New data mined from historic 'primordial soup' study

[EskimoJoe]

"Stanley Miller's famous 1953 experiment attempted to recreate the organic
molecules of a young Earth. He discovered more than he realized, researchers say."

Quite an interesting read I think. You science figures might like the read.

http://www.ktuu.com/features/la-sci-primordial-soup-20110326,0,3332017.story

[Penguin]

Biology FTW!

-Penguin

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I thought this article was about the new Facebook data mining experiment 

[Sonicblu]

Come back lenny, I can't the blue light it's so beautiful.

And they only report what they want to. Stanley Millers experiments also proved that in this process of creating amino acids it produced by products that would quickly break down the amino acids to a useless sludge. So they had to remove them from the experiment. Plus the couldn't subject it to all the uv light that would be present on and early earth because it would break down to useless sludge.

What Miller did prove that all scientists agree is that his experiments were intelligent and goal oriented. So even if I did prove inorganic to organic he proved it could only be done with intelligence. 

Plus he wrongly assumed what chemicals made up the early earth. Science now claims they were non reducing gasses.

Show me an experiment that doesn't presuppose intelligence, and I'll agree it might be probable to prove unintelligent intervention in the origin of life. 

The real question isn't organic from inorganic, we are living proof of that, we have empirical evidence that it did happen. The question is how it happened. It seems strange to me that proof of what happened is used for how it happened.

[Penguin]

Come back lenny, I can't the blue light it's so beautiful.

And they only report what they want to. Stanley Millers experiments also proved that in this process of creating amino acids it produced by products that would quickly break down the amino acids to a useless sludge. So they had to remove them from the experiment. Plus the couldn't subject it to all the uv light that would be present on and early earth because it would break down to useless sludge.

What Miller did prove that all scientists agree is that his experiments were intelligent and goal oriented. So even if I did prove inorganic to organic he proved it could only be done with intelligence. 

Plus he wrongly assumed what chemicals made up the early earth. Science now claims they were non reducing gasses.

Show me an experiment that doesn't presuppose intelligence, and I'll agree it might be probable to prove unintelligent intervention in the origin of life. 

The real question isn't organic from inorganic, we are living proof of that, we have empirical evidence that it did happen. The question is how it happened. It seems strange to me that proof of what happened is used for how it happened.

How would a hypothesis of how it happened presuppose intelligence?

-Penguin

[Sonicblu]

Think about it. Waiting waiting waiting..

Just kidding with you. sorry I haven't gotten back to our other debate.   

Because you have to use intelligence to do it.

Your useing and observation of a known event, correct?  In this case an experiment that was intelligent and goal oriented, and to make work the scientist had to remove unfavorable variables.

So the only hypothesis you can logicly  come to is. It it took intelligence to make the experiment, and the experiment is a duplication of what happened it happened but it was intelligent guided.

We have a picture on the wall of the family my brother asked my wife why wasn't she there. " because I took the pictue she replied." the hypothesis isn't how many people are in the picture, it's how many where there when the picture was taken.

Anyway step back from the experiment, and look there is a scientist playing with vials, that is the observable event not just the experiment. How can you divorce the scientist from the experiment. Now look at the hypothesis can't you see the scientist (I.D.) playing with a primordial soup.
The only way to come to a hypothesis that is different is if we can see today a random creation of organic to inorganic, I would think if it did happen unintelligently it would still be happening unintelligently and we should be able to still observe it.

Your thoughts
 

[Penguin]

Think about it. Waiting waiting waiting..

Just kidding with you. sorry I haven't gotten back to our other debate.   

Because you have to use intelligence to do it.

Your useing and observation of a known event, correct?  In this case an experiment that was intelligent and goal oriented, and to make work the scientist had to remove unfavorable variables.

So the only hypothesis you can logicly  come to is. It it took intelligence to make the experiment, and the experiment is a duplication of what happened it happened but it was intelligent guided.

We have a picture on the wall of the family my brother asked my wife why wasn't she there. " because I took the pictue she replied." the hypothesis isn't how many people are in the picture, it's how many where there when the picture was taken.

Anyway step back from the experiment, and look there is a scientist playing with vials, that is the observable event not just the experiment. How can you divorce the scientist from the experiment. Now look at the hypothesis can't you see the scientist (I.D.) playing with a primordial soup.
The only way to come to a hypothesis that is different is if we can see today a random creation of organic to inorganic, I would think if it did happen unintelligently it would still be happening unintelligently and we should be able to still observe it.

Your thoughts
 

You said that the experiment is a duplication of the events, but then said that it had non-promoting factors removed.  I'm confused as to what you are getting at, it either was an exact duplication or it wasn't. 

Furthermore, asking inorganic matter to suddenly assemble itself into life today is quite demanding.  Earth back then was hot, very very hot.  It also had raw materials everywhere.  Life came along bit by bit, much like man came from the apes.  This is the same reason why finding a "missing" link is futile.  No matter how many times you bang that baboon, no babies will come of it.  However, I digress.

Your point is also related to "Peanut Butter Jar, Abiogenesis' Nightmare".  In this thought experiment, a jar of peanut butter ought to spawn life, as it has all of what you need for it.  This thought experiment is flawed, in that it neglects to mention that one would need to wait around a billion years while shooting it with lightning to get anything close to an amino acid, much less blue green algae. 

The fact that an experiment is goal-oriented does not reduce its validity.  This trait is actually what validates the experiment.  One can only change a single variable in each trial group, (besides the control group) and tightly control the remaining factors in order to match cause to effect.

-Penguin

PS Thank you for this riveting debate, it sharpens my wit each time I reply.