21 Jan 14
4 edits
The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.
I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.
Also, I think there should be an attempt to somehow simulate repeated drying and wetter of tidal pools that existed on early earth because, according to the best theory I know of, such repeated drying and wetting promoted the right chemistry for the start of life. Although I would imagine that might be a rather awkward experimental setup, I think it would be worth it.
I also think there must be some continuous turbulence in the reaction chamber to simulate the subtle effects of the combination of both wind and waves -perhaps by putting a tiny fan into the reaction chamber pointed downwards to constantly make tiny ripples on the liquid surface below it. Or maybe by constantly blowing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyThis is completely moronic and I ought to know.
The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.
I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.
Also, ...[text shortened]... owing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyThe only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.
The video in that link even give advice on how to clean the lab equipment after the experiment.
I think that a much more sophisticated variation of the experiment should be tried out where some ground up granite rock and also a bit of clay is put into the reaction chamber because that would better simulate all that what was present on early Earth.
Also, ...[text shortened]... owing bobbles in the liquid a bit like oxygenaers do in fish tanks but minus the oxygen content.
I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseNEWS FLASH: Future results coming in a million years.
The only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.
I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI see you have faith in them.
The only problem with that scenario is time. A real experiment would have to speed up the reaction a million to one and I don't see how all of that could be accomplished in a lab setting.
I think this experiment was just the opening round for those folks anyway. They will probably do the advanced work you suggested.
23 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYou do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.
I see you have faith in them.
It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced that can pick up some metals.
You simply insist on calling such things faith because you want everyone to identify that word as if it had religious significance, that somehow, my religion is science.
Sorry, I don't play that game.
Religion=unchanging dogma. "I am a jealous god'' will remain just that in the future as it was in the past. That is religious dogma.
Science has the ability to change upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.
Religion will NEVER have that capability.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseTruth does not need to change like science so-called.
You do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.
It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced tha ...[text shortened]... upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.
Religion will NEVER have that capability.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsScience "so-called''. Your anti-science stance is pretty clear here. That statement refutes all the times you say you are not against science, only that which refutes your precious bible.
Truth does not need to change like science so-called.
Clearly not true, you are interested in those sciences that helps you and your family survive but that is about it.
The rest you could care less. You are a Luddite.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThe point is the creation of amino acids.
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-21st-century-miller-urey-life.html
To all you creationists out there, this is the separate science of life origins, it is NOT part of evolution.
This is a totally different scientific discipline.
Nothing about origin of life or anything. Everybody in science knows perfectly well, that a soup of amino acids being left alone is nothing than nourishing soup.
The point is not to prove that live has begun in a round bottle flask, but to disprove the thesis that amino acids can only be made by organisms, as some still claimed in the 20th century. To make a working cell from a soup of amino acids would be a completely different endeavor and probably even the (reproducible) making of an oligoamnioacid by use of some structural catalyst (take granite or clay) could win a Nobel.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseNo relation to the Luddites.
Science "so-called''. Your anti-science stance is pretty clear here. That statement refutes all the times you say you are not against science, only that which refutes your precious bible.
Clearly not true, you are interested in those sciences that helps you and your family survive but that is about it.
The rest you could care less. You are a Luddite.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseFaith is believing in something that you can't see. You believe that they will come up with something even though they have not done it. You believe in something that can't be seen. You have faith.
You do love to bandy about that word 'faith'. That was not faith. That was a projection of expected returns on a scientific experiment. You expect A and get B, that is science.
It's just like I get insulated wire, an iron nail, wrap the nail with the wire and hook each end to a battery, I think it safe to expect there to be a magnetic field produced tha ...[text shortened]... upon discovery of newer evidence refuting the old.
Religion will NEVER have that capability.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by EladarI have expectations of available futures. I will not call that faith. You insist on the word faith because in your mind it equates science and religion, you think them to be one and the same so every scientist is working from faith.
Faith is believing in something that you can't see. You believe that they will come up with something even though they have not done it. You believe in something that can't be seen. You have faith.
NOT TRUE.
A true scientist has ZERO faith in his experiments.
He has maybe some expectations of what he thinks will happen but time and time again the experiments come out 100% opposite to what he originally thought.
There is NOTHING faithlike in that kind of endeavor.
You only use that term to cast credibility to your YEC views as if we are supposed to think a 6000 year old Earth idea comes from some kind of science.
THAT is faith.
You KNOW what you expect.
Your faith keeps you pointed in the same direction at all times.
Science on the other hand, goes down roads it never knew existed.
For instance, you of course know of the invention of Teflon, a complete accident from an experiment gone 'wrong'. There was no faith the dude was going to come up with something new, he had no idea there could EVER have been such a thing as teflon, till his experiment blew up.
23 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by PonderableI think you misunderstand just a bit. People that have studied modern abiogenesis theories like I have would generally think that life cannot spontaneously appear from amino acids and this is not the way it could have happen. The currently thinking is that RNA-like molecules spontaneously formed that functioned simultaneously as both genetic and enzymatic molecules and were engulfed by oily 'microspheres', that would have also spontaneously formed, to form protocells which later evolved into what we would more easily recognize as living cells today (there is already some amazing experimental evidence of how these microspheres would have formed on the Early Earth ) . Those first protocells probably had no amino acids (or at least didn't need them ) and certainly had no complex proteins or any of the complexity of modern living cells. Only evolution could have made all that complexity that gradually came later.
The point is the creation of amino acids.
Nothing about origin of life or anything. Everybody in science knows perfectly well, that a soup of amino acids being left alone is nothing than nourishing soup.
The point is not to prove that live has begun in a round bottle flask, but to disprove the thesis that amino acids can only be made by organisms, a ...[text shortened]... f an oligoamnioacid by use of some structural catalyst (take granite or clay) could win a Nobel.