Does God Exist?

[Newtonian]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

 

[Hollie]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

 

[Newtonian]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

Sorry, but Wells is a dishonest, unethical hack. His association with the Disco'tute, an organization of religious extremists, has a well deserved reputation as a collection of buffoons. Their involvement with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was an utter embarrassment as the creationist testimony was little more than appeals to religious fundamentalist doctrine long rejected by the courts.

That's just your opinion. Nothing scientific behind it.

That said, this is the R&E forum, so you can hold to your atheist religious beliefs and opinions.

Its not my opinion. It was the conclusion of the courts which have ruled consistently that ID creationism is not science but fundamentalist Christianity under a burqa of "sciencey" obfuscation.

Did the courts consider why the expansion rate of the universe is so close to omega=1? I think it more likely that they considered, correctly, that creationism by creationists is religious and ruled on the basis of the separation of church and state. But, please, post the reasons for the court rulings - I'm all ears!

Not literally btw - that would be ear-ry or er, eerie!

 

[alang1216]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

And your conclusion is...

 

[james bond]

So, to review the chemical reaction product proportions in Miller's experiment in descending order of occurrence I have posted on so far:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74

Next in proportion from table 3-2 on page 23 is Norvaline - proportion: 61

Like the latter 2 above, Norvaline is NOT found in proteins - so why wasn't it selected?

From Google:

"Norvaline is an amino acid with the formula CH₃(CH₂)₂CHCO₂H. The compound is an isomer of the more common amino acid valine. Like most other α-amino acids, norvaline is chiral. It is a white, water-soluble solid ... Chemical formula‎: ‎C5H11NO2"

============================

Next in proportion is Sarcosine - proportion 55.

Sarcosine is also NOT found in proteins - why didn't it get selected?

From Google search:

"Sarcosine, also known as N-methylglycine, is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

As a side point,, Sarcosine can stimulate prostate cancer cells to go from benign to malignant. It has also been proposed in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia. It effects the brain.

Again, sarcosine is not found in proteins.

======================

The next 4 amino acids in proportion are 34, 33, 30 and 30 again - most are not found in proteins but:

Aspartic acid is in proportion: 34. It IS one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins (we have 3 so far in proportion). From google:

"Aspartic acid (symbol Asp or D; the ionic form is known as aspartate), is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. Similar to all other amino acids, it contains an amino group and a carboxylic acid. ... Formula: C4H7NO4"

==================

Next in proportion: a:y-Diaminobutyric acid (format changed alpha gamma to a:y) - proportion 33.

From:

CID 158725018

CID 158725018 | C8H20N4O4 | CID 158725018 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"2,4-diaminobutyric acid is a diamino acid that is butyric acid in which a hydrogen at position 2 and a hydrogen at position 4 are replaced by amino groups. It is a diamino acid, a gamma-amino acid and a non-proteinogenic alpha-amino acid. It derives from a butyric acid....C4H10N2O2 "

It is fairly complex but is NOT used in proteins.

So, why wasn't it selected? (in its isomers and polarizations)

On the other hand:

Icon of Obfuscation

www.talkorigins.org

Chapter 2: Miller-Urey experiment
Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001).

• Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial.
• 'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya.
• Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards.
• Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001).
• Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999).

Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere?

Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"? The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today.

Now, current geochemical opinion is that the prebiotic atmosphere was not so strongly reducing as the original Miller-Urey atmosphere, but opinion varies widely from moderately reducing to neutral. Completely neutral atmospheres would be bad for Miller-Urey-type experiments, but even a weakly reducing atmosphere will produce lower but significant amounts of amino acids. In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p. 20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a "near-consensus among geochemists" (p. 21).

• This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production.
• Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration?
• Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review).
• Wells asserts that since the 1970's, non-reducing atmospheres have become the "near-consensus." The latest article that Wells cites supporting this view, however, is a 1995 nontechnical news article in Science (Cohen, 1995). Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write,
  

  The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material (e.g., Miller, 1953; Miller, 1992). The first organism would have therefore been a heterotroph deriving energy from this existing pool of nutrients. This theory for the origin of life is not without competitors (for a review of theories for the origins of life see Davis and McKay, 1996), but has received considerable support from laboratory experiments in which it has been demonstrated that biologically relevant organic materials can be easily synthesized from mildly reducing mixtures of gases (e.g., Chang et al., 1983). The discovery of organics in comets (e.g., Kissel and Kruger, 1987), on Titan (e.g., Sagan et al., 1984), elsewhere in the outer solar system (e.g., Encrenaz, 1986), as well as in the interstellar medium (e.g., Irvine and Knacke, 1989) has further strengthened the notion that organic material was abundant prior to the origin of life.

None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and McKay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al. (1998) are about the various competing hypotheses about the origin of life). But textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results. This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) Biology, for instance. In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying. The original Miller-Urey experiment, despite its limitations, is also repeatedly cited in modern scientific literature as a landmark experiment. So why does Wells have a problem with the textbooks following the literature? Wells wants textbooks to follow the experts, and it appears that they are.

The RNA world.Wells writes (p. 22) as if the RNA world is an alternative to failed Miller-Urey-style experimentation. He cites no source for this claim, because the claim is pure obfuscation.

• The RNA world hypothesis is complementary, not opposed, to Miller-style prebiotic syntheses, as it is meant to explain how genetic replication got going without DNA, several steps down the road after prebiotic syntheses.
• Wells gives the impression that there are only two possible starts to life on earth, Urey-Miller style syntheses and the RNA world. Wells misleadingly cites several quotes that taken alone suggest that the RNA world is impossible, and that there is no remaining scientific explanations for life on earth. However, most authorities agree that the RNA world was one stage of the origin of life, rather than the very first stage, and that it was proceeded by a pre-RNA world. Indeed, the very authors he quotes to suggest that the RNA world is impossible go on to explain the concept of a pre-RNA world and how an RNA world would arise from that, but Wells omits all mention of this. Wells doesn't bother to cite recent work on precursors to the RNA world, see for example Cavalier-Smith (2001) for an introduction and references to ideas on this such as the 'NA world' and 'lipid world' (for the latter, see e.g. Segre et al., 2001).

How can I take you seriously when you depend on a looney tunes blogger who has no credentials and doesn't even identify himself?

Now, you're whipping out the talk origins fake science website and instead of explaining what you read in your own words using them as your argument.

I can easily refer to the true origins science website and present an article to refute the talk origin page.

Basically, Urey and Miller assumed what early Earth gases were present in order to create the amino acids. They ended up fixing their experiment in order to produce the amino acids. We find that they used N2, CO2, O2, H2, CH4, NH3, and water vapor along with a sparker for their experiment. Wells points out the majority of scientists believe in not these gases, but the volcanic gases were present on early Earth along with water vapor. Thus, you can't produce the amino acids as you claim by doing the Miller-Urey experiment with the volcanic gases can you?

Let's see you try. Tell me the gases Urey and Miller used to achieve their results?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Just pick the gases and press the sparker. The water vapor is present from the boiling water in the beaker. Hint: You can have any oxygen or have oxygen produced.

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

Sorry, but Wells is a dishonest, unethical hack. His association with the Disco'tute, an organization of religious extremists, has a well deserved reputation as a collection of buffoons. Their involvement with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was an utter embarrassment as the creationist testimony was little more than appeals to religious fundamentalist doctrine long rejected by the courts.

That's just your opinion. Nothing scientific behind it.

That said, this is the R&E forum, so you can hold to your atheist religious beliefs and opinions.

Its not my opinion. It was the conclusion of the courts which have ruled consistently that ID creationism is not science but fundamentalist Christianity under a burqa of "sciencey" obfuscation.

Did the courts consider why the expansion rate of the universe is so close to omega=1? I think it more likely that they considered, correctly, that creationism by creationists is religious and ruled on the basis of the separation of church and state. But, please, post the reasons for the court rulings - I'm all ears!

Not literally btw - that would be ear-ry or er, eerie!

The courts ruled on the basis of testimony. You can find the transcript online.

The omega=1 slogan doesn't support your hoped-for "fine-tuning" meme. The expansion of the universe, within a plus/minus variance, would not significantly alter the physical universe as we understand it.

Like all of the ID creationist "fine-tuning" slogans, they accept, (but won't admit to), some rather substantial fudge factors to fit their particular religious inclination.

Are you aware that outside of Christianity and Islam, there isn't an organized anti-science agenda?

 

[Hollie]

So, to review the chemical reaction product proportions in Miller's experiment in descending order of occurrence I have posted on so far:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74

Next in proportion from table 3-2 on page 23 is Norvaline - proportion: 61

Like the latter 2 above, Norvaline is NOT found in proteins - so why wasn't it selected?

From Google:

"Norvaline is an amino acid with the formula CH₃(CH₂)₂CHCO₂H. The compound is an isomer of the more common amino acid valine. Like most other α-amino acids, norvaline is chiral. It is a white, water-soluble solid ... Chemical formula‎: ‎C5H11NO2"

============================

Next in proportion is Sarcosine - proportion 55.

Sarcosine is also NOT found in proteins - why didn't it get selected?

From Google search:

"Sarcosine, also known as N-methylglycine, is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

As a side point,, Sarcosine can stimulate prostate cancer cells to go from benign to malignant. It has also been proposed in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia. It effects the brain.

Again, sarcosine is not found in proteins.

======================

The next 4 amino acids in proportion are 34, 33, 30 and 30 again - most are not found in proteins but:

Aspartic acid is in proportion: 34. It IS one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins (we have 3 so far in proportion). From google:

"Aspartic acid (symbol Asp or D; the ionic form is known as aspartate), is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. Similar to all other amino acids, it contains an amino group and a carboxylic acid. ... Formula: C4H7NO4"

==================

Next in proportion: a:y-Diaminobutyric acid (format changed alpha gamma to a:y) - proportion 33.

From:

CID 158725018

CID 158725018 | C8H20N4O4 | CID 158725018 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"2,4-diaminobutyric acid is a diamino acid that is butyric acid in which a hydrogen at position 2 and a hydrogen at position 4 are replaced by amino groups. It is a diamino acid, a gamma-amino acid and a non-proteinogenic alpha-amino acid. It derives from a butyric acid....C4H10N2O2 "

It is fairly complex but is NOT used in proteins.

So, why wasn't it selected? (in its isomers and polarizations)

On the other hand:

Icon of Obfuscation

www.talkorigins.org

Chapter 2: Miller-Urey experiment
Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001).

• Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial.
• 'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya.
• Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards.
• Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001).
• Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999).

Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere?

Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"? The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today.

Now, current geochemical opinion is that the prebiotic atmosphere was not so strongly reducing as the original Miller-Urey atmosphere, but opinion varies widely from moderately reducing to neutral. Completely neutral atmospheres would be bad for Miller-Urey-type experiments, but even a weakly reducing atmosphere will produce lower but significant amounts of amino acids. In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p. 20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a "near-consensus among geochemists" (p. 21).

• This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production.
• Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration?
• Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review).
• Wells asserts that since the 1970's, non-reducing atmospheres have become the "near-consensus." The latest article that Wells cites supporting this view, however, is a 1995 nontechnical news article in Science (Cohen, 1995). Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write,
  

  The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material (e.g., Miller, 1953; Miller, 1992). The first organism would have therefore been a heterotroph deriving energy from this existing pool of nutrients. This theory for the origin of life is not without competitors (for a review of theories for the origins of life see Davis and McKay, 1996), but has received considerable support from laboratory experiments in which it has been demonstrated that biologically relevant organic materials can be easily synthesized from mildly reducing mixtures of gases (e.g., Chang et al., 1983). The discovery of organics in comets (e.g., Kissel and Kruger, 1987), on Titan (e.g., Sagan et al., 1984), elsewhere in the outer solar system (e.g., Encrenaz, 1986), as well as in the interstellar medium (e.g., Irvine and Knacke, 1989) has further strengthened the notion that organic material was abundant prior to the origin of life.

None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and McKay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al. (1998) are about the various competing hypotheses about the origin of life). But textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results. This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) Biology, for instance. In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying. The original Miller-Urey experiment, despite its limitations, is also repeatedly cited in modern scientific literature as a landmark experiment. So why does Wells have a problem with the textbooks following the literature? Wells wants textbooks to follow the experts, and it appears that they are.

The RNA world.Wells writes (p. 22) as if the RNA world is an alternative to failed Miller-Urey-style experimentation. He cites no source for this claim, because the claim is pure obfuscation.

• The RNA world hypothesis is complementary, not opposed, to Miller-style prebiotic syntheses, as it is meant to explain how genetic replication got going without DNA, several steps down the road after prebiotic syntheses.
• Wells gives the impression that there are only two possible starts to life on earth, Urey-Miller style syntheses and the RNA world. Wells misleadingly cites several quotes that taken alone suggest that the RNA world is impossible, and that there is no remaining scientific explanations for life on earth. However, most authorities agree that the RNA world was one stage of the origin of life, rather than the very first stage, and that it was proceeded by a pre-RNA world. Indeed, the very authors he quotes to suggest that the RNA world is impossible go on to explain the concept of a pre-RNA world and how an RNA world would arise from that, but Wells omits all mention of this. Wells doesn't bother to cite recent work on precursors to the RNA world, see for example Cavalier-Smith (2001) for an introduction and references to ideas on this such as the 'NA world' and 'lipid world' (for the latter, see e.g. Segre et al., 2001).

How can I take you seriously when you depend on a looney tunes blogger who has no credentials and doesn't even identify himself?

Now, you're whipping out the talk origins fake science website and instead of explaining what you read in your own words using them as your argument.

I can easily refer to the true origins science website and present an article to refute the talk origin page.

Basically, Urey and Miller assumed what early Earth gases were present in order to create the amino acids. They ended up fixing their experiment in order to produce the amino acids. We find that they used N2, CO2, O2, H2, CH4, NH3, and water vapor along with a sparker for their experiment. Wells points out the majority of scientists believe in not these gases, but the volcanic gases were present on early Earth along with water vapor. Thus, you can't produce the amino acids as you claim by doing the Miller-Urey experiment with the volcanic gases can you?

Let's see you try. Tell me the gases Urey and Miller used to achieve their results?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Just pick the gases and press the sparker. The water vapor is present from the boiling water in the beaker. Hint: You can have any oxygen or have oxygen produced.

I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.

What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?

 

[james bond]

I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.

What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?

You couldn't tell me what gases Urey and Miller used. That tells me that you didn't understand their experiment nor understand what Wells said about volcanic gases and Miller-Urey experiment.

The evidence for God is Miller-Urey could not happen. It was a straw man experiment that was concocted to show amino acids can be made. However, it could not be made with volcanic gases in the early atmosphere. We know amino acids already exist everywhere except in water. It's just that they do not form proteins. Thus, you fail once more.

ETA: I'm going to bow out of this discussion. It has too much science in the R&E forum.

 

[Newtonian]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

I think you are inadvertently revealing you are not a Bible student. You see, Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm. The latter has 2 math equations applying to God's concept of time compared with us earthlings - to wit:

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,+
Just as a watch during the night.

Now the first equation is obvious - 1,000 years in our concept of time is like 24 hours in God's concept of time - see 2 Peter 3:8.

We can be thankful that God used this merciful definition of "day" when pronouncing the death sentence on Adam and Eve. Adam lived 930 years - just short of a 1,000 year day. Jehovah could rightly fully have executed them in the same 24 hour day - He did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.

Surely Eve knew it was possible she would die within 24 hours - no wonder Eve gave credit to Jehovah in Genesis 4:1 for allowing her to have children! We wouldn't be here if mercy had not been shown to them!

But the second equation depends on how long the watch would be during the night. Two obvious examples (there are others):

A. A 4 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 4 hours, so 24 hours would be like 6,000 years.

B. A 3 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 3 hours, so 24 hours would be like 8,000 years.

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) used to believe the creative days were all of the same length and were 7,000 years long each - now we have humbly admitted we do not know either. We let scientists determine that - or, at least, try to.

Two key ways to determine the timing (usually ignored by today's scientists) are:

1. The rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 from earth's primordial waters by the geologic carbon cycle such that over 64 million petagrams of carbon (C in CO2) are in earth's crustal carbonates were deposited over time.

2. The amount of time it takes for significant atmospheric change such that enough Oxygen was present for plants to use in their night-time reaction/transpiritation; and then how long for atmospheric composition of free Oxygen to be produced by plants so that animals could then be created and survive by breathing.

The former likely took billions of years but the latter likely took only thousands of years. The rate of atmospheric change due to human activity leading to global warming shows it would take a long time - but not millions of years for plants to accomplish!

On the lighter side - us animals tend to be more animate than plants - we move faster than plants!

On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.

Unless we are cheaters! Or, er, Cheetahs!

 

[Hollie]

I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.

What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?

You couldn't tell me what gases Urey and Miller used. That tells me that you didn't understand their experiment nor understand what Wells said about volcanic gases and Miller-Urey experiment.

The evidence for God is Miller-Urey could not happen. It was a straw man experiment that was concocted to show amino acids can be made. However, it could not be made with volcanic gases in the early atmosphere. We know amino acids already exist everywhere except in water. It's just that they do not form proteins. Thus, you fail once more.

You can find the data for Miller-Urey. It's available on the web.

I do find it remarkable that your standards of proof for your gods hinges on one science experiment. That's pretty typical though. Absent any positive proof for your gods, you retreat to denigrating science to make you feel better.

 

[Hollie]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

I think you are inadvertently revealing you are not a Bible student. You see, Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm. The latter has 2 math equations applying to God's concept of time compared with us earthlings - to wit:

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,+
Just as a watch during the night.

Now the first equation is obvious - 1,000 years in our concept of time is like 24 hours in God's concept of time - see 2 Peter 3:8.

We can be thankful that God used this merciful definition of "day" when pronouncing the death sentence on Adam and Eve. Adam lived 930 years - just short of a 1,000 year day. Jehovah could rightly fully have executed them in the same 24 hour day - He did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.

Surely Eve knew it was possible she would die within 24 hours - no wonder Eve gave credit to Jehovah in Genesis 4:1 for allowing her to have children! We wouldn't be here if mercy had not been shown to them!

But the second equation depends on how long the watch would be during the night. Two obvious examples (there are others):

A. A 4 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 4 hours, so 24 hours would be like 6,000 years.

B. A 3 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 3 hours, so 24 hours would be like 8,000 years.

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) used to believe the creative days were all of the same length and were 7,000 years long each - now we have humbly admitted we do not know either. We let scientists determine that - or, at least, try to.

Two key ways to determine the timing (usually ignored by today's scientists) are:

1. The rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 from earth's primordial waters by the geologic carbon cycle such that over 64 million petagrams of carbon (C in CO2) are in earth's crustal carbonates were deposited over time.

2. The amount of time it takes for significant atmospheric change such that enough Oxygen was present for plants to use in their night-time reaction/transpiritation; and then how long for atmospheric composition of free Oxygen to be produced by plants so that animals could then be created and survive by breathing.

The former likely took billions of years but the latter likely took only thousands of years. The rate of atmospheric change due to human activity leading to global warming shows it would take a long time - but not millions of years for plants to accomplish!

On the lighter side - us animals tend to be more animate than plants - we move faster than plants!

On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.

Unless we are cheaters! Or, er, Cheetahs!

That's a lot of apologetics in a hoped-for attempt to explain biblical inaccuracies and contradictions. Your claim that Moses wrote a portion of the Bible means what? "Quoting" bible verses in the hope that proves the bible is true is only convincing to those who share your fundamentalist views.

On the other hand, you inadvertently fall victim to a common fallacy of those who selectively edit their "quotes" to reverse engineer their Bibles. Genesis says days. The unknown author of Psalms used a different timeframe. Do you understand that silly "Bible Equations" simply confounds what is in Genesis and serves only to reinforce the evidence that the BIbles are a collection of often disjointed tales and fables written at different times by authors largely unknow.

BTW, nothing about the Bibles supports the Bibles being true.

 

[Newtonian]

So, to review the chemical reaction product proportions in Miller's experiment in descending order of occurrence I have posted on so far:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74

Next in proportion from table 3-2 on page 23 is Norvaline - proportion: 61

Like the latter 2 above, Norvaline is NOT found in proteins - so why wasn't it selected?

From Google:

"Norvaline is an amino acid with the formula CH₃(CH₂)₂CHCO₂H. The compound is an isomer of the more common amino acid valine. Like most other α-amino acids, norvaline is chiral. It is a white, water-soluble solid ... Chemical formula‎: ‎C5H11NO2"

============================

Next in proportion is Sarcosine - proportion 55.

Sarcosine is also NOT found in proteins - why didn't it get selected?

From Google search:

"Sarcosine, also known as N-methylglycine, is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

As a side point,, Sarcosine can stimulate prostate cancer cells to go from benign to malignant. It has also been proposed in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia. It effects the brain.

Again, sarcosine is not found in proteins.

======================

The next 4 amino acids in proportion are 34, 33, 30 and 30 again - most are not found in proteins but:

Aspartic acid is in proportion: 34. It IS one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins (we have 3 so far in proportion). From google:

"Aspartic acid (symbol Asp or D; the ionic form is known as aspartate), is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. Similar to all other amino acids, it contains an amino group and a carboxylic acid. ... Formula: C4H7NO4"

==================

Next in proportion: a:y-Diaminobutyric acid (format changed alpha gamma to a:y) - proportion 33.

From:

CID 158725018

CID 158725018 | C8H20N4O4 | CID 158725018 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"2,4-diaminobutyric acid is a diamino acid that is butyric acid in which a hydrogen at position 2 and a hydrogen at position 4 are replaced by amino groups. It is a diamino acid, a gamma-amino acid and a non-proteinogenic alpha-amino acid. It derives from a butyric acid....C4H10N2O2 "

It is fairly complex but is NOT used in proteins.

So, why wasn't it selected? (in its isomers and polarizations)

On the other hand:

Icon of Obfuscation

www.talkorigins.org

Chapter 2: Miller-Urey experiment
Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001).

• Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial.
• 'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya.
• Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards.
• Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001).
• Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999).

Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere?

Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"? The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today.

Now, current geochemical opinion is that the prebiotic atmosphere was not so strongly reducing as the original Miller-Urey atmosphere, but opinion varies widely from moderately reducing to neutral. Completely neutral atmospheres would be bad for Miller-Urey-type experiments, but even a weakly reducing atmosphere will produce lower but significant amounts of amino acids. In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p. 20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a "near-consensus among geochemists" (p. 21).

• This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production.
• Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration?
• Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review).
• Wells asserts that since the 1970's, non-reducing atmospheres have become the "near-consensus." The latest article that Wells cites supporting this view, however, is a 1995 nontechnical news article in Science (Cohen, 1995). Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write,
  

  The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material (e.g., Miller, 1953; Miller, 1992). The first organism would have therefore been a heterotroph deriving energy from this existing pool of nutrients. This theory for the origin of life is not without competitors (for a review of theories for the origins of life see Davis and McKay, 1996), but has received considerable support from laboratory experiments in which it has been demonstrated that biologically relevant organic materials can be easily synthesized from mildly reducing mixtures of gases (e.g., Chang et al., 1983). The discovery of organics in comets (e.g., Kissel and Kruger, 1987), on Titan (e.g., Sagan et al., 1984), elsewhere in the outer solar system (e.g., Encrenaz, 1986), as well as in the interstellar medium (e.g., Irvine and Knacke, 1989) has further strengthened the notion that organic material was abundant prior to the origin of life.

None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and McKay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al. (1998) are about the various competing hypotheses about the origin of life). But textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results. This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) Biology, for instance. In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying. The original Miller-Urey experiment, despite its limitations, is also repeatedly cited in modern scientific literature as a landmark experiment. So why does Wells have a problem with the textbooks following the literature? Wells wants textbooks to follow the experts, and it appears that they are.

The RNA world.Wells writes (p. 22) as if the RNA world is an alternative to failed Miller-Urey-style experimentation. He cites no source for this claim, because the claim is pure obfuscation.

• The RNA world hypothesis is complementary, not opposed, to Miller-style prebiotic syntheses, as it is meant to explain how genetic replication got going without DNA, several steps down the road after prebiotic syntheses.
• Wells gives the impression that there are only two possible starts to life on earth, Urey-Miller style syntheses and the RNA world. Wells misleadingly cites several quotes that taken alone suggest that the RNA world is impossible, and that there is no remaining scientific explanations for life on earth. However, most authorities agree that the RNA world was one stage of the origin of life, rather than the very first stage, and that it was proceeded by a pre-RNA world. Indeed, the very authors he quotes to suggest that the RNA world is impossible go on to explain the concept of a pre-RNA world and how an RNA world would arise from that, but Wells omits all mention of this. Wells doesn't bother to cite recent work on precursors to the RNA world, see for example Cavalier-Smith (2001) for an introduction and references to ideas on this such as the 'NA world' and 'lipid world' (for the latter, see e.g. Segre et al., 2001).

How can I take you seriously when you depend on a looney tunes blogger who has no credentials and doesn't even identify himself?

Now, you're whipping out the talk origins fake science website and instead of explaining what you read in your own words using them as your argument.

I can easily refer to the true origins science website and present an article to refute the talk origin page.

Basically, Urey and Miller assumed what early Earth gases were present in order to create the amino acids. They ended up fixing their experiment in order to produce the amino acids. We find that they used N2, CO2, O2, H2, CH4, NH3, and water vapor along with a sparker for their experiment. Wells points out the majority of scientists believe in not these gases, but the volcanic gases were present on early Earth along with water vapor. Thus, you can't produce the amino acids as you claim by doing the Miller-Urey experiment with the volcanic gases can you?

Let's see you try. Tell me the gases Urey and Miller used to achieve their results?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Just pick the gases and press the sparker. The water vapor is present from the boiling water in the beaker. Hint: You can have any oxygen or have oxygen produced.

I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.

What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?

In my research thus far on Miller's experiments I am not going as far as Thaxton et al went in the linked book - you will have to read that book to answer that question. See:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

I am, however, going further than simply selecting the correct chirality/polarization of 20 amino acids (in proteins exclusively L amino acids =left handed polarization) or the correct isomers (as in the example of one amino acid that has 8 isomers, non of which are used in proteins), I am detailing the actual amino acid proportions of Miller's own reported chemical reaction product proportions shown in table 3-2 on page 23. And mentioning that formic acid was the primary product - the chart only lists the amino acids produced not other organic compounds.

To review so far - in order of proportion:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74
Norvaline - ‎C5H11NO2 - proportion: 61
Sarcosine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 55
Aspartic acid - C4H7NO4 - proportion: 34
2,4 [alpha/gamma]-diaminobutyric acid- C4H10N2O2 - proportion: 33

The next two have a proportion of 30 for both - see the chart - but neither of these are used in proteins. I hope to get to them later. But in the above 8 amino acids produced by Miller, only 3 are in proteins! Counting the next two, that would be 3 out of 10.

How did this selection for proteins occur? And what about the other 17 amino acids in proteins? Which of these were produced by Miller and in what proportion?

See table 3-2 for the answer. Note that all of the other amino acids produced by Miller have a proportion of less than 20!

 

[alang1216]

Jehovah [...] did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.

On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.

Not possible if God is omniscient, he already knew what he'd do. Or did he? Is this akin to asking if God could make a rock that even God could not lift? An important question in line with, can God laugh? Probably not since he's heard every joke already.

As to speed, man is, I believe, the fastest animal. He can run down any other animal in a marathon and its likely how he first became a hunter.

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?

I didn't know that and I'm not sure what it means.

It means that very nature of existence is to create intelligence. It is unavoidable. It is not an accident.

That's ridiculous. The nature of existence is to continue to exist. That's it. If more intelligence facilitates that, then more intelligence will probably develop. But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.

Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?

But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.

.
that is a curious statement to make a point well worth noting as the functionality of the living being is monitored by its physiology and you have concluded it is not the "brain" CNS but some other source - correct,

most definitely the spiritual content is required and by your statement is fully responsible and explains as has been pointed out previously Flora without a CNS is the obvious example for all beings the metaphysical spiritual content is responsible for life's progression.

may you be blessed.

 

[Newtonian]

I agree that you don't understand what Miller-Urey intended to achieve.

What part of Miller-Urey proves your Gods?

You couldn't tell me what gases Urey and Miller used. That tells me that you didn't understand their experiment nor understand what Wells said about volcanic gases and Miller-Urey experiment.

The evidence for God is Miller-Urey could not happen. It was a straw man experiment that was concocted to show amino acids can be made. However, it could not be made with volcanic gases in the early atmosphere. We know amino acids already exist everywhere except in water. It's just that they do not form proteins. Thus, you fail once more.

You can find the data for Miller-Urey. It's available on the web.

I do find it remarkable that your standards of proof for your gods hinges on one science experiment. That's pretty typical though. Absent any positive proof for your gods, you retreat to denigrating science to make you feel better.

I love science, I only note some scientists ignore the facts that are reported in accurate observations like those of Miller-Urey.

Hinging on one science experiment? - that's just me for a couple or few days. My mom always said I had a one track mind. In this case the chemical reaction product proportions produced in Miller's experiment.

Our literature barely mentions this - and when it does, it is abridged/abbreviated - it would fit in one post easily - obviously the data I am researching cannot fit in one post - though an outline of the chemical product proportions of all the amino acids produced by Miller (one line for each) might fit in one post. We'll see if I get to finish my research on this.

If you want a good summary of some of the branches of science and scientific evidence we publish on the origin of life - see our two brochures on this, to wit:

Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

One more thing - the book I linked to details a number of different synthesis experiments (not just Millers) - which you would have realized if you read the context of the excerpts I posted.

 

[Newtonian]

Jehovah [...] did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.

On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.

Not possible if God is omniscient, he already knew what he'd do. Or did he? Is this akin to asking if God could make a rock that even God could not lift? An important question in line with, can God laugh? Probably not since he's heard every joke already.

As to speed, man is, I believe, the fastest animal. He can run down any other animal in a marathon and its likely how he first became a hunter.

We don't believe God is omniscient - that is on another thread, but we believe God CAN know anything but that because God is love he chooses not to determine anyone's future - he gives us free will to love whom we choose to love and how much to love - see Matthew 22:37-40 for the two greatest commandments according to Jesus - both of which involve love and both of which involve free will.

As to a sense of humor in the Bible - note the accurate math equation for how long until Armageddon comes in 1 Corinthians 7:29. I think the latter part of that verse confirms Paul's sense of humor!

Bottom line - if Paul was married his wife might not have appreciated Paul's sense of humor!

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?

I didn't know that and I'm not sure what it means.

It means that very nature of existence is to create intelligence. It is unavoidable. It is not an accident.

That's ridiculous. The nature of existence is to continue to exist. That's it. If more intelligence facilitates that, then more intelligence will probably develop. But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.

Apparently you haven’t studied the evolution of space and time.

the nature of existence is to evolve. It started with cosmic evolution then stellar evolution then chemical evolution then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.

So the pinnacle of existence is literally intelligence. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has produced and is literally the culmination of everything before it. It’s really no different than building a house.

I can’t wait to see what the next evolutionary leap will bring.

... then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.

.
physiology and its spiritual content are inseparably linked - no being from any time has been without consciousness - except maybe for bing.

the next progression as monumental as our becoming sapien could well be the spiritual content evolving without the need for a physiological presence.

 

[alang1216]

As to a sense of humor in the Bible - note the accurate math equation for how long until Armageddon comes in 1 Corinthians 7:29. I think the latter part of that verse confirms Paul's sense of humor!

Bottom line - if Paul was married his wife might not have appreciated Paul's sense of humor!

Unless of course Paul was dead serious. He was. He was an apocalypticist who believed the end times were imminent. Just like Jesus did. It was actually a very popular belief in their day.

 

[Newtonian]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

True. But it is a known fact (usually ignored) that sunlight (UV radiation specifically) causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O) into free Hydrogen and free Oxygen - and it is agreed early earth had plenty of water - otherwise the geologic carbon cycle could not have produced the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust, containing over 64 million petagrams of carbon (oxidized).

So, if sunlight and water were present, then free Oxygen had to also be present. But as you posted, it may have been a low percentage of earth's atmosphere - perhaps as low as CO2 is today! However, even a low percentage of Oxygen would react - as you note it is reactive - but it is not intelligent enough to just oxidize minerals but not oxidize organic compounds!ygen

[Note: from the creation account (assuming creative days were c. 7,000 years long each as we used to believe) there was likely not even enough Oxygen for plants to have their night-time reaction, where they take in Oxygen, until the 3rd creative day. And still longer for plants to produce, by photosynthesis to produce enough Oxygen for animals to be created and survive in later creative days. Photosynthesis produces way more Oxygen then photolysis of water.]

These oxidized minerals go quite deep into earth's crust before elements like Iron are non-oxidized (very deep) - apparently Oxygen was oxidizing elements for a very long time!

The reaction producing free Oxygen starts by producing super-reactive atomic Oxygen (O) and then the Oxygen molecule (O2) - to wit:

H2O + UV radiation yields H2 + O - but this quickly becomes:

2H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2.

Oh, and this still is a continuous source of free Oxygen - the exact proportion is disputed. I think it is likely less than 1% - but some have proposed higher amounts from photolysis of water by UV radiation. I think the extremely low percentage of CO2 on earth today may have been similar to the percentage of O2 on early earth when life was created.

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

I think you are inadvertently revealing you are not a Bible student. You see, Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm. The latter has 2 math equations applying to God's concept of time compared with us earthlings - to wit:

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,+
Just as a watch during the night.

Now the first equation is obvious - 1,000 years in our concept of time is like 24 hours in God's concept of time - see 2 Peter 3:8.

We can be thankful that God used this merciful definition of "day" when pronouncing the death sentence on Adam and Eve. Adam lived 930 years - just short of a 1,000 year day. Jehovah could rightly fully have executed them in the same 24 hour day - He did not say which definition of day he would use (he likely had not decided this yet) in his warning that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die.

Surely Eve knew it was possible she would die within 24 hours - no wonder Eve gave credit to Jehovah in Genesis 4:1 for allowing her to have children! We wouldn't be here if mercy had not been shown to them!

But the second equation depends on how long the watch would be during the night. Two obvious examples (there are others):

A. A 4 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 4 hours, so 24 hours would be like 6,000 years.

B. A 3 hour watch. In that case, 1,000 years is like 3 hours, so 24 hours would be like 8,000 years.

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) used to believe the creative days were all of the same length and were 7,000 years long each - now we have humbly admitted we do not know either. We let scientists determine that - or, at least, try to.

Two key ways to determine the timing (usually ignored by today's scientists) are:

1. The rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 from earth's primordial waters by the geologic carbon cycle such that over 64 million petagrams of carbon (C in CO2) are in earth's crustal carbonates were deposited over time.

2. The amount of time it takes for significant atmospheric change such that enough Oxygen was present for plants to use in their night-time reaction/transpiritation; and then how long for atmospheric composition of free Oxygen to be produced by plants so that animals could then be created and survive by breathing.

The former likely took billions of years but the latter likely took only thousands of years. The rate of atmospheric change due to human activity leading to global warming shows it would take a long time - but not millions of years for plants to accomplish!

On the lighter side - us animals tend to be more animate than plants - we move faster than plants!

On the other hand, while we are faster than most other animals (like sloths), we don't go that fast.

Unless we are cheaters! Or, er, Cheetahs!

That's a lot of apologetics in a hoped-for attempt to explain biblical inaccuracies and contradictions. Your claim that Moses wrote a portion of the Bible means what? "Quoting" bible verses in the hope that proves the bible is true is only convincing to those who share your fundamentalist views.

On the other hand, you inadvertently fall victim to a common fallacy of those who selectively edit their "quotes" to reverse engineer their Bibles. Genesis says days. The unknown author of Psalms used a different timeframe. Do you understand that silly "Bible Equations" simply confounds what is in Genesis and serves only to reinforce the evidence that the BIbles are a collection of often disjointed tales and fables written at different times by authors largely unknow.

BTW, nothing about the Bibles supports the Bibles being true.

The Bible interprets itself. Psalms 90:4 simply gives two math equations which you choose to ignore - that is up to you. Creationists ignore Psalms 90:4 in their interpretation of the days in the Genesis creation account - we don't and we are not creationists. We also do not ignore the scientific evidence involved - whether reported on by creationists or evolutionists or ignored by both.

Do either evolutionists or creationists consider the details of the geologic carbon cycle as it relates to the atmosphere at the origin of life or the time scales involved in the rate the geologic carbon cycle proceeds?

Is there some reason you think superior extraterrestrial life in another heaven/universe would experience the same property of time flow as in our universe? Some scientists believe there are other universes which have different properties than ours. To my knowledge there is no scientific proof one way or the other on this - but Psalms 90:4 certainly gives a hint about time.

There are zero contradictions in the Bible - feel free to start a thread on that - I won't derail this thread with that tangent. I should just mention that interpretations of the Bible do contradict - and so do interpretations of scientists. So how do you determine the truth?

For me, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says it all: "Prove all things" - KJV.

Btw - that applies to Covid as well. How do you prove you cannot spread that virus if you aren't tested for it? How can you prove you did not contract it after being tested? How do you prove the test was accurate?

For me. better safe than sorry:

Proverbs 22:3
The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself,
But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences.*

Why do you think I am spending so much time on the internet?

You can't catch viruses on the internet!

 

[luchitociencia]

One evidence of God's existence is the Bible itself - its accuracy.

The origin of life required all the necessary molecules to be in the same place at the same time - this is impossible by chance.

You have not obtained life yet, so you can't confirm anyone of the words you just said right above.