Miller/Urey Experiment
By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the
world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be
needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey,
working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change
the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of
the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system
The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water
(H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to
simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of
the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller
observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic
compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which
are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed
that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular
life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be
present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of
further experiments.
In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide
(HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment
produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of
tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of
the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate,
or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments
conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained
through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became
very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved
within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the
investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment
because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain
predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment
required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms
were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the
Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids
and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been
formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in
outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia.
While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown
that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by
researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table
showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early
Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still
roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under
extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when
the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated
that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic
compounds by planetary infall.
If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as
Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been
offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.
merged: 03-30-2007 ~ 01:16pm
he managed to create amino acids with the help of those elements and of an
continuous electric current through the system,to simulate lightining,but...
is that proff enough to say that life has been created from dirt?
or somebody or somenthing got envolved in the process?
god,aliens an so on.
Umm... nice plagerism... Of what I've seen from your posts, all you did was copy
and pasted an article. Also, there are reasons why we debate about how we become
of, though it is true that given the circumstance, before
"theoretically" since our planet's environment was unstable having
lightning and what not, it is possible to crerate a situation as stated, but the
real question comes to why, how, and for the more weirder people (not really
weird...) how we actually evolve in such a way that we are.
Quote by spaimaFemeiloryes i
know..that is the real problem here...
and most importantly..
can dead mater create life?
i say no...
What I wonder is what separates the so-called "dead" matter from
"living" matter. The atoms that make up your body are no different
from that of rocks and dirt. Many organic compounds that living things make have
been synthesized in the lab much like how we synthesize liquid detergent or
other chemical products.
A human body is basically a bag of water and chemical reactions. These chemical
reactions are dictated by the same rules that apply to "non-living"
chemical reactions such as the oxidation of iron or acid-base reactions.
Assuming all the environmental conditions are the same you cannot will your body
to start producing oxygen instead of carbon dioxide anymore than lift a mountain
by sheer thought alone.
In this sense dead matter makes life all the time.
I'm going to agree with Recycle, as stated, the atoms of something that's
considered "dead" and "alive" are all the same.
To add on, another question posed is, what is really something alive? Alive in
biology is usually considered as, react with the surrounding, contains carbon
and hydrogen, and some other things... That though is are we just some moving
vessle or do we have what some would call a soul? The fact that dead matter and
life matter all can contain the same element.
life can only come from pre-existent life.
if dead matter has the abillity to come to life,we would see new form of life
everywhere.
in fact the food industry is based on this,that dead mater stays dead.
ex
u buy a jar of peanut butter,u open it and..voila!
a new life form!
dead mater will never come to life on his own .no matter of the circumstances
Umm... well at least you have a stated standpoint now. Okay, dead matter can be
of the same material of living matter. Also your peanut butter example is really
bad, peanut is an organic and living substance... Also, taking a cell and
cloning it in a sense that's also considered creating a new "form of
life". Also the oomplexity given to create a lifeform isn't just like an
everyday occurance... Theoretically, later on, assuming we get better in
science, we should be able to master fusion and able to create the necessary
atoms and create/bond them to make it so that it may actually be a living
organism, but as of now, its just all science fiction. D
Quote by spaimaFemeilorlife can
only come from pre-existent life.
if dead matter has the abillity to come to life,we would see new form of life
everywhere.
in fact the food industry is based on this,that dead mater stays dead.
ex
u buy a jar of peanut butter,u open it and..voila!
a new life form!
Congratulations spaimaFemeilor, you've proven that not only are you one of the
least intelligent people in the world, but also that you're unable to think up
any original arguments, even bad ones. Instead you copy bad, un original arguments. I bet you're proud of
yourself.
Of course, the theory of evolution predicts life will spontaneously appear from
any non-living matter given that enough peanut butter is produced! How could the
vast majority of biologists and scientists in general be so blind to this truth
that could only be derived from Christian fundamentalists?!
I'm actually half expecting you to be a troll, but I honestly can't tell if
someone is just an idiot or just trying to piss everyone off anymore.
Quote by spaimaFemeilordead mater
will never come to life on his own .no matter of the
circumstances
I didn't know life is a male.
I didn't think you could get any more pathetic, but you proved me wrong. Be
proud of yourself!
This is "your" argument:
1. Evolution asserts life came from non-life.
2. Life doesn't come from non-life under any circumstances.
3. Therefore evolution is invalid.
Now what could be wrong with this? Well, first of all, evolution deals with the
evolution of life and doesn't deal with life's origins. Secondly, even though
your argument is already mute, just because life doesn't come from peanut butter
doesn't imply that under no conditions can life come from non-life. I have no
idea how you can believe that, but you're a good proof that we couldn't have
been "intelligently designed" or at least that the designer screwed up
pretty badly.
Miller/Urey Experiment
By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system
The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.
If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.
merged: 03-30-2007 ~ 01:16pm
he managed to create amino acids with the help of those elements and of an continuous electric current through the system,to simulate lightining,but...
is that proff enough to say that life has been created from dirt?
or somebody or somenthing got envolved in the process?
god,aliens an so on.
Umm... nice plagerism... Of what I've seen from your posts, all you did was copy and pasted an article. Also, there are reasons why we debate about how we become of, though it is true that given the circumstance, before "theoretically" since our planet's environment was unstable having lightning and what not, it is possible to crerate a situation as stated, but the real question comes to why, how, and for the more weirder people (not really weird...) how we actually evolve in such a way that we are.
yes i know..that is the real problem here...
and most importantly..
can dead mater create life?
i say no...
What I wonder is what separates the so-called "dead" matter from "living" matter. The atoms that make up your body are no different from that of rocks and dirt. Many organic compounds that living things make have been synthesized in the lab much like how we synthesize liquid detergent or other chemical products.
A human body is basically a bag of water and chemical reactions. These chemical reactions are dictated by the same rules that apply to "non-living" chemical reactions such as the oxidation of iron or acid-base reactions. Assuming all the environmental conditions are the same you cannot will your body to start producing oxygen instead of carbon dioxide anymore than lift a mountain by sheer thought alone.
In this sense dead matter makes life all the time.
What are your thoughts?
I'm going to agree with Recycle, as stated, the atoms of something that's considered "dead" and "alive" are all the same.
To add on, another question posed is, what is really something alive? Alive in biology is usually considered as, react with the surrounding, contains carbon and hydrogen, and some other things... That though is are we just some moving vessle or do we have what some would call a soul? The fact that dead matter and life matter all can contain the same element.
life can only come from pre-existent life.
if dead matter has the abillity to come to life,we would see new form of life everywhere.
in fact the food industry is based on this,that dead mater stays dead.
ex
u buy a jar of peanut butter,u open it and..voila!
a new life form!
dead mater will never come to life on his own .no matter of the circumstances
Umm... well at least you have a stated standpoint now. Okay, dead matter can be of the same material of living matter. Also your peanut butter example is really bad, peanut is an organic and living substance... Also, taking a cell and cloning it in a sense that's also considered creating a new "form of life". Also the oomplexity given to create a lifeform isn't just like an everyday occurance... Theoretically, later on, assuming we get better in science, we should be able to master fusion and able to create the necessary atoms and create/bond them to make it so that it may actually be a living organism, but as of now, its just all science fiction.
D
Congratulations spaimaFemeilor, you've proven that not only are you one of the least intelligent people in the world, but also that you're unable to think up any original arguments, even bad ones. Instead you copy bad, un original arguments. I bet you're proud of yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
(Ironically, I just saw this today for the first time)
Of course, the theory of evolution predicts life will spontaneously appear from any non-living matter given that enough peanut butter is produced! How could the vast majority of biologists and scientists in general be so blind to this truth that could only be derived from Christian fundamentalists?!
I'm actually half expecting you to be a troll, but I honestly can't tell if someone is just an idiot or just trying to piss everyone off anymore.
I didn't know life is a male.
I didn't think you could get any more pathetic, but you proved me wrong. Be proud of yourself!
This is "your" argument:
1. Evolution asserts life came from non-life.
2. Life doesn't come from non-life under any circumstances.
3. Therefore evolution is invalid.
Now what could be wrong with this? Well, first of all, evolution deals with the evolution of life and doesn't deal with life's origins. Secondly, even though your argument is already mute, just because life doesn't come from peanut butter doesn't imply that under no conditions can life come from non-life. I have no idea how you can believe that, but you're a good proof that we couldn't have been "intelligently designed" or at least that the designer screwed up pretty badly.