Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


Have you only now realized that there was a tap/reservoir and that Miller-Urey cheated with the primary apparatus? If so it seems “your sources have lied to you.” Please stop repeating the lie that
Miller-Urey succeeded - it failed in its design…

In a planet sized environment any such experiment would be diluted and any such diluted amino acids produced (as you know) would be unstable in the salt water. It would fail just as Miller-Urey did.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


This is science. If you do not like the way the experiment was run (and re-run many times by many other people with many variants) then do the same experiment yourself, correcting all the errors that Miller and Urey made.

Write up your results and publish them.



No @rossum. It seems you cannot accept the tap/reservoir bias of the experiment. It was a failure in 1953 because of that tap/reservoir bias and is bad science. As a Buddhist you should accept this truth
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Uh? Have you seen schematics of the apparatus he used? It’s a closed loop. The reservoir that contained the amino acids is part of that loop.


One of us has not seen the schematic of the tap/trap. When the tap was opened the amino acids were then removed and islolated from the ongoing electrical spark. The trap (or reservoir) was not in the loop, but was an excluded sac isolated by a tap. Did you really not know that?
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Thunderstorms are local; they start and stop. They are not continuous, so parts of the ocean are isolated from lightning. Did you really not know that?



There seems to be a lot you don’t know @rossum, but since you’ve said “you made yourself” that is unsurprising.

Miller’s yield of amino acids (among the gloop of carcinogens) was tiny: 1.05% glycine and 0.75% alanine, with 9 traces and 9 missing altogether. And you think that by dumping these two amino acids in a hot ocean they would get together with 18 others, and not dilute and not break-down. LOL
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Thank you for that. We both agree that the M-U experiment succeeded in showing that amino acids could form under certain conditions likely to have been present on the early earth.

That was its purpose, and it succeeded in that purpose.

I have yet to see any creationist experiment showing any deity forming any amino acids by direct divine power.



No @rossum. Despite being set up biased with a receiver out of the closed loop, and being run for a week non-stop, the experiment failed to half the required amino acid types at all. Many others have since tried to refine it by using lab purchased amino acids and all have failed to make a cellular protein.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Maybe you ought to borrow someone’s PC or a laptop or similar instead of using a Blackberry (are those things still about?). Then you can post a piccie of the experiment showing what no-one else has noticed. Or maybe everyone has noticed what you keep on about and hasn’t bothered commenting that a closed system might have a spigot and tap in order to sample the output at various times.

In the meantime, here’s a picture of Stanley Miller with the components used. If you can’t see it on your Blackberry then I guess I could fax it to you.


Miller-Urey is taught to school-kids and college students without 4 key bits of data

  1. When amino acids in solution are sparked they break-down and so a reservoir was included in Miller’s 1953 apparatus, out of the system loop, to protect any generated amino acids from breakdown via the week long sparking of the CH4, H2, NH3 gaseous, and water vapour, mix.

  2. Miller’s 1953 experiment only produced 11 out of 20 necessary amino acids and the experiment wrongly excluded Oxygen which the earth had.

  3. Miller’s experiment produced a 50/50 mix of L and R handed amino acids, the R hand versions of which stop any possible synthesis of cellular protein, all of which are essentially L handed. No follow on experiment in the 65 years since has produced cellular type proteins.

  4. Miller’s yield of amino acids (among the gloop of tarry carcinogens) was tiny: 1.05% glycine and 0.75% alanine, with traces of 9 and another 9 missing altogether.
    Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


Of course there was a reservoir. The experiment tried to mimic actual conditions. And any compounds generated would settle out. Why would you continually pass exactly the same amounts of gas plus any compunds generated through the same system?

The experiment produced 22 amino acids. Not 11. His results were tested again in 2008 with, obviously, much more accurate equipment.

So what if it produced a mix of left hand and right hand amino acids? As long as right handed are produced it could lead to protein. That’s like you saying that if half the people in the world are infertile then no more children will be born.

And the experiment didn’t set out to produce a set amount of anything. Saying that it failed because there wasn’t much is just you setting your own personal limits. You could make the same accusation however much amino acid was produced. Hence your comment is irrelevent.


Incidentally, would you mind telling us where you are getting your information from? I’ve been cutting and pasting some of the figures and comments you have been throwing around and without fail, all the hits I get are from creationist sites.

And almost all of those sites seem to have been copied and pasted from each other. It’s quite a tight little loop of personal opinion and plagiarism. I suppose if enough people post the same mush often enough then some people will accept it as being credible: ‘I read it on the interweb!’


No. In 2008 the residues from Miller’s experiments were re-analysed with modern techniques and 22 amino acids (together with 5 amines) were found. See Johnson et al (2008).

Science does not stand still.



Really? @rossum cited the popularity of evolution in search engine results.

You guys have played this better than any creationist site.


What did they add to the flask?


No. I showed the number of scientific papers with “evolution” in the title in Google Scholar. Google Scholar is not the same as plain Google.



Nothing. They re-analysed the old residue with modern, more sensitive, techniques.



OK, but still does not refute my point.


Source? Google scholar of course…:grinning:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.