@ davidylan
i thought you said you had ran out of patience?  you said that we should have a scientific discussion. i asked you some questions but you left them unanswered, please pray to the biblegod to give you the revelation to prove that extra ordinary scientific claim.

why are still running around explaining nothing but your convoluted points?  this guy is a dangerous fraud. abeg pastor adeboye na your uncle? you sound very much like him.

davidylan:

I still have one issue . . . WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THE WIKI EQUATIONS?

the source is in the bible. let there be light and there was light, remember? shameless charlatan. . . . . . . . . . . .

I guess we are sticking with the Miller-Urey experiment, then. That's fine.

davidylan:

Monoatomic oxygen can readily combine to give diatomic oxygen so we're back to square one eventually. Did O2 exist then or not?

Not quite, no. "Because of low air density at these altitudes, the collision of two oxygen atoms into a molecule is infrequent. At lower altitudes, below 100 km, the rate of recombination of oxygen atoms exceeds the rate of photo-dissociation of oxygen molecules." (http://userpages.umbc.edu/~tokay/chapter1.html). Also, the findings of Schaefer et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005DPS, 37.2915S) indicates that out-gassing would have kept the atmosphere reductive.

Free O2? Little to none.

Then monoatomic O could not have existed then and would make your wiki equations irrelevant.

We know that O + O --> O₂

I'm not sure you think through your responses at all.

No. As mentioned above, that would have been infrequent. Further, the presence of other elements and compounds in water to which monoatomic oxygen could more easily bind itself should be taken into account. I was hoping you'd make the connection a few posts earlier, but as time is running out we better move things on.

[quote]this is the equation for the photolysis of water - H2O (l) + hν ---> H2 (g) + ½ O2 (g)

Yes.

Earlier you said it wasnt possible.[/quote]

No, I didn't.

The equation showed: how carbon monoxide and monoatomic oxygen could have been produced. Both necessary for the Miller-Urey expreriment. Further, it showed the path that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would have taken. Finally, it gives the reaction that produced glycine, indicating that, contrary to what you seemed to have been indicating when you posted your assumed equation, the production of glycine wasn't problematic.

You do realise that CO is a gas and can be easily produced in the lab no?

No shit. The question then becomes how it was produced as it is a necessary component in the eventual outcome.

You do realise that Miller does not talk about "producing" CO and monoatomic oxygen ANYWHERE in his papers?

Yes.

You do know that CH₄ and NH₃ can readily generate HCN no?

The BMA process? Didn't that become known much after the Miller-Urey experiment?

You do know that even with the wiki equations . . . you would still need to remove the glycine produced to drive the forward reactions?

You do know that glycine itself can inhibit its own production via feed-back mechanism no?

No. In the original process and subsequent recreations there is no mention of glycine inhibiting the production of any other amino acids nor itself. For someone who as made a point of being faithful to the Miller paper, you are taking a surprising departure now.

You do think through your responses at all no?

Of course.

Oh, you didn't try to pass it off as the equation? Okay, my mistake. I'll amend my point: What you posited as the most probable equation to explain the formation of glycine was misleading.

Based on what evidence? I hate when people just leave such comments and FAIL to prove why their position is correct. the equation for the production of glycine i gave is very valid based on:

a. it utilises ONLY those compounds found in Millers flask

b. has been proven to be at least efficient at generating glycine.

First, if you hate people leaving comments without proving their veracity of their comments, then you must really hate yourself.

Second, you forgot to add hydrogen, so even a cursory glance indicates that not everything in the Miller flask is accounted for.

I called it "the equations for the production of glycine", but, really, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the equation I posted gives the formula for the formation of important compounds present in the Miller-Urey experiment. It also indicated how the Miller-Urey experiment formed glycine - this, perhaps, is the most important point.

Carbon dioxide was not in Millers flask . . . period, so your above is false.

Your red-herring is duly noted. Since I didn't say Miller had CO2 in his flask, your response is moot.

Depends on your idea of "relative minority" . . . i find out quite a lot of recent scientists do believe oxygen was an integral part of the primitive atmosphere. Take a look at nature reviews instead of silly kiddie websites for a change.

I find the opposite.

Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.

Ah now its Miller that is wrong. What else do you think Miller was wrong about?
Quite a lot of scientists seem to think he was also wrong about the presence of oxygen . . . i still find it hard to believe that primitive earth would contain plenty of oxygen in compounds (water and carbon dioxide) but NO free oxygen at all. please help us rationalise that issue.

Wait, what's wrong with Miller being wrong? I didn't know Miller well, so I don't know how much more he was wrong about things in general. Anyway, quite a lot of scientists think he was right about the presence of oxygen. I don't know why you find it hard to understand the presence of oxygen in compounds but no gaseous oxygen (and with that we are getting close to the point I made earlier about distinguishing water from free oxygen). In some extraterrestrial bodies the phenomenon can be observed.

How else to get hydrogen cyanide? Magic?

common sense aint so common - try the equations for ammonia and methane.

Caution - do not try it at home, cyanide produced could kill you.

Only if you agree to send me the platinum I'd need. So, is your argument that it was through mixing ammonia and methane that Miller created hydrogen cyanide?

[quote]Miller certainly did not believe this as even you yourself now agree. Higher CO2 in the atmosphere would have meant too low CH4 for his experiment to have been feasible. So if there was abundant CO2 then Miller's entire experiment would have made no sense. Besides Miller had already argued that carbon dioxide and water just yielded only formaldehyde and formic acid.

I've addressed the issue of CO2 above. By the way, could you post the context of Miller's statement about carbon dioxide and water?

You didnt.[/quote]

I most certainly did. See: "Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4."

Go read the paper yourself . . . its in the abstract for the 1959 paper.

I don't have any access to any abstract. I've read the paper, now if only I could get that abstract, it would be great.

The fact that O would readily combine with O to form oxygen and oxygen to form ozone makes nonsense of your claims that there was no free oxygen in primitive earth. Which is it? Oxygen was there or not? you can't keep running around claiming that forms of oxygen existed as elements and as compounds with NO free oxygen . . .

Already addressed.

How did Miller get carbon monoxide?

simple . . . burn zinc oxide in the presence of coke. Its an ordinary lab experiment that high school students can perform.

Was that how you think Miller got carbon monoxide?

CH4 and NH3 together are both very good sources of HCN. But it is also possible that CO can help generate HCN too. Which is probably why Miller had all three in his flask.

Yes, CH4 and NH3 could help generate HCN. That wasn't the point, though. We all know it's possible that CO can help generate HCN - that's what the equation was showing. Did you have a point?

the point is simple . . . carbon dioxide was not in Millers tank so the wiki equations make no sense.

I still have one issue . . . WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THE WIKI EQUATIONS?

Leslie Orgel's analysis was a primary source:

"Careful analyses elucidated many of the chemical reactions that occurred in the experiment and thus might have occurred on the prebiotic planet. First, the gases in the "atmosphere" reacted to form a suite of simple organic compounds, including hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and aldehydes (compounds containing the group CHO ). The aldehydes then combined with ammonia and hydrogen cyanide to generate intermediary products called aminonitriles, which interacted with water in the "ocean" to produce amino acids and ammonia. Glycine was the most abundant amino acid, resulting from the combination of formaldehyde (CH2O), ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. A surprising number of the standard 20 amino acids were also made in lesser amounts." (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2948/orgel.html)

davidylan:

As for dudu and co . . . please find someone else to transfer your frustrations to.

Coward, ran out of concocted answers and glib remarks or couldn't stand the heat and ran out of the kitchen like a dog with its tail tucked between its legs?

KAG:

I most certainly did. See: "Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4."

I wonder why the dunce can't wrap his head round this, even someone who didn't go to college should be able to understand that the conditions on top of Mount Everest is completely different from the conditions at the bottom of the atlantic.

KAG:

Was that how you think Miller got carbon monoxide?

In his haste to discredit the experiment, he clearly forgot that carbon monoxide was not one of the initial gases the experiment started out with. So much for his independent thinking.

duduspace:

In his haste to discredit the experiment, he clearly forgot that carbon monoxide was not one of the initial gases the experiment started out with. So much for his independent thinking.

What a stupid fool. Look up the flask i posted on page 4. Oh by the way carbon monoxide is CO just so you know.

Done and dusted with this thread and the raving dumb lunatics on it.

duduspace:

Coward, ran out of concocted answers and glib remarks or couldn't stand the heat and ran out of the kitchen like a dog with its tail tucked between its legs?

no i figured there was a lot more to do than continue providing exhaustive answers for glib brainless idiots. KAG hadnt even read the papers of an experiment she was touting . . . didnt know jack about photolysis of water, didnt understand that Miller would not add CO2 for his own personal reasons and continued parroting equations Miller did not endorse.

For all her issues, at least compared to you she understood a lot of the basic science.

Brainless buffon.

If there is anything this thread has shown me - Besides KAG, the rest of you have no right to tout science as an alternative to religion . . . at least until you understand it.

davidylan:

What a stupid fool. Look up the flask i posted on page 4. Oh by the way carbon monoxide is CO just so you know.

Done and dusted with this thread and the raving dumb lunatics on it.

You are the one who is stupid and also a fool because yu still don't get the point I am making, CO was not one of the original gases the Miller Urey experiment started out with. and I've pointed out why you see it in the diagram in a previous post.
Read up my earlier post and you might get a flash of inspiration if yu are a hundredth as intelligent as you're posturing to be.

davidylan:

no i figured there was a lot more to do than continue providing exhaustive answers for glib brainless idiots. KAG hadnt even read the papers of an experiment she was touting . . . didnt know jack about photolysis of water, didnt understand that Miller would not add CO2 for his own personal reasons and continued parroting equations Miller did not endorse.

For all her issues, at least compared to you she understood a lot of the basic science.

Brainless buffon.

If there is anything this thread has shown me - Besides KAG, the rest of you have no right to tout science as an alternative to religion . . . at least until you understand it.

on the contrary, it has shown me that you are one of the quacks claiming to be  experienced professionals in Nigeria, possibly responsible for some of the drugs and pharmaceutical products that kill innocent people while attributing such avoidable deaths to nonexistent witches and wizards.
Who employed you by the way, I'm sure your recruitment process must have been like a scene from dumb and dumberer.
Just go through your posts again and see what a mockery you have made of yourself, while posturing as a tried and tested chemistry practitioner, meeen even without your added religious hypocrisy, I wouldn't even employ you to teach integrated science in a primary school.

@kag

подарю попугая тел: +38.093.5383492 спросить Вику