Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:I don't lack the relevant experience, nor am I obfuscating anything. I'm actually doing the opposite of that; illustrating. You believe that I'm obfuscating because you believe that the principle of non-contradiction applies to physical objects, it doesn't. Any given thing can be more than one thing to the human species, as it is composed of individuals.

The right of it, dogma has.

THe absolute funniest thing about this video is when the guy opens the jar. Look closely, the foil top is already peeled back like they had to check and make sure first.....

Reading criticisms of evolution is generally like reading defenses of Star Trek physics. A mixture of fury, and pity.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You said "Therefore as long as atmospheric conditions are appropriate, life and just literally pop up from nowhere."

No I didn't. MDG did. Pay attention.

Ah yes you got me there, but you agree with him, no?

generalgrog wrote:
That is a huge assumption, and once again YOU have demonstrated your ignoarnce of what an assumption is. Someone doing something in a lab, doesn't = apropriate atmospheric conditions. It does however = appropriate lab conditions, which I might add have been "helped" along by Life.(I.E.scientists)

dogma wrote:
It does if the lab replicates the atmospheric conditions.

Moreover, if all the proper chemicals are present, then the word 'can' denotes nothing more than basic possibility. Basically, that an event might occur given additional, or no additional stimuli.

1: How would you reconcile the fact that miller specifically engineered his experiment to create the few amino acids, with a naturalistic view that says the original process of abiogeneis was purely random and unguided?

2: Isn't it true that the atmosphere was engineered to produce the desired outcome they wanted? I.E. How do we know that this lab created atmosphere in a jar, was the same atmosphere that was around when the theorized abiogenesis events happened?

3: Don't we end up in a circular reasoning, when we try to say that the early atmosphere must have been this way because we know abiogenesis happned, and abiogenesis can only happen in this specific atmosphere?

4:Oxygen, either O2 or O3 degrades amino acids, and the evidence of oxygen in rocks confirm the existance of oxygen, which predates the theorized timeline of the abiogenesis event. Any amino acid created would have been destroyed instantly by the oxygen present.

5: Even if the atmosphere was without oxygen the lack of an ozone layer would have resulted in infrared bombardment of the amino acids. So darned if you do.. darned if you don't.

6:The experiment produced a lot more sludge than amino acids, where is this sludge? Why do we not see this in the geologic column?

Lastly: The amino acids that were produced by the miller experiment were completely usless as building blocks for life as we know it.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Ah yes you got me there, but you agree with him, no?

No, not in specific. His wording differs significantly from that which I would choose.

generalgrog wrote:
1: How would you reconcile the fact that miller specifically engineered his experiment to create the few amino acids, with a naturalistic view that says the original process of abiogeneis was purely random and unguided?

Specificity of engineering is a necessary consequence of humanity involving specificity in all its dealings. If he engineered his experiment to be exactly like the probable circumstances of Earth in a life generating phase, then he would still have engineered his experiment, but the engineering would be of no importance.

In any case, the fact that amino acids were created is sufficient to consider the experiment a success. Anything that can be designed can also occur randomly. That is a natural consequence of our existence in a chance determined world. Indeed, there is no elementary reason to presume that our own actions are distinct from chance in any way that isn't subjective. Though that doesn't mean that there aren't non-elementary reasons to do so.

generalgrog wrote:
2: Isn't it true that the atmosphere was engineered to produce the desired outcome they wanted? I.E. How do we know that this lab created atmosphere in a jar, was the same atmosphere that was around when the theorized abiogenesis events happened?

Yes, it was engineered, all human activity is engineered.

We know they were identical, or at least comparable, as the result of ice and earth core samples. Of course we don't really need to know, we just need to know that amino acids can be generated by material force.

generalgrog wrote:
3: Don't we end up in a circular reasoning, when we try to say that the early atmosphere must have been this way because we know abiogenesis happned, and abiogenesis can only happen in this specific atmosphere?

Yes, but circular reasoning is legitimate in cases where the successive property is established by observation.

However, we don't determine the atmospheric conditions by the presence of abiogenesis, as above.

generalgrog wrote:
4:Oxygen, either O2 or O3 degrades amino acids, and the evidence of oxygen in rocks confirm the existance of oxygen, which predates the theorized timeline of the abiogenesis event. Any amino acid created would have been destroyed instantly by the oxygen present.

Oxygen does not degrade all amino acids, OH causes the degradation of proteins, but not amino acids. Catabolism does occur in the amino acid processing of the organic bodies, but it does not directly come of the presence of Oxygen.

generalgrog wrote:
5: Even if the atmosphere was without oxygen the lack of an ozone layer would have resulted in infrared bombardment of the amino acids. So darned if you do.. darned if you don't.

You mean to reference Ultraviolet light, infrared light isn't harmful. Ultraviolet radiation is not, however, universally harmful. It is also the thing which causes the formation of O3. If there was Oxygen in the atmosphere, which is not the same thing as having an atmosphere which is oxygen rich (you really need to pay attention to your qualifiers), then there was ozone in the atmosphere.

generalgrog wrote:
6:The experiment produced a lot more sludge than amino acids, where is this sludge? Why do we not see this in the geologic column?

Much of the sludge consisted of the 17 additional amino acids that were identified in 2008. The rest is accounted for in the distribution of geological cores that contain non-biological material; not all carbon containing compounds are organic. You seem willing to reference those when they help, but not when they hinder, poor form. Very poor form.

generalgrog wrote:
Lastly: The amino acids that were produced by the miller experiment were completely usless as building blocks for life as we know it.

That's flatly false as the experiment produced glycine. As are most of your statements here. I suspect that you are either falsifying the data out of intent, or that you lack sufficient detachment to make a well qualified judgment.

generalgrog wrote:
1: How would you reconcile the fact that miller specifically engineered his experiment to create the few amino acids, with a naturalistic view that says the original process of abiogeneis was purely random and unguided?

dogma wrote:
Specificity of engineering is a necessary consequence of humanity involving specificity in all its dealings. If he engineered his experiment to be exactly like the probable circumstances of Earth in a life generating phase, then he would still have engineered his experiment, but the engineering would be of no importance.

The engineering is extremely important becuase he had to "fiddle" with the experiment to achieve the outcome. You use the term "probable circumstances" Why is it probable? It only has to be probable if you want millers experiment to mean anything. If it wasn't probable, then the experiment was nothing more than a guy creating something in a jar with a chemistry set.

dogma wrote:
In any case, the fact that amino acids were created is sufficient to consider the experiment a success. Anything that can be designed can also occur randomly. That is a natural consequence of our existence in a chance determined world. Indeed, there is no elementary reason to presume that our own actions are distinct from chance in any way that isn't subjective. Though that doesn't mean that there aren't non-elementary reasons to do so.

I would agree that the experiment was a success in so far as amino acids were created, however I disagree that the creation of amino acids really means anything beyond that. I can create a batch of oatmeal cookies and that would be a success as well, but it doesn't mean anything in and of it's own.

generalgrog wrote:
2: Isn't it true that the atmosphere was engineered to produce the desired outcome they wanted? I.E. How do we know that this lab created atmosphere in a jar, was the same atmosphere that was around when the theorized abiogenesis events happened?

dogma wrote:
We know they were identical, or at least comparable, as the result of ice and earth core samples. Of course we don't really need to know, we just need to know that amino acids can be generated by material force..

Why? What does this prove?

generalgrog wrote:
3: Don't we end up in a circular reasoning, when we try to say that the early atmosphere must have been this way because we know abiogenesis happned, and abiogenesis can only happen in this specific atmosphere?

dogma wrote:
Yes, but circular reasoning is legitimate in cases where the successive property is established by observation.

But by definition I don't think that's circular reasoning.

dogma wrote:
However, we don't determine the atmospheric conditions by the presence of abiogenesis, as above.

Except that's exactly what they did. They steered the experiment towards the result, and said this is what the the atmosphere MUST have been like, because lo and behold we created amino acids in our lab with this atmosphere.

generalgrog wrote:
4:Oxygen, either O2 or O3 degrades amino acids, and the evidence of oxygen in rocks confirm the existance of oxygen, which predates the theorized timeline of the abiogenesis event. Any amino acid created would have been destroyed instantly by the oxygen present.

dogma wrote:
Oxygen does not degrade all amino acids, OH causes the degradation of proteins, but not amino acids. Catabolism does occur in the amino acid processing of the organic bodies, but it does not directly come of the presence of Oxygen.

Well... in millers experimental atmosphere he couldn't create any amino acids when oxygen was present. So if this was the "probable atmosphere" than there should be no oxygen present, aven though the rocks show evidence of oxidation.

generalgrog wrote:
5: Even if the atmosphere was without oxygen the lack of an ozone layer would have resulted in infrared bombardment of the amino acids. So darned if you do.. darned if you don't.

dogma wrote:
You mean to reference Ultraviolet light, infrared light isn't harmful. Ultraviolet radiation is not, however, universally harmful. It is also the thing which causes the formation of O3. If there was Oxygen in the atmosphere, which is not the same thing as having an atmosphere which is oxygen rich (you really need to pay attention to your qualifiers), then there was ozone in the atmosphere..

Yes I meant UV.. sorry about that.

So was there oxygen in the early atmosphere or not? If there was, than millers "probable atmosphere" breaks down.

generalgrog wrote:
6:The experiment produced a lot more sludge than amino acids, where is this sludge? Why do we not see this in the geologic column?

dogma wrote:
Much of the sludge consisted of the 17 additional amino acids that were identified in 2008. The rest is accounted for in the distribution of geological cores that contain non-biological material; not all carbon containing compounds are organic...

Do you have a reference for this?

dogma wrote:
You seem willing to reference those when they help, but not when they hinder, poor form. Very poor form....

What are you refering to?

generalgrog wrote:
Lastly: The amino acids that were produced by the miller experiment were completely usless as building blocks for life as we know it.

dogma wrote:
That's flatly false as the experiment produced glycine. As are most of your statements here. I suspect that you are either falsifying the data out of intent, or that you lack sufficient detachment to make a well qualified judgment.

Flatly false?

You mean that the laeverotory and the dextrarotary stereochemicals that were formed as a racemic mix and/or enantiomers are usefull as life chemicals? a protein which utilizes a single dextrarotary amino acid into it's chain is completely useless for life.

But I suspect you allready know this?

GG

generalgrog wrote:
The engineering is extremely important becuase he had to "fiddle" with the experiment to achieve the outcome.

He 'fiddled' with the experiment simply by devising it.

generalgrog wrote:
You use the term "probable circumstances" Why is it probable? It only has to be probable if you want millers experiment to mean anything. If it wasn't probable, then the experiment was nothing more than a guy creating something in a jar with a chemistry set.

Its probable simply because it can occur, in a minimal sense. Probable does not mean likely. Pay attention.

generalgrog wrote:
I would agree that the experiment was a success in so far as amino acids were created, however I disagree that the creation of amino acids really means anything beyond that. I can create a batch of oatmeal cookies and that would be a success as well, but it doesn't mean anything in and of it's own.

It means that oatmeal cookies can be created from things which are not oatmeal cookies. Just as the creation amino acids indicates that amino acids can be created from that which is not an amino acid. Minimalism is your friend here.

generalgrog wrote:
Why? What does this prove?

That material confluence can generate organic compounds. That which can be achieved via design can also be achieved through random action.

generalgrog wrote:
But by definition I don't think that's circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is reasoning which includes a premise in the conclusion. I'm primarily a logician by training, this is not the thing to debate with me.

generalgrog wrote:
Except that's exactly what they did. They steered the experiment towards the result, and said this is what the the atmosphere MUST have been like, because lo and behold we created amino acids in our lab with this atmosphere.

Miller did, yes. But Miller's results are not the only results in the field. Pay attention.

generalgrog wrote:
Well... in millers experimental atmosphere he couldn't create any amino acids when oxygen was present. So if this was the "probable atmosphere" than there should be no oxygen present, aven though the rocks show evidence of oxidation.

Miller's 'atmosphere' had oxygen present. Pay attention.

generalgrog wrote:
So was there oxygen in the early atmosphere or not? If there was, than millers "probable atmosphere" breaks down.

Yes, there was, there was also oxygen in Miller's experiment. You're operating under factually incorrect premises.

generalgrog wrote:
Do you have a reference for this?

Sort of, unless you have JSTOR.

generalgrog wrote:
What are you refering to?

This.

generalgrog wrote:
3: Don't we end up in a circular reasoning, when we try to say that the early atmosphere must have been this way because we know abiogenesis happned, and abiogenesis can only happen in this specific atmosphere?

generalgrog wrote:
Flatly false?

You mean that the laeverotory and the dextrarotary stereochemicals that were formed as a racemic mix and/or enantiomers are usefull as life chemicals? a protein which utilizes a single dextrarotary amino acid into it's chain is completely useless for life.

But I suspect you allready know this?

Glycine is a useful amino acid. If the reaction produced glycine, then it produced a useful amino acid. You're wrong in a glaring way.

It also bears mentioning that a racemic mix does not preclude the formation of wholly levorotary proteins. All that must be proven for the experiment to be positive is possibility, certainty is extraneous.

You're also freely flipping between proteins, and amino acids. Terrible form.

Dextrorotary crystals are key to body builders, as they accelerate muscle growth.

Creationism is proved by the existence of chunky peanut butter. Only a crabby Old Testament God would allow it, to better punish the unbelievers with tons of it.

M.

generalgrog wrote:The engineering is extremely important becuase he had to "fiddle" with the experiment to achieve the outcome. You use the term "probable circumstances" Why is it probable? It only has to be probable if you want millers experiment to mean anything. If it wasn't probable, then the experiment was nothing more than a guy creating something in a jar with a chemistry set.

The experiment needs to be contrived at some level. The alternative is to travel back in time a few billlion years then observe the entirety of the Earth for the possible formation of amino acids. Science isn't that well funded.

Instead, we settle on framing experiments properly. Miller's experiment established that given certain conditions amino acids can form. It is then left up to the reader to decide if it is probable that such conditions might have occurred once or more over a billion odd years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miguelsan wrote:Creationism is proved by the existence of chunky peanut butter. Only a crabby Old Testament God would allow it, to better punish the unbelievers with tons of it.

M.

Vegemite is proof there is a God, and that He hates Australians.

dogma wrote:That which can be achieved via design can also be achieved through random action.

This.

Remember that the earth was/is not a uniform sphere with a nice, consistent easily modeled atmosphere surrounding it. Millers experiments showed that it was possible for Amino acids to form under certain conditions; even if you think he 'fiddled' his experiments that does not make the results invalid. It is certainly possible that the Earth's atmosphere had a small region of stability where Miller's conditions could have been replicated, in fact this may have had to happen many, many times before anything 'stuck'. That's if it even did happen of course! First rule of Science: Question everything. Especially the bits you think are certain

The 'Peanut Butter' of the threads titular video is about as badly conceived an argument against evolution as comparing the Miller experiments to baking cookies.

Edit: Gah. Semi-ninja'd by Sebster

I bet if someone did a statistical analysis, they would find that if a posters post count was under 100 they would be more likely to post something in OT about creationism or religion as being "moronic" or some other such insult. Never mind we have allready discussed the peanut butter nutter, and the bannana shenagin.

I couldn't care less about my post counts. I post in the OT because there is only so much to do on the forum in one sitting, plus I enjoy a good Evolution argument. Who is claiming creationism, or religion to be moronic? Though creationism is quite amusing.

Careful IM; The Evolution/Creationism thing has been done here quite a few times before, and always ends up being locked after about 10 pages of near-flaming.

There is no need for the post-count thing to be brought up though; no thread should be judged as some kind of e-penis-waving contest.

I've been reading this website today, and it's made my brain hurt.

Whilst I go for a lie down and perhaps a nice cup of tea, can someone better versed have a look over it's data. Some of it makes sense, but without understanding it all, I cannot say for certain whether it is correct.

Also, the first time I encountered the 'vapour canopy' theory. They really do clutch at straws, don't they?

Whilst the thread thusly far has been surprisingly polite.. we've doen this debate to death 12,345.45 times before.

In closing.. we all continue to worry about Mr. Frazzled.