What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
100 Comments
- Mnementh2230, on 09/04/2009, -8/+60"Buried due to the fact that the Miller-Urey experiment was hopeless inaccurate and produces chemicals that were harmful to life."
Harmful to TODAY'S life, but ESSENTIAL to early life. Seeing as how you're completely scientifically illiterate, I'm not surprised you'd make that mistake.
"Instead, the early atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor."
The article describes this, and the scientists are addressing it.
"but...the consensus among scientists is that it was NOTHING like what Miller hypothesized and based his experiments on..."
If you actually read the article (and it is obvious you didn't), you'd see that the scientists in the article were attempting to address THAT VERY PROBLEM.
"a now-debunked theory"
Oh really - according to what scientists? Please provide a peer-reviewed article on the topic. (hint - you can't), because abiogenesis is *NOT* a theory. It is at best a hypothesis, which is being tested, and posits that life has natural origins based upon criteria that we don't really have nailed down yet (we're working on that). You are obviously VERY ignorant of the science regarding this topic, and yet you decided to comment on it. How foolish.
"Amazing leaps of faith are needed to conclude that such abiogenesis events are inevitable."
You think that such an event is completely unlikely over the course of... a BILLION years? With a 4.5 billion year old earth, and life emerging somewhere around 3.5 billion years ago, such an event can not have happened? In any case, the point is moot. See below:
Anyway, today's science regarding abiogenesis has nothing to do with lightening - you're using the same old science Ben Stein used in his idiotic "documentary" Expelled. I say "documentary" in quotes because to put it on the same level as other documentaries of intellectual integrity would be insulting to every documentary maker in the world. To be brief, nobody espouses lightning as a catalyst for life anymore.
"It is simply an explanation of the facts surrounding the now-debunked Miller-Urey experiment."
And if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that they are, indeed, addressing that point.
You've committed a cardinal sin on Digg - you commented on the article without actually reading it. Buried for being both a science-hating douchebag, and for making assumptions about the current state of science when you don't have the slightest clue.
Edit: you changed your post... must've commented before you read the article, skimmed it, then come back, eh? - Foxprowl, on 09/04/2009, -9/+50Article edited for Kansas Public Schools: God did it.
- Crazysticks, on 09/04/2009, -2/+35I still think we came from the souls of deep space airplane patrons.
- Hetman, on 09/04/2009, -2/+34This is a hypothesis not a theory.
- mishabear, on 09/04/2009, -3/+23I love articles like this. It proves people are thinking and that science works by questioning your assumptions and premises. There is little fear of change.
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -3/+21Evolution has very little to do with abiogenesis.
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -1/+16It wouldn't be science otherwise.
- Disgod, on 09/04/2009, -4/+18"let's talk about the Miller-Urey experiment for a moment because this is still used in some textbooks as evidence that life could have been spontaneously created."
Yes, let's talk about text books, and ignore the most modern science which is much better than the Miller-Urey experiment, which btw modern science knows probably was wrong decades ago. Textbooks do not represent modern science Try actually talking about the modern scientific peer reviewed literature.
As for your other complaints, there have been decades of work since the Miller-Urey experiment with a great deal of research continuing. Wikipedia has a cited summary of our current hypotheses. I suggest reading the entire page, it is a very interesting read.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_m ...
And here's a great summary of the more modern experiments and current discussion about the early Earth's chemistry. - malex, on 09/05/2009, -2/+14Nobody's hating on the Sky Fairy. They're hating on the people who think that scientific research is a criminal offense against the Sky Fairy. There's a difference.
- malex, on 09/05/2009, -2/+13Wut? No they aren't.
Evolution is an observable process, unless you think that the Universe is trying to trick us by faking fossil records and genetics and such. There's plenty left to figure out about how it works, but yes, it is an absolute fact that organisms evolve.
Young Earth Creationism is specifically contradicted by historical evidence unless, again, you think that some force or entity is faking that evidence. - Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -2/+11"I get diggers telling me that evolution has already been proven."
Origins of life /= Evolution. Evolution is the theory which explains changes in allele(gene) frequencies in populations. Abiogenesis = origins of life. Abiogenesis is the study of how the first self-replicating molecules developed, and is purely chemistry. Only once there were self-replicating molecules does evolution come into play.
And, yes, evolution is a demonstrable fact.
"Where is that opposition now... or is that just something these people reserve for creationism because they simply don't like the implications that it brings?"
Actually it is because creationism isn't science! You can't falsify creationism. Creationism explains nothing. "God-dun-it" isn't an explanation, all it does is push the question back further. How did god do it? Where did that god come from? There is no evidence which supports creationism, and no experimentation has ever been done to support creationism. And finally creationism violates everything we know about all of modern science. - Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -2/+10There is the absolute fact that species change over time, aka evolution. Then there is our theory of evolution, which will never be fact, because like all scientific theories it is a work in progress.
- joshmoney, on 09/05/2009, -1/+9Are you joking? Francis Bacon was born in 1561 (if you are unaware this is quite sometime before Darwin was even born!). If you want to talk about all the other misinformed scientific theories at the time then go right ahead. How bout we take a look at the scientist of modern times?
"Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists." (Wikipedia)
So if you want to talk about "tripe", how about you face the fact that nearly all modern scientist accept evolution including the "famed" ID proponent Michael Behe. And before you go quoting the Discovery institute study that purported all the scientist that supposedly reject evolution, it has been thoroughly debunked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
And for all your other Bacon needs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRGz9xSP_SA
/former creationist - CaptOblivious, on 09/05/2009, -2/+10Just because YOU can't figure it out (or scientists) _right_now_ doesn't mean that it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine.
Impossible is not part of the discovery process, it's saying "I quit trying".
Trust me, they (scientists) aren't about to quit trying to figure it out. - nitsuj, on 09/05/2009, -0/+7"Do you want to talk about creation being untestable and non-falsifiable? Okay. How about this? There is no evidence of life spawning from non-life (abiogenesis); the evolution of "simple" life forms into more complex life forms has never been repeated in tests either; ditto for the "big bang. "
You're hopelessly missing the point. There is mountains of evidence _for_ evolution, hence Evolution Theory which is _based_ on the evidence. Evidence that includes the fossil record and genetics. It's falsifiable - find a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian geological layer and you might be onto something. Show that the genetic evidence doesn't show phylogenetic relationships and you might have something else.
As for the big bang, we required a theory to explain why space is expanding from all points - trace it back and you arrive at the conclusion that space was much smaller, singularity sized if you will. Galaxy red-shifts and microwave background radiation support and help define the theory.
Compare this with creation which is not only non-falsifiable but also has absolutely _no_ supporting evidence whatsoever. It is a (weak) hypothesis born out of the minds of superstitious adherents. - hivoltage815, on 09/05/2009, -1/+8I don't think you have much of a career in satire :(
- Yage2006, on 09/04/2009, -4/+11"This post is not an attempt to proclaim intelligent design. It is simply an explanation of the facts surrounding the now-debunked Miller-Urey experiment. You are free to conclude anything else that you want."
Ya that's what you creationist/ID'rs always say its only to find gaps and fill them with your god. And you do a piss poor job at it. - WasabiBomb, on 09/05/2009, -1/+7It's funny- mathematically speaking, it's actually much more likely that this IS a simulated universe.
Think about it- if it's possible for a universe to be simulated, then the number of simulated universes would dwarf the number of "real" universes. Of course, if you can't tell whether reality is, well, real, it might as well be real. - Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -1/+7"chemical evolution"
That is merely change over time. Biological evolution, which is the only thing that the theory of evolution actually describes is the study of "variations in allele(gene) frequency over time in populations".
The research into abiogenesis is the study of the early Earth's chemistry. Abiogenesis is a purely chemical process, and because it has no actual ancestry, reproduction, or genes. Once self-replicating molecules developed, which would be ultra primitive life, there was natural selection going on, but due to the regularity of horizontal gene transference there was no actual ancestral lineage just a general mixing of genes. - inactive, on 09/05/2009, -1/+7And how cocky are you to think that extremophiles couldn't have evolved on Earthly thermal vents, like those described in this paper?
- yocouchdigga, on 09/04/2009, -4/+10DavidNiven, consider yourself served.
- Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -1/+7Science is a self-correcting process, so if someone can disprove this hypothesis more power to them. The wonderful thing about that is, even when scientists are wrong we're getting closer to finding a more correct answer.
- ryrocker, on 09/05/2009, -1/+6"amino acids, the BUILDING BLOCK of life"
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -3/+8Scoff! Everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old. Was populated by an apple eating nudist and was repopulated by man who managed to build a boat, put 2 of everything on it and still had enough energy to raise kids..
- Mnementh2230, on 09/05/2009, -1/+6This isn't a Scientific Theory, though. It is a hypothesis. Please get your terminology straight - a scientific theory is NOT the same as a layman's theory. This is currently a hypothesis - it has not been peer reviewed or researched by others outside the initial experiment to any great degree, nor has it made any testable predictions.
This is merely a new hypothesis which looks promising - it has a basis in the best information we currently have about the primordial earth, and a good grounding in chemistry. That's it. You can not call it a Theory yet. - JYoungest1, on 09/05/2009, -9/+14Change is exciting in science, while in religion is cause for war....
- Cyberdine, on 09/05/2009, -0/+4Well, it beats the "Space Magician" hypothesis.
- newtondave, on 09/05/2009, -1/+5Sweet-thanks for the update.
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -3/+7maybe because scientists are debating how life first developed, not the fact that they did develop?
Not one's buying the Jesus spontaneous existence theory. - Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -2/+6That isn't an explanation for how life formed. Instead of asking the question of how life developed on Earth, you must ask the question of how did life develop on another planet? Saying that life came from another planet no more answers the question of how life developed than saying "god-dun-it".
- danj484, on 09/05/2009, -1/+5Other researchers have also run experiments to find the cause of abiogenesis which included cyanide in the mix. They resulted in nucleotides.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16044244
Reseachers also reanalyzed Miller's samples from the original Miller-Urey experiments last year using more modern equipment, and found MORE amino acids than previously thought.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322 ... - FishThePirate, on 09/05/2009, -1/+5Creationism/Intelligent Design are not valid because they have made no predictions about anything at all. Creationism explains nothing. Evolution has made falsifiable predictions which have been fulfilled. "Godidit" is a completely useless solution that would never lead to any scientific discovery.
- malex, on 09/05/2009, -0/+3How has this user not been banned?
- Mnementh2230, on 09/05/2009, -1/+4"Wait a second... every time I mention another theory..."
The proposal in the article is NOT a "theory". It is a hypothesis. If you want to discuss this, learn about the scientific classification of such things. For the record, a scientific Theory is different from a layman's theory, in that a Scientific Theory has been peer reviewed and found to be accurate, has made testable predictions, and has had those predictions borne out by evidence uncovered later.
Please, if you want to honestly participate in this kind of discussion in a meaningful way, educate yourself.
Further, please see Digod's excellent post. Evolution has ***NOTHING*** to do with the origins of life. - Cyberdine, on 09/05/2009, -0/+3Dude..you're being stupid. Theory and hypothesis are COMPLETELY different and not interchangeable terms. A scientific theory is easily proven by many experiments (Atomic Theory). A Hypothesis is a educated guess about what will happen if an experiment is conducted.
- Mnementh2230, on 09/08/2009, -0/+3Nice one, and congrats on accepting rational thought. :)
- kelly, on 09/05/2009, -4/+6Only by those who have lived their lives in such a way to cause them to have fear as a result of it.
- Disgod, on 09/05/2009, -1/+3We may never know exactly how life began, but that doesn't mean that we can't figure out how life probably began.
- PxCxG, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2That one is just a light read, isn't it?
- yocouchdigga, on 09/04/2009, -3/+5You're all wrong, this is just a simulation, man... this whole damn thing! Your thought process is all ***** up. Your information train is jammed, man!
- Cerebron, on 09/05/2009, -1/+3Wrong, we came from deep space hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.
- inactive, on 09/05/2009, -3/+5Just because the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment weren't accurate for Earth, it doesn't mean that they can't be accurate for any of the other trillions of planets in the universe.
There's more than one way to do something. - Boogalou007, on 09/05/2009, -1/+3Thank you for taking the time to let us know you didn't read it. Very helpful, thanks!
- graminal, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2I know, I wish these scientists would give it a rest already.
- Cyberdine, on 09/05/2009, -1/+3zoomaKabu: ...you don't know much about biochemistry do you? Amino acids don't behave like bricks.
- graminal, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2I disagree with you and your stupid ***** blog.
- appleseed1234, on 09/05/2009, -1/+3It's a series of tubes.
- chupavacas, on 09/05/2009, -5/+7Huh, I don't get it. Why would God go to all the trouble of using deep-sea hydrothermal vents to create life?
- malex, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2Nobody wants to read your blog, squirrel-dude. Don't spam.
- PorkTornado1102, on 09/06/2009, -0/+1I used to think the universe was a figment of Frank Sinatra's imagination and that when he died reality would cease to exist. I guess I was wrong on that so I am open to new ideas.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is