The validity of the Miller-Urey Theory

I am here to debate the validity of the Miller-Urey experiments not to explain every step of the abiogenesis, many of which are unclear as of yet. The Miller-Urey experiment showed the clear and unambiguous result that, at the very least, organic molecules could arise from non-organic molecules. http://en.wikipedia.org... "The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle." "At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. The experiment also produced a substance which, to most life, would be a "toxic carcinogenic"[4] substance. However, these compounds, which include formaldehyde and cyanide are "necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including Amino Acids". " The experiment showed that organic molecules are easily produced through naturalistic forces. The fact that you can produce organic from the inorganic speaks volumes to the question of how and if life can arise from nonlife. This is all I am required to prove. It is valid. Your objection on the grounds that it produced a number of building blocks to life that we today in this environment react negatively to doesn't negate the fact that they are fantastic elements for building more complex molecules. The Miller-Urey experiments showed this is easily done, changing the atmospheric composition doesn't change the results: Organic molecules are produced from non-organic. In case people reading this found anything my opponent said mildly convincing, I'll go to the effort to rebut his claims. Keep in mind though, I am to show that the Miller-Urey conclusions were valid. And thus far his objections have been, rather naive. - Formaldehyde is used as in the embalming process as a cavity fluid. However to state that that is it's only use is an argument from ignorance. Even outside of abiogenesis we use formaldehyde as a building block for paints, plastics, explosives, etc. It's extremely useful. Build more complex organic compounds is one of its many uses. - Cyanide has no bias for chirality. Further, the Miller-Urey experiments produced both right-handed and left-handed amino acids. Even if the right-handed statement were true, it would not negate the experiment (nobody said it needed to be used, just that it was produced). Cyanide is still not deadly to organic molecules. - Cyanide kills almost instantly. It causes a chemical reaction with mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase causing your cells to be unable to absorb oxygen. You turn red, breathe fast, and end up dead on the floor. Organic molecules don't have aerobic respiration, nor will anything lifeform for a billion years (considering when we're talking about). - The Miller-Urey experiments produced organic from inorganic. Later studies show that this same experiment on corrected atmospheres DOES THE SAME THING! - Nobody is arguing that Miller-Urey will produce complex organic molecules prior to producing "their predecessors". If anything Miller-Urey shows that you shouldn't assume so much. Your odds calculations are flawed for a number of reasons the chief of which is "the desert" is basically ten or so different types of sand, the grains don't have to be found, and they stick together. The analogy to sand being assembled and needing exactly specific elements is bizarre to say the least. How different is one carbon from another? - It is beyond the topic to discuss how membranes form. As such, I'll just refer readers and my opponent to a pretty basic explanation: http://www.youtube.com... - DNA and RNA are perfectly safe without nuclei, in viruses and bacteria. There are no nuclei until the eukaryotes (means true nucleus). - Cell membranes still don't reproduce. If you hold that membranes can't be reproduced then you must hold some odd biology for ourselves and every organism with cells. - The age of the universe is calculated not simply by calculations and observations (in agreement) for the CMBR but by a number of different independent lines of evidence. And seeing as it took a week for the Miller-Urey experiment and it had a couple billion years, I'm not exactly pressed for time. - We changed what the atmosphere should have been and still produced massive amounts of organic compounds. The idea that, because our knowledge of what the early atmosphere should involve, was wrong the experiment with the wrong stuff AND the one with the RIGHT stuff should be negated is absurd. - The proper mix does create the building blocks of amino acids. In fact, IT CREATES AMINO ACIDS! Left handed, right handed... whatever you want. Your argument is simply an argument from ignorance. I don't know how this could happen so it must be impossible! That is wrong. We have good reasons to suspect how it happened. We have no reason to doubt the results. And the Miller-Urey experiment was actually done. It's one thing to say that there's no such thing as amino acids forming from inorganic compounds, it's another thing to say that they didn't when talking about an experiment in which they demonstrably did. We aren't talking about what may or may not be theoretically possible, we are talking about what was experimentally produced.