has been overly peer-reviewed and repeated several times. The Miller-Urey experiment did produce other amino acids, sugars, lipids. Heck, read the Miller-Urey link you provided.

Besides Miller could not prove where he got his ammonia from. The atmosphere has virtually no NH3 besides man-made sources.

Volcanic reactions in the early earth. The early atmosphere of the earth had ammonia.

You know, you really could debate POINTS rather than insulting me.

Or I could carry on doing both.

For the third time of asking: the Miller-Urey experiment set out to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors." The field has also produced a varied result since then.

Recent evidence shows that Miller's idea of the conditions of primitive earth ARE WRONG. We know that oxygen was present in the atmosphere then which inhibits spontaneous generation of organic amino acids.

Wrong. Recent evidence supports the idea of a minimal to nil oxygen gas in the prebiotic earth's atmosphere. It is the relative minority - often Creationists - that want and argue for an oxidised atmosphere.

[quote]actually its unimportant. For the simple reason that Ala is simply a substitution of hydrogen with a methyl side chain. Nothing new here.

You mean apart from the fact that it's a major component in organic life?

Actually no. Glycine is a "conditionally essential" amino acid. The ESSENTIAL amino acids absolutely required for organic life and which CANNOT be synthesized by organic life are - K I L H F Y T W V C and M[/quote]

I don't think you know what the term "conditionally essential" means. It doesn't mean the amino acid is unimportant nor unnecessary for organic lifeforms. In reverse also, essential amino acid isn't a reference to relative importance over the conditionals. Now you know.

you know, you really could try to debate FACTS rather than insult my person.

Doing both works for me. I only insult when it's absolutely warranted - compare my initial posts in this thread to the posts I made after you showed yourself incapable of being able to understand what you were arguing and misunderstand continually simple science, despite claims of being in the field. Also, your hypocrisy provoked more "insults"

[quote]you basically said nothing but i'll take the pains to go through it:

Here is what you said - Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

which is basically nonsense because it would require that the earth was a very cold environment for the spontaneously generated proteins to have survived long enough to evolve to simple organisms. Another problem with the temperature conundrum is the fact that enzymes require varying temperatures to be effective.

Um, not quite, no. First, the part you seem to be missing is the part where I point out that, contrary to what you misunderstood, the evolution of humans would have been a long point away from the onset of abiogenesis. That is, the eventual emergence of human beings wouldn't have happened immediately or soon after abiogenesis or even the emergence of microbes.

Second, you do realise that very often one habitat can have various spots of differing temperature. You've also failed to take into account the existence of water bodies. A body of water, especially one of considerable depth, is usually cool.

By the way, I don;t see how you didn't understand my correction of your misunderstanding. It's pretty clear and concise.

What does this explain?
1. Would the reaction have taken place in water?
2. How much water would the earth have required to cool the earth to below 4 deg C?
3. Water would contain disolved oxygen which inhibits the reaction anyway.[/quote]

It explains many things, not least correcting your misconception of the process of evolution. In the conceptions based on Haldane-Oparin hypothesis, which includes the work of Miller-Urey, yes the reaction would have taken place in the water. The temperature of the earth varied, with cold spots likely containing glacials - unecessary generally though it may be. Finally, not quite.

Actually, that part of my post was in response to only half of the claim: "it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins." I realise what you mean by it's putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that's just the point: the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the last nor the only experiment in the field of natural production of amino-acids. Others have been able to show the probable path for the natural emergence of the twenty amino acids necessary.

It is quite concievable that if these "other experiments" where any more successful they would have been given massive publicity by now.

That you don't know about them doesn't mean they weren't given "massive publicity" in scientific circles.

Lol. Red-herring my ass. You stated: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." I'm still not sure how anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can't see the absurdity in that statement.

Not absurd at all . . . water contains disolved oxygen and photodissociation of water produces oxygen. To say there was absolutely no trace of O2 in the atmosphere when we also had water vapour is what is truly absurd.

Monoatomic oxygen is different from O2

The reason fish can survive in water at all is because they can aspirate free disolved oxygen in water.

Okay.

If you remember solubility from ordinary high school chemistry, the higher the temperature of water, the less disolved oxygen there is. So lets assume the temeprature of water was so high as NOT to contain any disolved oxygen at all . . . the earth's temperature would thus be too high to sustain peptide bonds in its native state.

You mean as opposed to the fact that peptide bonds in amino acids would have been formed through a high temperature? There's a reason for the question.

However you argued earlier that it is possible that water was really cold . . . unless primitive earth was not obeying laws of O2 solubility, that cold water would definitely contain lots of disolved O2.

See above.

I should also point out that water is not simply pure H2O only, it contains low amounts of other disolved gases in it.

Exactly. Monoatomic oxygen would then have had a lot of mixtures and elements to which it would bond.

Lets for a second assume that O2 was non-existent in the atmosphere . . . how did water form? Lips sealed

Heavens! Terrible, simply terrible. So, how could water be on earth without oxygen? Ignoring prevalent ideas of how water may have first emerged on earth, here are a couple from the first link you posted:

CO2 + 4H2 ----> CH4 + 2H2O (liq)
CO + 3H2 ------> CH4 + H2O (liq)

But i know KAG never admits reality. She'd rather insult me. Grin

Lol. Extremely ironic considering the progress of this thread.

[Quote]

Actually, science says yes, he was right to assume that the early earth had little to no free oxygen.

Examples:

# Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
# No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases). (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

and:

"The present atmosphere of the Earth is probably not its original atmosphere. Our current atmosphere is what chemists would call an oxidizing atmosphere, while the original atmosphere was what chemists would call a reducing atmosphere. In particular, it probably did not contain oxygen. " (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html)

Actually if you are 100% honest with yourself you'd know that science says no such thing. Infact many scientists are divided on the issue of whether early earth was reducing or oxidizing. the problem i see though is that very few will take the time to run through the 2 links you posted which unfortunately are not peer-reviewed and could have been put up by just any geek willing to sell an idea.

1. I have instead put up an article written by a professor of Geological sciences detailing evidence why the atmosphere of early earth was oxidizing and not reducing. Good luck ignoring it as you usually do.

THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE[/quote]

First, I should point out that much of science disagrees with him; however, that's really not the problem I perceive from the article. The article uses several things to attempt to buttress an atmosphere high on oxygen. The first of the major points is:

"Most of the exposed rocks have suffered so much that most of the evidence of their early history has been destroyed. An additional problem is the contamination of the ancient rocks with material of recent origin carried in by circulating ground water or processes of diffusion. Interpretation of the evidence is a highly subjective process and, not surprisingly, geologists are divided amongst several schools of thought. Rutten has presented the position favouring an early reducing atmosphere very persuasively in his book The Origin of Life by Natural Causes (23)."

That point assumes a sort of conspiracy amongst geologists due to subjectivity. One that seeks to simply handwave away much of the data collected by citing subjectivity. However, subjectivity can only go so far before it is swept away by continued review.

Following that, the rest of the article commits the fallacy of equivocation by ignoring that the early earth later had oxygen because some precambrians did produce oxygen. The evidence suggests that it was in this period, geologically relatively around the time of the "oxygen catastrophe", that the effects of oxygen gas bonding are notable.

By the way, if you want peer-reviewed journals that point to a reducing early atmosphere I can provide them. Promise you'll read them, though.

2. this is a Nature Science review published in 2002 and quite clearly indicates the fact that oxygen and its isotopes must have been present in the earth during primitive - Determining the composition of the Earth

I like this one. I think you should definitely read it and digest it. It's excellent, although probably not in the way you think.

3. Another nature review article - The habitat and nature of early life

- This article is very interesting in the sense that it says this - Water is a strong greenhouse gas and, at some stages early in the history of Venus and Earth, water vapour was probably present high in the atmosphere. Such water vapour would have been photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen present in the upper atmosphere would have been lost rapidly to space.

That's a thought provoking article. You should read it. At this point, however, I'm more inclined to agree with the majority of geologists who agree that it is likely that the volcanoes expelled: "nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_6_112/ai_105371471) as opposed to the suggestion in the article about the "probable oxidation state of lavas". That would mean methane and ammonia aren't improbable., etc.

KAG, it would be better to debate science than insult me.

I've done nothing but that since the beginning of the thread. Funnily enough, all the articles you posted all point to an earth that's billions of years old - something with which you disagree; the last one which you cite also points to evolution occurring. In fact, to sum it up, they all argue strongly for points with which you've made a point of misunderstanding or disagreeing. Ain't that a kicker? There is a good reason for you getting continually insulted, charlatan.

Finally, you mentioned something about ignoring things. As you already know, ignoring salient facts and pretending you didn't notice points is your forte.

*palm* *head*. If you only knew how crazy or silly you're sounding, you'd laugh too. I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know.

By the way, so it doesn't get swept away in my gales of laughter, no, the sun didn't appear by abiogenesis nor magic. Abiogenesis is the . . . aw, what's the point.

Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

Nope. Read the equation again.

The nature review article i linked to above talks about photolysis of water. you can call the authors stupid if you wish. By the way i looked up the very first web page you referenced and it has this to say:

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

Oxygen Production

Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels

KAG, it would be better if you thoroughly read the websites you link to yourself instead of insulting me.

Yeah.

I dn't see it as a strawman, per se. That is, I was trying to summarise a position that regards water as impossible with free oxygen. Anyway, see above - yeah, including the parts where I'm being a cad.

We know that isnt possible. Take a class in photlysis of water . . . it might help.

Only if you promise to take classes in chemisty, biology, and physics.

First, billions, not millions. Second, the state of the early atmosphere of the earth can be determined through the examination of early and "fossil" geological layers. That is, by testing rocks and layers one can gauge the type of elements and compounds that would have been present or absent.

the first article i posted clearly used this same technique to prove that the earth in Miller's predicted period was oxidizing and not reducing.

Here it is again for your perusal - THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE

See above.

Quote from: KAG on Yesterday at 03:12:38 AM
Except if you're wrong. These are the equations for the production of glycine:

CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

(wiki)

the presence of atomic oxygen automatically negates this entire equation as improbable. Atomic oxygen does not fly in by magic, it is produced by the splitting of O2 by UV radiation.

Oh gosh. That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. You are right monoatomic oxygen isn't produced by magic, nor is it necessarily produced by the splitting of O2. Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. In it we see one of the well known examples of how monoatomic oxygen is produced.

If O2 did not exist then, according to Miller, then you don't have any atomic oxygen and thus equations 1 and 2 from your own wiki post is rendered useless.

Lol. What a tool. It's a strange thing that you are doing better with this topic than any of the other science related topics, though. That probably says a lot.

I think you just ran to copy Wiki's equations on the generation of glycine without thinking it through.

Or maybe I was hoping you would be able to understand it. Yeah, I know, I expected too much.

Another scenario: Miller's experiment used specifically water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) [Wiki]. How was CO2 generated? The second eqn requires atomic O2 from CO2 but there was no CO2 in Miller's tank at all.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it.

Is the Wiki eqn really correct? where is the source?

Yes, it's right.

[Quote]KAGJust so you know, so far you're the only one that appears to be a charlatan. If for some reason you aren't sure why, re-read the thread.

KAG, u're better off debating facts than spending way too much time to insult me.[/quote]

That's funny, especially considering the fact that this part was responding to you trying to be insulting.

KAG:

Oh gosh. That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. You are right monoatomic oxygen isn't produced by magic, nor is it necessarily produced by the splitting of O2. Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. In it we see one of the well known examples of how monoatomic oxygen is produced.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide.

I've grown tired as this has shifted from a sensible debate into a need to sound superior.

But lets take a look at the above from you:

That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O₂.

Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. - Did you even READ the reason i dismissed it at all? please go back and read Millers two papers again (one in 1953 and the explanatory one in 1959) NOWHERE does he write any such equations. Now where did the wiki writer get his equations from? you said the equations were correct . . . how? Because some anonymous troll put it on wiki and then said it was? Where is the concrete source?

Isnt is totally absurd that the wiki author cites at least one of Millers papers but curiously did not put up a source for the equations you gullibly claim are correct? What a shame.

Monoatomic oxygen is surprisingly ALSO produced by photolytic splitting of water molecules . . . an idea that is also present in Millers 1959 paper. READ IT!

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. - Actually Millers 1959 paper says it wasnt as that would have inhibited the production of substantial quantities of stable CH4 . . . a justification for his own use of CH4 and CO instead of CO₂ in his flask. Miller goes on to explain why CO2 is present in the atmosphere at only low partial pressures, most of the CO2 is removed by ocean sink and its reactivity with Calcium silicates to form limestone.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Besides the fact that those equations are NOT present in either of Millers papers that is not an issue that is relevant. You can get atomic O from CO2 and water also. Since there was Water in Millers tank BUT NO CO₂ what then could have been the source for the atomic O?

Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - READ THE DAMN PAPER! There was no CO₂ in Millers tank.

Full stop. You can continue droning.

davidylan:

I've grown tired as this has shifted from a sensible debate into a need to sound superior.

You're telling me.

But lets take a look at the above from you:

That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O₂.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. - Did you even READ the reason i dismissed it at all? please go back and read Millers two papers again (one in 1953 and the explanatory one in 1959) NOWHERE does he write any such equations. Now where did the wiki writer get his equations from? you said the equations were correct . . . how? Because some anonymous troll put it on wiki and then said it was? Where is the concrete source?

No, he doesn't have it in his papers; however, it's in the equation in wiki so as to make the formation of formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide- and even water - clear. Like I said, I guess I expected too much.

Monoatomic oxygen is surprisingly ALSO produced by photolytic splitting of water molecules . . . an idea that is also present in Millers 1959 paper. READ IT!

Yes. I said as much in my previous post.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. - Actually Millers 1959 paper says it wasnt as that would have inhibited the production of substantial quantities of stable CH4 . . . a justification for his own use of CH4 and CO instead of CO₂ in his flask.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

I've read it. However, there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, enough to lead to and help with the production of other compounds.

The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Besides the fact that those equations are NOT present in either of Millers papers that is not an issue that is relevant. You can get atomic O from CO2 and water also. Since there was Water in Millers tank BUT NO CO₂ what then could have been the source for the atomic O?

Magic.

Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - READ THE DAMN PAPER! There was no CO₂ in Millers tank.

Full stop. You can continue droning.

I didn't say there was. Read my post.

Nice way of sidestepping all the contradictions. 

KAG:

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Unfortunately you need to go back to school. If Miller suggests that there was plenty of water on earth (which you also have supported previously) and also water vapor then it is impossible that there was no O2 in the atmosphere.

1. Disolved oxygen in water is the reason fish and other aquatic life can survive there.

2. UVlight splits water vapor into oxygen . . .

KAG:

No, he doesn't have it in his papers; however, it's in the equation in wiki so as to make the formation of formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide- and even water - clear. Like I said, I guess I expected too much.

the wiki equations are entirely misleading. Infact regarding the production of formaldehyde and formic acid, Miller states in the abstract to his 1959 paper that ordinary water and CO₂ generated low amounts of those two alone but no other organic compounds.

Besides how did the equations make the formation of formaldehyde, HCN and water clear? 

- CO + H₂ will give formaldehyde in low quantities. (both present in Millers flask)
- CH₄ and NH₃ will given HCN (both gases were present in Millers flask)
- Water? Miller added that already so how clearer can that be? 

If formaldehyde was generated in Millers experiment then it was obviously through a method that did not involve CO₂ as it wasnt in Millers flask. That's just simple . . . basic truth.

KAG:

Yes. I said as much in my previous post.

False. I've been singing about photolysis of water for the last 2 pages and you virulently went against it. In one post you even claimed to have researched photodissociation and that it wasnt what i was making it out to be.

Trying to be consistent helps.

KAG:

I've read it. However, there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, enough to lead to and help with the production of other compounds.

Again FALSE! If you go back and diligently read the 1959 paper instead of belligerently trying to sound like you know anything . . . you'd realize why Miller did not consider a high atmospheric CO₂ partial pressure possible at that time and thus did not include it in his flask.

KAG:

I didn't say there was. Read my post.

Yeah, you just lied that it was abundant.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

For those interested . . . here is a cool website where you can conduct your own Miller-Urey experiment.

Do it a couple of times, be sure to try out the results you get when you specifically add O₂ or CO₂.

davidylan:

Nice way of sidestepping all the contradictions.

Except I didn't. You're lying again. Another ironic thing is that you've been doing so much sidestepping and contradicting of your position in this thread, that I can't help but grin when I review the thread.

[quote]That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O2.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Unfortunately you need to go back to school. If Miller suggests that there was plenty of water on earth (which you also have supported previously) and also water vapor then it is impossible that there was no O2 in the atmosphere. [/quote]

You can't seem to make up your mind, because you're trying to shuffle away having been caught in a lie. Reading back through my posts you'll see why having water isn't a problem for a reducing atmosphere. So,which is it? Diatomic oxygen or monoatomic oxygen? O2 or O?

1. Disolved oxygen in water is the reason fish and other aquatic life can survive there.

Yes.

2. UVlight splits water vapor into oxygen . . .

Which type of oxygen? Lol.

the wiki equations are entirely misleading.

No. What you tried to pass off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment was misleading. The wiki one inidicates several salient factors.

No, he doesn't have it in his papers; however, it's in the equation in wiki so as to make the formation of formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide- and even water - clear. Like I said, I guess I expected too much.

the wiki equations are entirely misleading. Infact regarding the production of formaldehyde and formic acid, Miller states in the abstract to his 1959 paper that ordinary water and CO₂ generated low amounts of those two alone but no other organic compounds.

Besides how did the equations make the formation of formaldehyde, HCN and water clear?

- CO + H₂ will give formaldehyde in low quantities. (both present in Millers flask)
- CH₄ and NH₃ will given HCN (both gases were present in Millers flask)
- Water? Miller added that already so how clearer can that be?

If formaldehyde was generated in Millers experiment then it was obviously through a method that did not involve CO₂ as it wasnt in Millers flask. That's just simple . . . basic truth.

Yes, formaldehyde wasn't generated from carbon dioxide; instead, as is pointed out in the equation, it was generated through the reaction of monoatomic oxygen with methane. That's simple basic truth.

[quote]Monoatomic oxygen is surprisingly ALSO produced by photolytic splitting of water molecules . . . an idea that is also present in Millers 1959 paper. READ IT!

Yes. I said as much in my previous post.

False. I've been singing about photolysis of water for the last 2 pages and you virulently went against it. In one post you even claimed to have researched photodissociation and that it wasnt what i was making it out to be.[/quote]


Maybe you should read the thread again - you'll get a kick out of it. What you were arguing for is different from what you're currently arguing for. Like I mentioned earlier, even the formula you posted - my response was to laugh at you missing the obvious - was pointing to what I made clear. Well, I did call it:

"I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know."

Trying to be consistent helps.

It sure does. You should try it.

I've read it. However, there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, enough to lead to and help with the production of other compounds.

Again FALSE! If you go back and diligently read the 1959 paper instead of belligerently trying to sound like you know anything . . . you'd realize why Miller did not consider a high atmospheric CO₂ partial pressure possible at that time and thus did not include it in his flask.

You are right. I missed the part where Miller argues for a lowish amount of carbon dioxide. However, that doesn't mean it's false to point out that geologists and scientists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have concluded there was abundant carbon dioxide - enough, incidentally, to produce the other compounds.

[quote][quote]Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide.

- READ THE DAMN PAPER! There was no CO2 in Millers tank.

Full stop. You can continue droning.

I didn't say there was.[/quote] Read my post.Yeah, you just lied that it was abundant.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!
[/quote]

Um, I didn't lie (you're mistaking me for you). I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. Don't twist my words. What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, I'll help you out with what I wrote: "CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it."

Here we go again with maddam ITK, twisting weaving and bobbing . . . 

KAG:

Except I didn't. You're lying again. Another ironic thing is that you've been doing so much sidestepping and contradicting of your position in this thread, that I can't help but grin when I review the thread.

Except of course each time you point out "contradictions" it turns out the problem is your own lack of understanding.

KAG:

You can't seem to make up your mind, because you're trying to shuffle away having been caught in a lie. Reading back through my posts you'll see why having water isn't a problem for a reducing atmosphere. So,which is it? Diatomic oxygen or monoatomic oxygen? O2 or O?

This bears absolutely no relevance to the quote itself. Your posts have been nothing but a mishmash of insults and wishy-washy science . . . there's absolutely NO WHERE you make a valid and convincing argument why water can exist in a reducing environment without oxygen at all.

Again you bring up a totally irrelevant problem, trumped up by you to sidestep the main issue . . . no one is arguing about mono- or diatomic oxygen. That is your own problem.

KAG:

Yes.

So did the early water bodies contain NO disolved oxygen at all?

KAG:

Which type of oxygen? Lol.

this is the equation for the photolysis of water - [size=14pt]H₂O (l) + hν ---> H₂ (g) + ½ O₂ (g)[/size]

KAG:

No. What you tried to pass off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment was misleading. The wiki one inidicates several salient factors.

Another frankly silly claim that has no basis in facts. The wiki equation indicated just WHICH salient points? Can you please name one.

When i gave the other equation . . . i did not "try to pass it off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment" . . . as you shamelessly and falsely claim. these are the very words i used to describe it - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.

The reason i said it was "most probable" is because the forward reaction utilises ONLY those chemical elements found in Miller's flask - CH₄, NH₃ and H₂O.

Now lets go back to your wiki equation which you originally called Millers equations until it was pointed out to you that they don't exist in ANY of his original papers. It starts out with CO₂, which we already know was NOT in Millers flask and which he argued against . . . claiming that a high partial pressure of which would indicate a very low pressure for CH₄ which he added to his flask.

Again . . . i reiterate . . . a little more substantive points are better than insults and carte blanche false claims

KAG:

Maybe you should read the thread again - you'll get a kick out of it. What you were arguing for is different from what you're currently arguing for. Like I mentioned earlier, even the formula you posted - my response was to laugh at you missing the obvious - was pointing to what I made clear. Well, I did call it:

"I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know."

It sure does. You should try it.

As usual . . . *yawn*

No attempt to address the issue from a scientific standpoint . . . just brainless insults.

KAG:

You are right. I missed the part where Miller argues for a lowish amount of carbon dioxide. However, that doesn't mean it's false to point out that geologists and scientists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have concluded there was abundant carbon dioxide - enough, incidentally, to produce the other compounds.

This is a contradiction . . .

1. Many scientists and geologists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have ALSO CONCLUDED that there was abundant oxygen. But strangely you prefer to cling to their speculations on carbon dioxide alone.

2. there can be no two rights here . . . if the scientists are correct that carbon dioxide was abundant then Miller would be wrong. Miller's hypothesis for the large presence of CH₄ in the atmosphere was predicated on a low CO₂ level . . .

3. So which of these two are right? you can't have it both ways ma'am.

KAG:

Um, I didn't lie (you're mistaking me for you). I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. Don't twist my words. What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, I'll help you out with what I wrote: "CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it."

Bla bla bla much of which makes no sense . . . so lets take it one by one.

- I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. - which begs the question why you think the Wiki equation is correct seeing as its FIRST equation started with CO₂ which was not in Millers tank.

- What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. - But Miller certainly did not believe this as even you yourself now agree. Higher CO₂ in the atmosphere would have meant too low CH₄ for his experiment to have been feasible. So if there was abundant CO₂ then Miller's entire experiment would have made no sense. Besides Miller had already argued that carbon dioxide and water just yielded only formaldehyde and formic acid.

- The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Since there was no CO₂ in Millers tank, if the Wiki equations are correct then WHERE did the atomic O come from? thin air?

- Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - Miller had no CO₂ in his tank so we can conclude that at least the first equation from wiki is WRONG. Miller also had CO is his tank already so bypassing any need for splittling carbon dioxide.

- That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. - CH₄ and NH₃ together are both very good sources of HCN. But it is also possible that CO can help generate HCN too. Which is probably why Miller had all three in his flask.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

I missed this one:

KAG:

[size=15pt]Yes, formaldehyde wasn't generated from carbon dioxide; instead, as is pointed out in the equation, it was generated through the reaction of monoatomic oxygen with methane. That's simple basic truth.[/size]

Having grown tired of your endless rubbish, i have decided to post the contents of Millers tank and the wiki equations.

Millers Tank and contents:



Wiki equations:

CO₂ => CO + O
CH₄ + 2O => CH₂O + H₂O
CO + NH₃ => HCN + H₂O
CH₄ + NH₃ => HCN + 3H₂ (BMA process)

Questions

1. Since there is no CO₂ in Miller's tank, how valid is the very first equation from Wiki? 

2. In the absence of CO₂, where else would the atomic oxygen have come from? thin air? 

[size=13pt]Now just please what is "simple and basic truth"?[/size]

Asides

- Based on contents of Miller's tank, this would probably be a probable equation to explain the formation of formaldehyde.

[size=13pt]H + CO --> HCO + H --> H₂CO[/size]

@Davidylan

Just to point out your demons of selective application of scientific principles yet again, you deliberately forgot to mention that Photodissociation is also responsible for further splitting up O₂ into individual atomic oxygen atoms (hence responsible for the production of Ozone when such monoatomic oxygen particles recombine with free oxygen).

If you will take off those religious bigoted glasses you are wearing or better still, go for an optilase type brain surgery (to remove your religion induced mental blocks) you would see that the wiki article never implied that those were the exact sequence of reactions.

Even with my limited knowledge of Chemistry, I can see that there were a couple of reactions and recombinations going on within the mix, some of those reactions I presume were forward and backward transitions (such as free oxygen being split into atomic oxygen and then recombining again) due to the rapidly changing and intense ambience and heat at the point of the sparks.
I beleive that you are not too hypocritical to see that the equations did not introduce any new elements into the mix?

You are also making an hasty assumption while being totally unscientific in abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation (just because it seems to justify your position of it having a low k value or whatever babbling yu're coming up with).

duduspace:

@Davidylan

Just to point out your demons of selective application of scientific principles, are you also aware that Photodissociation is also responsible for further splitting up O₂ into individual atomic oxygen atoms (hence responsible for the production of Ozone when such monoatomic oxygen particles recombine with free oxygen).

Another goon just jumps in to say whatever he likes:

1. I am well aware that photodissociation of oxygen occurs . . . unfortunately KAG whom you were cheering on had no clue.
Photodissociation also occurs for Nitrogen, ozone and the hydroxyl radical so to whom exactly are you directing the above? KAG's fundamental point is that in primitive earth oxygen wasnt even there . . . because with it Miller's experiment crumbles like a pack of cards . . .

So what is the purpose of telling us about photodisociation of oxygen when we can't even agree if it existed then or not? Where you even reading the thread at all?

2. The issue for the last 2 pages has had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what you posted above. Rather i brought up the issue of photodissociation to show why it is very unlikely that water and water vapor exists without oxygen being present.

duduspace:

If you will take off those religious bigoted glasses you are wearing or better still, go for an optilase type brain surgery you would see that the wiki article never implied that those were the exact sequence of equations.

Even with my limited knowledge of Chemistry, I can see that there were a couple of reactions and recombinations going on within the mix, some of those reactions I presume were forward and backward transitions (such as free oxygen being split into atomic oxygen and then recombining again) due to the rapidly changing and intense ambience and heat at the point of the sparks.
I beleive that you are not too hypocritical to see that the equations did not introduce any new elements into the mix?

Before asking me to undergo laser eye surgery please read my last post where i specifically posted a photo of Millers flask and its constituents. There is no CO₂ in his flask but the Wiki equation that KAG has been bleating about starts with CO₂.

Did not introduce any new elements into the mix? Blind hypocrite.

duduspace:

You are also making an hasty assumption while being totally unscientific in abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation (just because it seems to justify your position of it having a low k value or whatever babbling yu're coming up with).

You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about here.
Abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation? Where? when?

Low K_m? What? That only came up to explain why it was not feasible for Miller's primordial soup to produce substantial and stable amounts of amino acids. What has that to do with the splitting of CO₂? 

I mean you really don't have to post if you have no understanding.

davidylan:

Another goon just jumps in to say whatever he likes:
1. I am well aware that photodissociation of oxygen occurs . . . unfortunately KAG whom you were cheering on had no clue.

That is a bare faced lie, she only pointed out that it was not what you were taking it to be i.e. your pointing out only the photodissocation of water while leaving out the other effects of the phenomenon including the fact I just pointed out that it could also result in the generation of monoatomic oxygen.

davidylan:

2. The issue for the last 2 pages has had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what you posted above. Rather i brought up the issue of photodissociation to show why it is very unlikely that water and water vapor exists without oxygen being present.

I don't recall anyone disputing that, the subject of dispute was the possibility of its existence in other forms as well as the possibility of its absence from particular places where reactions similar to those in the MU experiment could have occured.

davidylan:

Before asking me to undergo laser eye surgery please read my last post where i specifically posted a photo of Millers flask and its constituents. There is no CO₂ in his flask but the Wiki equation that KAG has been bleating about starts with CO₂.

As I said, you are blind to anything that doesn't support your view because if I follow your reasoning, then the entire diagram is wrong because the MU experiment never had CO as one of the materials used.
This only shows that you are not thinking, as the diagram is not an exact representation of the experiment rather it is a simplification which is what KAG has been pointing out to you but your mind simply cannot comprehend. The diagram is only implying that CO must have been produced at some stage in the reactions.

davidylan:

Did not introduce any new elements into the mix? Blind hypocrite.

Goodness gracious, see what religion does to otherwise smart people, is CO₂ an element or a compound resulting from the combination of 2 elements?

davidylan:

You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about here.
Abbreviating the MU experiment into a single equation? Where? when?

You can excuse my oversimplification of the issue, but you did say

2 CH4 + NH3 + 2 H2O  ↔ H2N.CH2.COOH + 5 H2

this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.
Unfortunately this reaction yields a very very low K value . . . way too low yield.

Are you not implying that this is the only way the formation of glycine could have come about? and if you are have you considered why the sparks were needed to get the results the MU experiment obtained? why don't we just mix these components together, apply some heat and get this your result if the path from inorganic components to organic material was really that simple and straightforward?

davidylan:

I mean you really don't have to post if you have no understanding.

Sounds hollow coming from someone who is supposedly professional in the chemical field who cannot differentiate between an element and a combination of elements, whoa I don't even claim to be a chemist of any sort and I'm seemingly displaying more aptitude than you are. I would be very scared of buying any of your employer's products.

duduspace:

That is a bare faced lie, she only pointed out that it was not what you were taking it to be i.e. your pointing out only the photodissocation of water while leaving out the other effects of the phenomenon including the fact I just pointed out that it could also result in the generation of monoatomic oxygen.

More evidence that you have NOT been following the train of argument but merely rushing in with your bias glowing like a lamp.

- the debate has been centered around "photolysis of water" as another source of oxygen since i was trying to argue a case for why it sounds impractical for Miller to claim that primitive earth had bodies of water and water vapor but no oxygen. The argument is NOT about photolysis at all but about photlysis of water ONLY.

- The debate about monoatomic oxygen resulted from the first equation from the wiki page. Since CO₂ was not part of Millers elements, the wiki equation cannot be correct. Now if we assume that monoatomic oxygen was important for Miller's work then were did it come from since there is no carbon dioxide anyway?

Only two logical options - water and carbon monoxide. Water is the only logical source here.

Pay attention to detail bro . . .

duduspace:

I don't recall anyone disputing that, the subject of dispute was the possibility of its existence in other forms as well as the possibility of its absence from particular places where reactions similar to those in the MU experiment could have occured.

This is so convoluted and vague i have no clue what this means. Water could have existed in other forms? Which ones? we know vapor and ice . . . what else?
So the MU experiment happened only in specialized areas? How? Did you read Millers papers at all?
Urey specifically postulated that 10% of the oceans then were made of organic compounds . . . a practical impossibility anyway since that would mean they would contain 100 times as much pollutants as the worst sewer on earth.

Are water bodies also absent from particular places?

I say, sometimes if u dont understand an issue dont force urself to post.

duduspace:

As I said, you are blind to anything that doesn't support your view because if I follow your reasoning, then the entire diagram is wrong because the MU experiment never had CO as one of the materials used.
This only shows that you are not thinking, as the diagram is not an exact representation of the experiment rather it is a simplification which is what KAG has been pointing out to you but your mind simply cannot comprehend. The diagram is only implying that CO must have been produced at some stage in the reactions.

I'm genuinely confused. Which are you arguing for or against?

The MU experiment used CO and that is even indicated on the diagram i posted . . .

Have you read Millers papers? I guess not because every element that was used in the experiment was explained in detail. Even gases that were not used have sections where he explains his rational for leaving them out.

Seriously get to read the paper first before making urself sound like an idiot.

duduspace:

Goodness gracious, see what religion does to otherwise smart people, is CO₂ an element or a compound resulting from the combination of 2 elements?

Again this is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Yeah CO2 is a compound made up of carbon and oxygen . . . even an idiot can see that. Are you suggesting that CO somehow formed CO2 in the tank or what and so justifying the wiki equations? That's pretty much absurd.

When you combine carbon with oxygen you get carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide.

duduspace:

You can excuse my oversimplification of the issue, but you did say

Are you not implying that this is the only way the formation of glycine could have come about? and if you are have you considered why the sparks were needed to get the results the MU experiment obtained? why don't we just mix these components together, apply some heat and get this your result if the path from inorganic components to organic material was really that simple and straightforward?

I shall have to excuse your poor grasp of logical grammar . . .

This was my exact statement - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycine using his inorganic elements.

the use of the phrase "most probable" immediately shld suggest to an objective person with eyes that it is possible there are various other chemical ways of generating glycine but based on the combination of compounds and elements in Miller's flask . . . the equation looks the most plausible.

Miller himself did not give us an equation for his findings.

Have YOU also considered why Miller used sparks? Answer the question urself . . .

duduspace:

Sounds hollow coming from someone who is supposedly professional in the chemical field who cannot differentiate between an element and a combination of elements, whoa I don't even claim to be a chemist of any sort and I'm seemingly displaying more aptitude than you are. I would be very scared of buying any of your employer's products.

Again similar to KAG . . . they just read stuff on the surface and start crowing about "errors". CO₂ is a compound.

If you werent so woollen headed you shld know that your deliberate attempt to muddy the waters comes from the fact that you could not realise that the wiki equations add a compound that was not a part of Millers mix.

davidylan:

Here we go again with maddam ITK, twisting weaving and bobbing . . .

You are projecting, David; you are projecting.

Except I didn't. You're lying again. Another ironic thing is that you've been doing so much sidestepping and contradicting of your position in this thread, that I can't help but grin when I review the thread.

Except of course each time you point out "contradictions" it turns out the problem is your own lack of understanding.

Lol. You've got to love the chutzpah. No, you are lying yet again. Several times in this thread I have pointed out the contradictions and falsehood in your statements. For the most part, those have gone ignored.

[quote][quote][quote]That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O2.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Unfortunately you need to go back to school. If Miller suggests that there was plenty of water on earth (which you also have supported previously) and also water vapor then it is impossible that there was no O2 in the atmosphere. [/quote]

You can't seem to make up your mind, because you're trying to shuffle away having been caught in a lie. Reading back through my posts you'll see why having water isn't a problem for a reducing atmosphere. So,which is it? Diatomic oxygen or monoatomic oxygen? O2 or O?[/quote]
This bears absolutely no relevance to the quote itself. Your posts have been nothing but a mishmash of insults and wishy-washy science . . . there's absolutely NO WHERE you make a valid and convincing argument why water can exist in a reducing environment without oxygen at all.
Again you bring up a totally irrelevant problem, trumped up by you to sidestep the main issue . . . no one is arguing about mono- or diatomic oxygen. That is your own problem.[/quote]

Um, what? Of course it's relevant. In the presence of O2, the atmosphere is not reducing, not so with O. By the way, I have argued for monoatomic oxygen, while you were arguing for diatomic oxygen. Like I said, you, sir, are a liar.

So did the early water bodies contain NO disolved oxygen at all?

Free O2? Little to none.

this is the equation for the photolysis of water - [size=14pt]H₂O (l) + hν ---> H₂ (g) + ½ O₂ (g)[/size]

Yes.

Another frankly silly claim that has no basis in facts. The wiki equation indicated just WHICH salient points? Can you please name one.

The equation showed: how carbon monoxide and monoatomic oxygen could have been produced. Both necessary for the Miller-Urey expreriment. Further, it showed the path that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would have taken. Finally, it gives the reaction that produced glycine, indicating that, contrary to what you seemed to have been indicating when you posted your assumed equation, the production of glycine wasn't problematic.

No. What you tried to pass off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment was misleading. The wiki one inidicates several salient factors.

When i gave the other equation . . . i did not "try to pass it off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment" . . . as you shamelessly and falsely claim. these are the very words i used to describe it - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.

The reason i said it was "most probable" is because the forward reaction utilises ONLY those chemical elements found in Miller's flask - CH₄, NH₃ and H₂O.

Oh, you didn't try to pass it off as the equation? Okay, my mistake. I'll amend my point: What you posited as the most probable equation to explain the formation of glycine was misleading.

Now lets go back to your wiki equation which you originally called Millers equations until it was pointed out to you that they don't exist in ANY of his original papers. It starts out with CO₂, which we already know was NOT in Millers flask and which he argued against . . . claiming that a high partial pressure of which would indicate a very low pressure for CH₄ which he added to his flask.

I called it "the equations for the production of glycine", but, really, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the equation I posted gives the formula for the formation of important compounds present in the Miller-Urey experiment. It also indicated how the Miller-Urey experiment formed glycine - this, perhaps, is the most important point.

Again . . . i reiterate . . . a little more substantive points are better than insults and carte blanche false claims

I don't need to make false claims - I leave that to you. My points have been substantive (as can be easily seen by even a quick glance at my posts in this thread). As for insults, you get what you deserve.

Maybe you should read the thread again - you'll get a kick out of it. What you were arguing for is different from what you're currently arguing for. Like I mentioned earlier, even the formula you posted - my response was to laugh at you missing the obvious - was pointing to what I made clear. Well, I did call it:

"I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know."

As usual . . . *yawn*

No attempt to address the issue from a scientific standpoint . . . just brainless insults.

Like I said, if no one else will know, you'll know and I'll know. That's enough for me.

You are right. I missed the part where Miller argues for a lowish amount of carbon dioxide. However, that doesn't mean it's false to point out that geologists and scientists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have concluded there was abundant carbon dioxide - enough, incidentally, to produce the other compounds.This is a contradiction . . .

1. Many scientists and geologists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have ALSO CONCLUDED that there was abundant oxygen. But strangely you prefer to cling to their speculations on carbon dioxide alone.

No, a relative minority of scientists claim there was abundant oxygen. Most disagree and point to data available.

2. there can be no two rights here . . . if the scientists are correct that carbon dioxide was abundant then Miller would be wrong. Miller's hypothesis for the large presence of CH₄ in the atmosphere was predicated on a low CO₂ level . . .

3. So which of these two are right? you can't have it both ways ma'am.

Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.

Bla bla bla much of which makes no sense . . . so lets take it one by one.

- I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. - which begs the question why you think the Wiki equation is correct seeing as its FIRST equation started with CO₂ which was not in Millers tank.

How else to get hydrogen cyanide? Magic?

- What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. - But Miller certainly did not believe this as even you yourself now agree. Higher CO₂ in the atmosphere would have meant too low CH₄ for his experiment to have been feasible. So if there was abundant CO₂ then Miller's entire experiment would have made no sense. Besides Miller had already argued that carbon dioxide and water just yielded only formaldehyde and formic acid.

I've addressed the issue of CO2 above. By the way, could you post the context of Miller's statement about carbon dioxide and water?

[quote]Another scenario: Miller's experiment used specifically water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) [Wiki]. How was CO2 generated? The second eqn requires atomic O2 from CO2 but there was no CO2 in Miller's tank at all.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it. -

The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Since there was no CO₂ in Millers tank, if the Wiki equations are correct then WHERE did the atomic O come from? thin air?[/quote]

I have included the context of this train of contention. From it we see that I was correcting an error. In any case, O would have been produced in the atmosphere, which in turn helped in the production of formaldehyde.

- Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - Miller had no CO₂ in his tank so we can conclude that at least the first equation from wiki is WRONG. Miller also had CO is his tank already so bypassing any need for splittling carbon dioxide.

How did Miller get carbon monoxide?

- That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. - CH₄ and NH₃ together are both very good sources of HCN. But it is also possible that CO can help generate HCN too. Which is probably why Miller had all three in his flask.

Yes, CH4 and NH3 could help generate HCN. That wasn't the point, though. We all know it's possible that CO can help generate HCN - that's what the equation was showing. Did you have a point?

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

I have.

Okay, we will have to bring this thread to a close as I am running out of time. I can only make a few more posts, so let's make it count. We can stick with the Miller-Urey experiment, despite it being a digression - if you look back to page 2 and the beginning of page three - that has taken on a life of its own (there's an understandable psychological reason the digression was created and pushed to this stage). Or we can edge back towards the larger scope of the sciences that matter especially in regard to the original post.

davidylan:

More evidence that you have NOT been following the train of argument but merely rushing in with your bias glowing like a lamp.

- the debate has been centered around "photolysis of water" as another source of oxygen since i was trying to argue a case for why it sounds impractical for Miller to claim that primitive earth had bodies of water and water vapor but no oxygen. The argument is NOT about photolysis at all but about photlysis of water ONLY.

- The debate about monoatomic oxygen resulted from the first equation from the wiki page. Since CO₂ was not part of Millers elements, the wiki equation cannot be correct. Now if we assume that monoatomic oxygen was important for Miller's work then were did it come from since there is no carbon dioxide anyway?

Only two logical options - water and carbon monoxide. Water is the only logical source here.

Pay attention to detail bro . . .

I disagree, it is you who needs to pay attention to the points others are making, in fact there are a number of routes to the existence of monoatomic oxygen (without the presence of CO2 right there before your eyes but since you can't see them, I will point out just one. The light generated from the sparks could have caused some photodissociation of any O2 arising from any of the various reactions going on within the mix.
I wouldn't expect you to see that anyway since you are only interested in summing the experiment up to a single equation.

davidylan:

This is so convoluted and vague i have no clue what this means. Water could have existed in other forms? Which ones? we know vapor and ice . . . what else?
So the MU experiment happened only in specialized areas? How? Did you read Millers papers at all?

Knowing your innate tendencies, I'm not sure if this is a genuine misconception or an attempt to distort issues, we were talking about oxygen here and not water.

davidylan:

Urey specifically postulated that 10% of the oceans then were made of organic compounds . . . a practical impossibility anyway since that would mean they would contain 100 times as much pollutants as the worst sewer on earth.

Not a practical impossibility at all, we are talking about an environment completely unlike what we have now. Are you that narrow minded to only see one view of things while discarding all other possibilities? that is definitely not a scientific reasoning and totally torpedoes your claim of an independent mindset, you are only rehashing an extensive paper you've gotten from somewhere which supports your theistic beliefs.

davidylan:

Are water bodies also absent from particular places?

Irrelevant, I never said that

davidylan:

I say, sometimes if u don't understand an issue don't force yourself to post.

At the least, I understand the difference between elements and compounds which you obviously dont but hey, I see you posting here so I am definitely qualified to post.

davidylan:

I'm genuinely confused. Which are you arguing for or against?

I'm arguing that the MU experiment is no sham that you are making it out to be, had a very good scientific basis, has not been discredited as you claim and forms a solid foundation for further experiments in the research into the origins of life.

davidylan:

The MU experiment used CO and that is even indicated on the diagram i posted . . .

You should be confused cos it seems your limited thinking faculty occasioned by your religion induced mental blocks cannot wrap around the point I'm making but I'll break it down once again,
1. CO was not one of the gases used in the experiment, you have attested to this in an earlier post as the gases used were CH4, NH3, H2 and H20.
2. That diagram shows CO in the mix and you happily accept that, but it only shows it becos it is assuming that you are either too dumb to question how it got there or smart enough to figure out that it could have been generated in any of the reactions occuring between the gases in the mix.
3. If yu understand or accept how CO got there, why the sudden lack of understanding as to how CO2 got there (or is it yur hypocrisy makin a buffoon of you again?)

davidylan:

Have you read Millers papers? I guess not because every element that was used in the experiment was explained in detail. Even gases that were not used have sections where he explains his rational for leaving them out.
Seriously get to read the paper first before making yourself sound like an idiot.

Yes I have read the paper and I do acknowledge that a more intelligent/knowledgeable and less biased person could explain it in clearer details to me but that person is definitely not you.
It is rather surprising to me that with your boastful claims of knowledge and experience in the chemical field coupled with my basic secondary school knowledge, I'm sounding less of an idiot than you are.
The question is, could it be because of your having an innately limited intelligence or is it a religion imposed self limitation?

davidylan:

Again this is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Yeah CO2 is a compound made up of carbon and oxygen . . . even an idiot can see that. Are you suggesting that CO somehow formed CO2 in the tank or what and so justifying the wiki equations? That's pretty much absurd.
When you combine carbon with oxygen you get carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide.

Sorry, there is no fluid being muddied here except those in your brain, why is it so difficult for you to understand that CO will not remain as CO if some form of oxygen is present in the tank (by this, I don't mean only O2)?  have you ever studied carbon monoxide poisoning?

You might also want to correct that blanket statement I have made bold for you before you are expelled as a member of whatever chemical society you belong to in Nigeria, even a secondary school student understands that carbon monoxide only arises from partial oxidation of carbon.

davidylan:

I shall have to excuse your poor grasp of logical grammar . . .

This was my exact statement - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycine using his inorganic elements.

1. the use of the phrase "most probable" immediately shld suggest to an objective person with eyes that it is possible there are various other chemical ways of generating glycine but based on the combination of compounds and elements in Miller's flask . . . the equation looks the most plausible.

Miller himself did not give us an equation for his findings.

It is you turning logic on its head cos if (1) is what you truely meant, why then all the blabbing about the low k value of your equation making it impossible in real life if you really considered the fact that it could have happened in another way such as the wiki equations?

Yes, Miller did not give us an equation of his findings because even he didn't know at that time what exact reactions were taking place, I mean the poor bloke was sincerely curious as to the possibility of organic matter arising from inorganic matter. It is you and your fanatical theists making it out as if he started out from the onset to disprove the existence of God.

davidylan:

Have YOU also considered why Miller used sparks? Answer the question yourself . . .
Again similar to KAG . . . they just read stuff on the surface and start crowing about "errors". CO₂ is a compound.

Glad to see that you've finally learnt something, the difference between elements and compounds. If you also want to know why Miller used the sparks, I'll tell you if you ask more politely.

davidylan:

If you werent so woollen headed you shld know that your deliberate attempt to muddy the waters comes from the fact that you could not realise that the wiki equations add a compound that was not a part of Millers mix.

charlartan and hypocrisy mode once again, CO was not part of Miller's experiment but you are willing to accept its existence in the equation but totally unwilling to accept the progression of CO to CO2 when the conditions for that progression exist in the simulated scenario.

mazaje:

duduspace you have done an excellent job in exposing that clumsy fraud for who he really is, the only straw he now has to grab is the*YAWN* straw which makes him look more petty and silly. davidylan all this long post from you only to be exposed as a fraud? what a shame am really loving this. ok i want you to go ahead and explain the jacob genetic engineering model. dudduspace you've done well ohh, thanks once again for exposing that shameless fraud, people should not engage christains when it comes to science until they tell us what they really understand as a rainbow, is it a phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the earth's atmosphere or a covenant between the biblical god and his people that appears in the cloud as written by the bible writers who wrote on stones and lived in caves? davidylan is talking about peer review when most of the christains i know here in europe do not believe in the seven day creation story, jacobs genetic engineering model, talking donkeysand the rainbow explanation as written in the bible etc. christains all have different conception and understanding of the biblical god yet this fraud of a pseudo scientist does not see that, all he sees is what is wrong with the MU experiment, which has explained far more than they mythical creation of light and sun through words of mouth(probably hebrew) by his imaginary child killer god. what a load of bull.

Thanks mazaje, I find Davidylan a very intriguing personality, I have a strong feeling he is intelligent enough to see reason in a lot of these posts but deliberately chooses to allow his religious beliefs overcome his logical thinking. As someone aptly pointed out, he has chosen the blue pill.

i've finally run out of patience. You guys can go on with ur personal insults . . .

i thot we were going to have a real science debate but alas . . . enjoy.

duduspace:

Thanks mazaje, I find Davidylan a very intriguing personality, I have a strong feeling he is intelligent enough to see reason in a lot of these posts but deliberately chooses to allow his religious beliefs overcome his logical thinking. As someone aptly pointed out, he has chosen the blue pill.

he is here hyperventilating about the MU experiment but he still believes in the stupid and meaningless jacob genetic engineering model. what a shameless fraud and charlatan. even with my limited knowledge of chemistry and biology i can clearly see that he just grasping at staws. he said that he does not believe that the world is billions of years old but went ahead and cherry picked points from websites that all said that they earth is billions of years old to prove is twisted points(he even provide wrong equations to support his twisted points). what a fraud.

Nice to know you guys have also had the Davidylan experience. Now you know him.

davidylan:

i've finally run out of patience. You guys can go on with ur personal insults . . .

i thot we were going to have a real science debate but alas . . . enjoy.

ok lets have a scientific discussion, pls can you explain the jocobs model of genetic engineering in a scientific way. provide all equations and peer review evidence to support the bible's assertion.

KAG:

Um, what? Of course it's relevant. In the presence of O2, the atmosphere is not reducing, not so with O. By the way, I have argued for monoatomic oxygen, while you were arguing for diatomic oxygen. Like I said, you, sir, are a liar.

Monoatomic oxygen can readily combine to give diatomic oxygen so we're back to square one eventually. Did O2 exist then or not?

KAG:

Free O2? Little to none.

Then monoatomic O could not have existed then and would make your wiki equations irrelevant.

We know that O + O --> O₂

I'm not sure you think thru your responses at all.

KAG:

Yes.

Earlier you said it wasnt possible.

KAG:

The equation showed: how carbon monoxide and monoatomic oxygen could have been produced. Both necessary for the Miller-Urey expreriment. Further, it showed the path that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would have taken. Finally, it gives the reaction that produced glycine, indicating that, contrary to what you seemed to have been indicating when you posted your assumed equation, the production of glycine wasn't problematic.

You do realise that CO is a gas and can be easily produced in the lab no?
You do realise that Miller does not talk about "producing" CO and monoatomic oxygen ANYWHERE in his papers?
You do know that CH₄ and NH₃ can readily generate HCN no?
You do know that even with the wiki equations . . . you would still need to remove the glycine produced to drive the forward reactions?
You do know that glycine itself can inhibit its own production via feed-back mechanism no?

You do think thru your responses at all no?

KAG:

Oh, you didn't try to pass it off as the equation? Okay, my mistake. I'll amend my point: What you posited as the most probable equation to explain the formation of glycine was misleading.

Based on what evidence? I hate when people just leave such comments and FAIL to prove why their position is correct. the equation for the production of glycine i gave is very valid based on:

a. it utilises ONLY those compounds found in Millers flask

b. has been proven to be at least efficient at generating glycine.

KAG:

I called it "the equations for the production of glycine", but, really, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the equation I posted gives the formula for the formation of important compounds present in the Miller-Urey experiment. It also indicated how the Miller-Urey experiment formed glycine - this, perhaps, is the most important point.

Carbon dioxide was not in Millers flask . . . period, so your above is false.

KAG:

No, a relative minority of scientists claim there was abundant oxygen. Most disagree and point to data available.

Depends on your idea of "relative minority" . . . i find out quite a lot of recent scientists do believe oxygen was an integral part of the primitive atmosphere. Take a look at nature reviews instead of silly kiddie websites for a change.

KAG:

Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.

Ah now its Miller that is wrong. What else do you think Miller was wrong about?
Quite a lot of scientists seem to think he was also wrong about the presence of oxygen . . . i still find it hard to believe that primitive earth would contain plenty of oxygen in compounds (water and carbon dioxide) but NO free oxygen at all. Pls help us rationalise that issue.

KAG:

How else to get hydrogen cyanide? Magic?

common sense aint so common - try the equations for ammonia and methane.

Caution - do not try it at home, cyanide produced could kill you.

KAG:

I've addressed the issue of CO2 above. By the way, could you post the context of Miller's statement about carbon dioxide and water?

You didnt.
Go read the paper yourself . . . its in the abstract for the 1959 paper.

KAG:

I have included the context of this train of contention. From it we see that I was correcting an error. In any case, O would have been produced in the atmosphere, which in turn helped in the production of formaldehyde.

The fact that O would readily combine with O to form oxygen and oxygen to form ozone makes nonsense of your claims that there was no free oxygen in primitive earth. Which is it? Oxygen was there or not? you cant keep running around claiming that forms of oxygen existed as elements and as compounds with NO free oxygen . . .

KAG:

How did Miller get carbon monoxide?

simple . . . burn zinc oxide in the presence of coke. Its an ordinary lab experiment that high school students can perform.

KAG:

Yes, CH4 and NH3 could help generate HCN. That wasn't the point, though. We all know it's possible that CO can help generate HCN - that's what the equation was showing. Did you have a point?

the point is simple . . . carbon dioxide was not in Millers tank so the wiki equations make no sense.

I still have one issue . . . WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THE WIKI EQUATIONS?

As for dudu and co . . . pls find someone else to transfer your frustrations to.