The validity of the Miller-Urey Theory

The Miller-Urey experiment is a proven fact. It proved that you could through naturalistic forces create organic compounds in prebiotic atmospheres. That's the point of the Miller-Urey experiment. A general assumption is that because the atmospheric content was wrong that it is therefore impossible and incorrect. Rather the same results are found in other atmospheric mixes and the atmospheric changes don't change the result (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Further, there some evidence that early life formed in the oceans near hydrothermal vents. And thus the atmospheric conditions are fairly moot. The Miller-Urey experiment simply showed how easy organic molecules form naturally in a prebiotic environment. Your counter argument to this is that hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde synthesis are formed. This is probably from Stribling and Miller 1987: http://www.springerlink.com... You are simply taking the idea that it made evil poison cyanide and formaldehyde as proof that it would kill all the life created and therefore could never happen! CATEGORICALLY NO! You are taking the idea that cyanide and formaldehyde is proof there's no pudding... rather cyanide and formaldehyde ARE THE PUDDING! Hydrogen cyanide has been discussed as a precursor to amino acids and nucleic acids. It is possible, for example, that HCN played a part in the origin of life. Leslie Orgel, among many researchers, has written extensively on the condensation of HCN. Although the relationship of these chemical reactions to the origin of life remains speculative, studies in this area have led to discoveries of new pathways to organic compounds derived from condensation of HCN -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Formaldehyde is a central building-block in the synthesis of many other compounds. It exhibits most of the chemical properties of other aldehydes but is more reactive. Formaldehyde is a good electrophile, participating in electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions with aromatic compounds, and can undergo electrophilic addition reactions with alkenes. In the presence of basic catalysts, formaldehyde undergoes a Cannizaro reaction to produce formic acid and methanol. -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Just because a chemical kills us, massive multi-cellular organisms with well established processes does not mean it 'kills' small organic molecules. IT BUILDS THOSE MOLECULES! "Hazardous for any protein/carbon based lifeforms" is a far cry from hazardous to very basic simple amino acids and organic chemical prelife. You know what chemical would have actually been quite deadly to these early prelife molecules? Oxygen! As for Formaldehyde being the worst poison ever. We use to have people sticking their arms in it all the time. It's not that dangerous. The problem is that it's a major carcinogen and thus lab safety protocols are such that you are required by law to minimize exposure. So let's reanalyze your claims under this new found light of a good understanding of organic chemistry: -- "Urey experiment would be repeated hundreds or thousands of times in that atmosphere, meaning that formaldehyde and cyanide would be commonplace." - Good! More building blocks for life. --Assuming that this cell were to form, - Cell? HAHAHAHA! Give that a few million years at least. Before the organic chemicals build up a cell membrane. --then it would be quickly destroyed by the formaldehyde, - And you know why cells have membranes? To protect them from things which would kill them. A cell membrane could very well evolve due to selection against other chemicals wanting to react with this slightly complex early molecule. --which, being heavier than water, would make even the bottom of the ocean uninhabitable to cellular organisms. - Cellular organisms... slow down man. We have several billion years to get there. You want cells already? We'd maybe get some basic replicating RNA after a couple million years. And giving lots of building blocks to deep sea vents is very helpful as far as abiogenesis goes. So, in the end your argument is that life couldn't form because there are massive supplies of building blocks near the deep sea vents where life could very well have started? And that with this abundance of organic building blocks, life is less likely to begin? And all of this is suppose to cause us to rise up in objection to the verifiable fact that a guy in 1953 proved that organic molecules could arise naturally in prebiotic environments? The Miller-Urey experiments did prove that you could, from inorganic prebiotics, naturally have organic molecules form. Later experiments showed that this finding holds for a wide range of atmospheres. -- The Miller-Urey Theory is valid.