Talk:Miller–Urey experiment

#of Amino Acids (Fourth Time!)

(The first time precedes content item 1)

The article has a Reference #2 to a follow-up paper by Urey-Miller in 1959. The paper is available from the link given, but for discussion purposes, I have temporarily placed a copy here... delete the commas:

http,://,grandscheme,.org/,Urey-,Miller-,1959.pdf (seven pages)

On its page 248, in the left column entitled 'Electric Discharges', they explicitly refer to the 1953 paper (Reference #1 here), and go on to say: "A more complete analysis of the products gave the results shown in Table 2."

Table 2 is the top middle column on page 249. Also, a list of the 20 (why does the article say 22?) amino acids needed for life are shown here:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Molbio/aatable.html http://members.tripod.com/Diabetics_World/Amino_Acid_Details.htm

Four amino acids are immediately identifiable against the above list(s).

Is there anyone here technical to match up some of the other Table 2 items to amino acids?

I'm pretty sure the number of amino acids in the 1953 experiment that were identified by the 1959 "more complete analysis" by the original authors is 11. Here are two references for that:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php (Miller: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.") [and I should think Miller would know]

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=461 ("Stanley Miller with his Nobel Laureate supervisor, Harold Urey, demonstrated that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask.") [11 is the conservative version of 13]

What do y'all think? My edit to make it '11 amino acids' was backed out by someone many months ago.

I think it's time to put it back in, with appropriate tweaks to the language of that paragraph. Anyone care to make the edit, now that we can see the "more complete analysis?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Think (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit has been made. Double Think (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

#of Amino Acids *Other Experiments*

Several vials from one of Miller's early experiments has apparently been reanalized with modern equipment and found to have twenty two amino acids and five amines.

Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 322(5900):404.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37729/title/Primordial_soup_lives_again http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/iu-me101308.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.111.242 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

why were some vials unanalysed ?

This is due to the recent discovery of some additional amino acids in the original experiments. The obvious question to me is: "why were these vials not analyzed after the original experiment?". If anyone finds the answer to that question, please add it here or to the article? Thank you --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead specifies "re-analysis", it was done again with more sensitive instruments; which the article now does elaborate on. - RoyBoy 03:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My error. They had been analysed before. Narayanese (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Inorganic to Organic?

This is quite a leap of scientific faith. Is this article trying to claim that the Miller-Urey experiment achieved fusion or fission of other elements into carbon and hydrogen? This experiment began with these elements in great abundance (in methane and carbon dioxide) and I don't recall that the stoichiometry ever indicated a sudden increase of either one. At any rate, I've never heard anyone describe an inorganic compound such as water reacting with an organic compound such as methane as "inorganic synthesized into organic" or words to that effect. Since organic compounds were present from the start, I think this wording is misleading.Hellasick (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is merely saying that this experiment proves that basic compounds like water and methane, under certain conditions, form molecules well known to be biological in nature, such as amino acids. --Pstanton (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

I feel that a link to Creation-evolution controversy is approp in the See also section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's pseudoscience/religion, and so does not belong in a scientific article. And it doesn't even have anything in particular to do with the topic. Narayanese (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, whether or not life can form from a random combination of particles is deeply involved with the creation/evolution debate. Or, as I call it, the intelligent design vs. one in a million chance debate. β i ι ι γ τ r ο υ § ε r § (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is pseudoscience/religion but that does not mean the link should not be included. The creationist controversy has important links (!!) to this article. The Miller–Urey experiment is one of the important discoveries that refutes the idea of creationism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not even pseudo-science. It has no connection whatsoever with anything near science. Otherwise agreed! Begone creationism! Said: Rursus (☻) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And: it is a religion. Different from christianity. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the heat in the "Intelligent Design" versus "random genesis of biomolecules" argument would have been dissipated if more light had been allowed in the first place instead of having people telling other people to STFU (as we see upthread).

Let the arguments stand on their own merits. I have to admit to being a long-time disbeliever in abiogenesis until I read this article. Now I'm not so sure.

I think other people who are using Wikipedia to try and educate themselves on the basic issues surrounding the Intelligent Design vs. Random Biogenesis debate would benefit from being directed to this article. Certainly, I hadn't heard before I read this article that vials from the Miller-Urey experiment had been reanalyzed and more amino acids found.

Of course, the hallmark of any successful scientific experiment is reproducibility, the rock on which cold fusion and Podkletnov's inertial modulation experiment seem to have foundered. This article demonstrates that Miller/Urey was not just reproducible, but that it led to other successful experiments such as Juan Oro's synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in water in 1961. So very far from being a failure, as it has been portrayed recently (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html) , since it was a seminal work that did prove amino acids could be formed under conditions which, while extreme, could conceivably have existed in the primordial Earth.

The article succeeds in answering questions I had about how entropy (in the form of nitrites in the initial results, which would have tended to decompose any randomly created biomolecules as soon as they were made) was answered as an objection to random biogenesis. Wikipedia did its job by producing this article. The job would be done better if this article's place in the debate between Intelligent Design versus random biogenesis were mentioned.loupgarous (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Alan Liefting. There are still a lot of people who believe in intelligent design - most Muslims, Jews and Christians, for instance. I've personally met several people who believe in intelligent design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, sign your posts by writing four tildes like this ~~~~. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't sign your posts by writing nothing like this. It is what is written which is important not who writes it. Signing posts in Wikipedia is a guideline not a requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.63.167 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This experiment is not in any contradiction with religions. Miller-Urey experiment produces mixture of complex organic compounds, which are not organized. It is not a Life, it is more like a dead body.Krasss (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Has this specific experiment ever been cited in the debate? If not, I see no reason to include the link. If it has (in peer-reviewed publications), a case could be made for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the requirement for the Miller-Urey experiment to have been included in the debate in peer-reviewed publications? As someone with a few peer-reviewed publications in his CV, I can tell you that debates such as this are generally discussed in the editorial pages of scientific journals and are not peer-reviewed. It's very unlikely that the intelligent design versus random biogenesis debate would wind up in a peer-reviewed article (outside, perhaps, a glancing mention in the "Conclusions" section of the paper). But the Miller-Urey experiments are often mentioned in this debate because they are very close to crucial in making a case for random biogenesis. And I am very purposefully restricting my terms - I am personally uninterested in the "creation versus evolution" argument - my faith does not depend on it.loupgarous (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in my view, this experiment could go fine with both creationism and evolution. In creationism, God just did the reaction from this experiment. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, a plausible fall-back position for Intelligent Design proponents would be that God created subatomic particles. That places the ball all the way back to the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking could weigh in about gravity being the necessary and sufficient cause for Creation (no divine intervention required). Professor Hawking, however, doesn't explain where the mass necessary for the gravity that made the Big Bang came from, which gives the Intelligent Design people a place to stand.loupgarous (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My friend you really don't get creationism huh in creationism every thing was created by God in 6 days which the 7th was rest for God. I think that this experiment was actually a bigger proof that spontaneous creation is impossible contradictory to the evolution point of view (spontaneous creation itself was already disproved by Louis Pasteur), in my point of view it disprove the view of evolution instead of proving evolution 20:13, 10th November 2009

In that case, your point of view is distorted, biased and bizarre. ;) 87.56.88.195 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here in Wikipedia we assume good faith and don't attack contributors personally, even when they are in vivid disagreement with our view of the facts. Even when they drag in their religious mythology, which is clearly inadmissible as a source document in Wikipedia science articles.loupgarous (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to refer to creationism. Creationism has nothing to do with science, and this article provides a scientific objective analysis of the Miller-Urey experiment.
The article doesn't state that our current understanding of life's origin is the absolute truth.
Of course scientifically based critisism on the experiment should be included, but that doesn't mean we should propose an alternative hypothesis witch uses the supernatural to explain the origin of life because that is per defenition not scientific and testable.
That's like including Zeus in an article about the models that explain how thunder works because those models aren't absolutely true and can be criticized on certain aspects.

There is an important distinction between Intelligent Design arguments and simple Creationist arguments. Intelligent Design arguments point to the physical evidence and have to be rebutted on that basis. The Miller-Urey and Oro experiments are parts of the rebuttal of Intelligent Design, so much so that they should be considered seminal to all the other work that has been done since in simulating the primordial Earth environment. If the scientific community has a claim to intellectual superiority to Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, it ought to rest on the evidence. That's why reference to the Intelligent Design versus abiogenesis controversy is important.loupgarous (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry of experiment

I would like a source stating that this is what happened. Also, a bit more explanation what [O] means could be useful, is it a way of saying a compound got an extra hydroxyl group? Narayanese (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydroxyl group is [OH]. [O] is an atomic oxygen, it is not the same particle. Krasss (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sources for this section. For other sources see the articles about methane, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide&BMA process, cyanoacetylene etc. Krasss (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are for synthesis by chemists, not synthesis in a prebiotic environment. You are deriving your own hypothesis from sources on related areas; don't do that on Wikipedia (WP:SYNTH). Narayanese (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a few mistakes with adding of this links. Right links are [1] and [2].

Here is some citations from this sources:

"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."

"An intriguing mechanism involves the synthesis of HCN via photochemical reactions between CH4 (of volcanic origin) and N2.45 If early in Earth’s history the mantle was much more reduced than it is currently, then the amount of CH4 emitted from volcanoes would have been greater. Rainout of substantial quantities of HCN would make the subsequent synthesis of purines, pyrimidines, and amino acids possible in the aqueous phase.46 Similarly, photolytic reactions initiated from CO2 and H2O at ultraviolet wavelengths have been postulated to produce rainout of formaldehyde (CH2O)47 with the possibility of subsequent condensation reactions yielding primitive sugars. This assumes that the concentration of formaldehyde rose high enough in aqueous solution on Earth’s surface."

=> So, you can see that it is not my own hypothesis. Krasss (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction isn't very true to the text. Where did you read about carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen? The BMA process says it is done at 1400°C with platinum, rather than by light, so that link shouldn't be there. Narayanese (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Narayanese, if you would be a chemist, these questions would be too trivial for you. Atomic oxygen formation is the first step of CO2 decomposition reactions. See, for example, this link [3]. This source is about microwave discharge, but the High-voltage process (in CO2) is almost the same. Other links about CO formation: [4], [5], [6], [7]. About BMA process you are right, but this reaction can also occure without any catalysts (for example, by UV-irradiation or discharge processes), - but the yield is less. Also, see the link about HCN synthesis from NH3 and CO [8]. Krasss (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

=> See also the link [9]. This link is on russian, but the pictures you can understand without translation. Krasss (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The Russian article is clear enough. Narayanese (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Miller-Urey Experiment Failed

If you notice, there were four substances used in the experiment: water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). These, apparently, were the four gasses that our “young” Earth’s gravitational pull could handle. An interesting thing about this is that Miller and Urey decided to leave out oxygen (O2). Oxygen is an essential gas to living organisms. They knew, however, that whatever was created in the experiment would oxidize. You know… leave a banana or an apple out on the counter too long it turns brown; it oxidizes. Essentially, it dies.

I have one minor change to this article. The reason that Miller and Urey decided to leave our oxygen was because it wasn't present in the atmosphere at the time that life appeared on earth. Oxygen only appeared once an excess had built up from photosynthetic plants which were using the abundance of carbon dioxide present at that time. Once oxygen was in surplus, new animals which used cellular respiration appeared and began to convert the oxygen back into carbon dioxide for energy. The order of life was excess of light/CO2/water, photosynthetic plants, chemosynthentic plants, surplus of oxygen, and the creation of animals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WittleD (talk • contribs) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A serious problem arises at this point, though. With oxygen we have ozone. The ozone layer blocks out a lot of ultra violet light. Ultra violet light destroys ammonia. If you look back up at the previous paragraph, ammonia was one of the gasses used in the experiment. Hummm… this creates a problem, does it not? According to today’s “brilliant” scientists, there was no oxygen on our “young” Earth. This means no ozone. No ozone means UV rays. UV rays mean no ammonia!!! So, coming ‘round full circle, with oxygen: life can’t evolve! Without oxygen: LIFE STILL CAN’T EVOLVE!

One other thing I want to bring up is the Primordial Soup that Miller and Urey produced from their experiment. Today’s “brilliant” scientists say that the soup, or sludge in my mind, was “Rich in amino acids”. Wrong again… fortunately (yes I said fortunately). The sludge they produce was only 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine (an amino acid), and 0.85 percent alanine (another amino acid). HARDLY EVEN 2% OF THE SLUDGE WAS AMINO ACIDS! On top of that is the fact that only two out of the TWENTY amino acids required to create a single, living cell were produced.

The interesting thing about tar and carbolic acid is that both are lethal to life. After a while, they would have killed the amino acids that were produced.

Scientists say that life first evolved in the oceans. This is wrong, too. The amino acids created would bond to the water molecules before they bonded with each other. With this in mind, even if the twenty acids required to create a single, living cell were available, the chances that they would bond with each other are still pretty slim.

"There is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements, you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example. Does this matter? The answer is a very loud “Yes!”. In nature, we only have left-handed (levo) amino acids. (Glycine mentioned above is an exception; it does not have two forms). Miller’s experiment gives a mixture of both forms but nature requires the levo form only. Again, does it matter? Functional proteins cannot contain more than traces of right handed (dextro) amino acids. Right-handed forms (dextro) can have very different, even fatal, effects in some circumstances. It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so. In fact, L-amino acids have a tendency with age to undergo a chemical inversion to the D-form. This is called racemization. (This again gives a headache to the evolutionists: if amino acids could have been synthesised in a pure L-form, within a short time they would have racemized to give a 50:50 mixture of the two forms!). This racemization occurs in nature and can cause severe problems. For example, teeth and eye proteins racemize with age and so affect their health; Alzheimer’s disease also may be caused by racemization of a protein. This structural distinction is a property that occurs widely in organic chemistry. For example, from non-protein substances we can observe the effect. Limonene occurs in these two forms: one gives the smell of lemons and the other of oranges! More seriously, the drug thalidomide was produced to aid pregnant mothers in order to combat “morning sickness”. It was very effective but sadly serious deformities occurred in many babies. The reason was that the commercial drug was sold in a mixture of the handed forms." http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65

The article does, actually, partly address the issue of strong acids - specifically, nitrites - being created by the spark gap by mentioning subsequent experiments in which reducing agents like carbonates which could have existed in the primordial "soup" were placed in the reaction chamber - drastically reducing the yield of nitrites. This doesn't, of course, deal with the phenol ("carbolic acid") in the soup - an issue the author neglects to deal with.

However, your assertion that "without oxygen, life can't evolve!" is just wrong. MANY electron donors (sulfur, for example) can take the place of oxygen in biological reactions - and do in the case of some thermophilic bacteria found in undersea volcanic vents. Oxygen is the BEST electron donor for this purpose and so in places open to the air NOW, organisms which use oxygen out-compete sulfur-loving organisms. But in a hypothetical primordial environment, if oxygen were unavailable, sulfur and other electron donors would have sufficed in oxygen's place.

Likewise, your discussion of optical isomerism ("handedness") in amino acids seems to assume the presence of organisms which depend on DNA and RNA as we know them - which would indeed have metabolic problems with using racemates of some amino acids. The article is referring to a postulated primordial state in which nucleic acids were still being synthesized - long before ribosomes which could have a "preference" for a given optical isomer of an amino acid existed.

One of the gaps in our knowledge of primordial abiogenesis is how nucleic acids polymerized in an environment so energetic that any polymers would seem to be degraded back to their constituent amino acids and sugars as soon as they were formed - which is where the presence of phenols in the spark gap "soup" is troubling if your scientific "faith" depends on abiogenesis being a fact. loupgarous (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the experiment produces a problem for evolutionists. All the life we see around us always points to one thing and that is Intelligent Design. And no, I’m not talking about aliens. I’m talking about the Creator God; the God of the Bible.

This is my favourite website. Hopefully it'll prove to be of some usefulness. http://www.answersingenesis.com

Answers in Genesis is not considered a reliable source and what you have said is considered Original Reserch (which is also considerd unreliable). If you can find some real sources to support what you said then it will be added to the article. 121.217.44.27 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bible is not an acceptable source for a science article. And in response to your original post in which you claim there isn't any oxygen, you seem to be missing the fact that there is oxygen in H2O... There is a number of problems in your argument, not the least your claim that carbolic acid would "Kill" amino acids. And finally, you claim the Miller-Urey experiment failed because it didn't produce all the Amino acids. Obviously they didn't, because the experiment lasted only one week. --Pstanton (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the Bible is not actually acceptable to most evolutionist as a source due to that they are "scientists". but here is a link which if more "scientific" than the answers in genesis so her it is: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudango (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Experiment is not failed, so as it is/was just a scientific experiment — with concrete and clear results. The problem is that it still cannot explain all mechanisms of origin of life. P.S. To authors and creationists: it would be better for you to create in the main article a new section, named "Criticizm", and then add there these weblinks. Krasss (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Encyclopedia of Evolution???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.66.44 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

this encyclopedia says that in the evolutionary point of view it is a failure. but i have to agree that this experiment is not a failure is some points since it proves that we can create amino acids but it is a failure since it couldn't create life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.66.44 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll give you that, 190.218.66.44. It did create a few acids, but didn't create life. Even if all amino acids were formed, though, there is still a problem. Have you heard of "Frog Soup"?[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.197.70 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since, evolution is false I'm sure you have a citation to a single peer reviewed study that refutes the theory of evolution? ~RockBanned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.74.15 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to go off on you just because you mentioned Gensis, but you do make several valid points. Someone else mentioned that is was a success to show we can construct amino acids, but it was not consistent with the early earth. That seems to be true. The reasons you gave in your first paragraphs are concrete and scientific. Mmallico (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yhe hallmark of any successful scientific experiment is reproducibility, the rock on which cold fusion and Podkletnov's inertial modulation experiment seem to have foundered. This article demonstrates that Miller/Urey was not just reproducible, but that it led to other successful experiments such as Juan Oro's synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in water in 1961.

So very far from being a failure, as it has been portrayed recently (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html) , since it was a seminal work that did prove amino acids could be formed under conditions which, while extreme, could conceivably have existed in the primordial Earth.

The "failure" of the experiment as defined by other scientists goes to its possible variance from actual primordial conditions - specifically the requirement for large amounts of electrical energy over an extended period of time. However, this criticism is just as conjectural as the basis for the experimental design in Miller-Urey, so I don't think it rises to a complete rebuttal of the Miller-Urey results.!loupgarous (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Um, exscuse me, but this article still doesn't seem to show that the experiment failed. Mcoolister (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It didn't. Narayanese (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It did. Mcoolister (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to look further into this. If I find any evidence that his experiment failed, I'll post it here.

Science clearly thought it went alright... Narayanese (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard it didn't come out as he hoped. Like I said, I'll look into it. Mcoolister (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

An experiment cannot "fail" unless it yields erroneous results. This experiment, and it's results, have been replicated over and over again by many different people. Therefore this experiment was a success because it yielded a replicable result, which can then be used to confirm/falsify scientific hypotheses (ie, organic compounds can be synthesized with by primordial substances and electricity(confirmed) or that organic compounds can *only* be created magically by an immaterial intelligent force (falsified).72.253.205.13 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state that the assumptions in the hypothesis were wrong. Any honest scientist would simply state that a fact and move on. That is why this experiment is not being repeated by any reputable investigators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.228 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Another idea for an experiment

Maybe somebody could do an experiment like this; but instead of methane we use silane or germane etc. and see what comes out? --HawkFromHell (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Silane and germane are not so stable as CH₄, and the only result should be theirs decomposition; another reason is that these elements are not able to form stable Si-Si or Ge-Ge bonds. May be, experiments with phosphine (PH₃) instead methane are more interesting, but I am not sure. Krasss (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

The talk page is pretty long, and all threads look to be inactive, could someone who knows how archive this? --Pstanton (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

optical isomers and racemic?

Hi, just a stupid creationist here with a question. The line that talks about optical isomers is confusing. I'm not trying to dispute anything, but there is absolutely no indication of why the facts related are relevant. As one who really dislikes bad arguments, throwing that out there without some sort of explination appears to be an attempt to pile up technical jargon to bolster an argument. I'm sure that's not the case, but some people might see it that way. Besides, an encyclopedia article should be clear about the relevance of all information included. I even linked over to the related pages, but there isn't any help there either as to why their appearance is relevant to this experiment. I'd really like to understand. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.3.195 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The L-isomers are the ones that tend to be found in biologically active proteins 88.107.85.238 (talk)DK —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Which you would have found out if you'd clicked on the words you were confused by. optical isomers. Hypertext is awesome. -- Ec5618 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

'Conditions do not match that of early Earth...'

A very bold statement: 'However, advances in science since the original experiment have shown that the conditions of the experiment do not match that of early Earth as originally proposed.[9]'

From the source:

'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.'

This merely says that 'it is now believed that early Earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules' and 'lighting storms [on early Earth] (..) were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed'.

I think 'advances in science (..) have shown' should be changed into '[after some] advances in science (...) it is now believed'.

--Shought (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At the end of the day, speculation about primordial Earth conditions is still conjectural. And even transient electrical discharges could have created enough amino acids for local biogenesis to occur, conceivably, given even local concentrations of the postulated materials (say, near a volcanic vent). I think that the Miller Urey experiment stands on the basis it established ONE set of circumstances in which amino acids could be formed by the environment. It has been the basis for much subsequent work in exobiology.loupgarous (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed from lead

I've cut a bit of quibbling from the lead that didn't appear in the article body and was about more recent interpretations of earth's early atmosphere (along with some ID stuff). The article is about the Miller-Urey experiment and its place in the history of science. Yes, including more recent scientific works and their relation to the experiment is a valid extension to the article. But long ref quotes in the lead section don't belong. And the ID "critique" is totally out of place. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Vsmith, in this edit you removed a large amount of referenced information from the introduction of the article. I have moved the content from that paragraph to a new section in the article. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

'Twas better in the body ... however, the intelligent design stuff is rather irrelevant coatracking and I've removed it again. Also the "When the Stanley Miller tested ..." bit as absurdly worded and please - we don't quote great globs from google books in a reference as for one thing it makes editing very difficult. Vsmith (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, stating "However, in current times..." and then supporting that with an obsure 1977 book seems rather odd. Also the other reference used is a 1977 college textbook, surely we can do better. The ref to Science paper by Johnson et al is already used in the section "Recent related studies" further down in the article. So, the section suffers from redundancy and outdated/obscure refs. Vsmith (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the other sections in the article are not referenced, including the "panspermia hypothesis" assertion. I will work on the article when I am able to later. Only one sentence discussed the views of ID, which should be mentioned, since that is a view held by a significant group of people. If you object to certain references, please add the "verify" tag instead rather than removing the material. I will discuss and find more references in the future. For now I have eliminated some of the problems you have addressed, such as using the word "current," by naming the specific scientists. I would appreciate your cooperation. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

chiraltiy

Why no discussion of chirality? The enantiomeric mixture of the resulting chemicals is a crucial point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.224 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Because chirality is irrelevant; it's a creationist red herring. The experiment took place over one week, while the formation of the "primordial soup" would have taken millions of years, enough time to produce molecules of all imaginable chiralities. Bubbha (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Chirality is irrelevant to the consideration of prebiotic conditions. It only becomes important when an existing organism has to metabolize an amino acid whose chirality is incompatible with its cells' ribosomal structure and thus metabolically unusable or even toxic. That is not a consideration in the environment Miller and Urey postulated.loupgarous (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New analysis of a 1958 experiment

An interesting new analysis might warrant a mention:

• Article: Long-Neglected Experiment Gives New Clues to Origin of Life
• Analysis: Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment

Archived samples from a 1958 Stanley Miller electric discharge experiment were discovered and analyzed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead links

One link from the External Links sections is dead: A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, v.117, May 15, 1953 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.196.98 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed: Wm MacNevin

I don't know how to reply to the Main page, so here goes. The "citation needed" comment asks: "is it not clear [if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature] because academics have researched this and somehow can't tell, or is it just not clear to the Wikipedia contributor from reading only the NYT article?"

The NY Times article cited mentions MacNevin's OTHER early work with no details. The contributor (me), searched the literature indexes (Chemical Abstracts, etc.), contacted several people at the OSU chemistry department, OSU librarians and OSU archivists to try to track down any other publications (peer reviewed journal articles, theses, etc.) or unpublished archived materials (personal papers, letters, rejected manuscripts, etc.) by MacNevin or his students and they found none. I don't think they searched very hard, but they did some searches. I suppose you can change the Main article to: "There are no papers published by MacNevin describing this other work indexed in Chemical Abstracts." AdderUser (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Miller, not Miller-Urey, experiment

The original journal report seems to be a single author paper: Miller, S. L. "Production of Amino Acids under possible Primitive Earth Conditions", Science v117(3046), pp 529-529, 1953.

That makes it the Miller experiment, not the Miller-Urey experiment. Urey chose not to be a coauthor, and the scientific community should accept that choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.206.15.181 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation number 20

Citation number 20's URL is obsolete, however there is a new URL: http://www.micro.siu.edu/micr425/14.pdf I'm not sure if it is the same, though.

24.13.209.132 (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation #22

...is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

RGA1980 and Trail's Nature Paper

Hi RGA1980,

I pulled down both Trail et al.'s "The oxidation state of Hadean magmas and implications for early Earth’s atmosphere" as well as the companion "Earth science: Redox state of early magmas" in Nature 480:7375 (Dec 1 2011). I don't see Miller-Urey mentioned anywhere. While this work may have some bearing on it I think you'll be better served by finding a cite that makes the connection explicitly. Thanks. Garamond Lethe (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

the reason why this experiment is fundamentally flawed

its impossible on earth to try to recreate conditions on earth that existed before life existed on earth, because there is no way to perfectly sterilize any of the materials needed in the experiment. just the water alone that they used is from earth that has life everywhere on it. and even the most sterilized water will still have dead microbes within it. dead microbes can break down into amino acids and other chemical substances that wouldnt be there if the dead microbes weren't there to decompose. even using the most intense heat possible to sterilize water and equipment, I believe there is no way to eliminate all microscopic traces of dead microbes from any given supply of water. if you used chemical Sterilization to try to disintegrate all microbial cells, then you would end up with traces of toxic chemicals in the mixture that would be toxic to living cells. theres no way around this unless its a paradox. the only real way to try an experiment like this would beif you could get materials from another completely lifeless planet that does not have mircobes of any kind already existing on the water and other materials used in the experiment.