What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment?

What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment?


Stated Clearly presents: What was the Miller-Urey Experiment?
It was once believed that if you left food out to rot, living
creatures like maggots and even rats would simply poof into existence. The idea was called spontaneous generation. A series of experiments starting in the
sixteen hundreds disproved this idea, and in the 1800’s, a new scientific law was
proposed: life only comes from life. It’s true that rats, maggots, and even microbes are far too complex to simply poof into existence, but in 1859, English naturalist
Charles Darwin put forth the theory of evolution. in it he showed that under the right
circumstances, relatively simple creatures can gradually give rise to
more complex creatures. Given this information, serious thinkers began to wonder: Is it possible that simple life forms actually could come from non-living matter? Not by poofing into existence, but through a natural, gradual process similar to what
we see in biological evolution. Darwin himself mentioned this idea when writing to a friend: “…but if, and what a big if” he wrote, “we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat,
electricity and so on present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes…” In 1924, Russian biochemist
Alexander Oparin published a book which he titled THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. In it
he outlined his thoughts on a gradual progression from simple chemistry to
living cells. He imagined the early ocean as a primordial soup, a rich collection
of complex molecules produced by natural chemical reactions. In this soup, chemical reactions could take place eventually producing living cells! At the
time Darwin’s warm little pond and Oparin’s
primordial soup were really just speculation. They were founded on a good
understanding of chemistry and biology but they could not be considered
legitimate scientific hypotheses because no one had found a way to test or
observe them. Science after all, is the study of observable facts, and an ongoing
conversation about how those facts can be best linked together. Cchemical reactions like those proposed
by Darwin and Oparin are not expected to leave an observable fossil record.
Without either having fossils to examine or a time machine to travel back and
observe what happened, how good scientists even begin to study the
origin of life? In the nineteen fifties Stanley Miller, then a graduate student
at the University of Chicago, came up with an idea. We can simulate early Earth
conditions in the lab and then carefully watch what happens. If you can’t study
fish in the sea, set up an aquarium! Working with his
professor, Harold Urey, Miller designed an apparatus to simulate the ancient water
cycle. Together they put in water to model the ancient ocean, it was gently
boiled to mimic evaporation. Along with water vapor, for gases in the atmosphere
they chose methane, hydrogen, and ammonia. These are simple gases which scientists
at the time I thought were probably abundant on the ancient earth. They added a condenser to cool the atmosphere, allowing water molecules to form drops
and fall back into their ocean like rain. The ancient Earth would have had many
sources of energy sunlight, geothermal heat, and even
thunderstorms; so they added sparks to the atmosphere to simulate lightning. The
goal of the experiment was not to create life, but to simply test the first step
in Oparin’s model: Can simple chemistry naturally give rise to the
complex molecules of life? After running the experiment for just one week, their
ocean became brownish black. Careful analysis revealed that through a series
of reactions, many complex molecules had been produced. Among these were amino
acids, special molecules of life that we once thought could only be built inside
their bodies and living creatures. This was a pivotal breakthrough in
science, so significant in fact that I gave rise to an entirely new field research
now known as Prebiotic Chemistry! Scientists don’t know for sure if the
gasses used by Miller really were the most common gases in the ancient Earth.
Because of this, many experienced have since been done showing that the
molecules of life can form in a wide variety of environments with different
starting chemicals and different sources of energy. Sugars, lipids, and amino acids have even
been found on meteorites. This suggests that the molecules of life are fored all
throughout the antient solar system, and may be forming right now in other
regions of our galaxy! Together these discoveries tell us that Oparin’s
primordial soup, and Darwin’s warm little pond, could have easily existed, in one
way or another, on our ancient planet. So to sum things up: What was the Miller-Urey experiment? The Miller-Urey experiment was our first attempt at simulating ancient
Earth conditions, in this case, the ancient Earth’s water cycle, for the
purpose of testing ideas about the origin of life. the Miller-Urey experiment
is significant for two main reasons: First, though it was not a perfect
simulation and the early Earth, it clearly demonstrated, for the first time, that
biomolecules can form under ancient Earth-like conditions. Second, the
experiment took what was once mere speculation, the idea that life may have
emerged from chemistry, and transformed a portion of that speculation into
legitimate testable science! Many questions remain to be answered about
the origin of life but scientists from many nations and many fields of study are now following Stanley Miller’s lead. They’re finding ways to turn those
questions about the origin of life into testable scientific hypotheses. Simulation experiments cannot tell us
exactly how life formed in the past, but if enough of them are done, they could
eventually tell us if it’s possible for life to emerge from chemistry. I’m Jon Perry and that’s the Miller-Urey experiment Stated Clearly! this video was funded by the Center for Chemical Evolution, the National Science Foundation, and NASA! Special thanks to
chemist Eric Parker, he volunteered hours of his time going over our script,
sending us scientific papers, and critiquing our visuals for this
animation. Though we do receive grants from time to time, Stated Clearly is made
possible with financial contributions from viewers like you! To support us,
visit our website statedclearly.com and click contribute. I’m happy to
announce that you can now also support as on Patreom.com. So long for now, stay curious!

100 thoughts on “What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment?”

  1. There is one simple question that creatards CAN'T answer, yet the answer should be easy, since they promote their answer anyway. But they can't answer it (either way) without being screwed so they won't answer it. Screwed when they first read. Here is the question that destroys creationists:

    What is functioning genetics based on, secular science or creation science?

  2. No! Absolutely not! Life can only come from life, and evolution of non living chemicals produces just more complex chemicals and that's it! Life can not be created in a highly controlled laboratory. Then what makes these 'deceived' and dense as lead so called scientist think that single celled life could ever evolve out in the harsh early hostile environment that was the early Archean Earth??! The odds of even a single enzyme evolving on its own is some 10 to the 240th power!! This is way more atoms that are end the known Universe!!! End of story. God created all life on Earth and anywhere else in HIS Universe. Period! Therefore the reason why life can be found over 3.8 billion years ago, is simply because God 'seeded' it in a timely manner to help turn rocks into soils!!

  3. Im a PTA student in a vocational college in germany, today in my first lesson of botany my teacher told us to watch a video like this, this maybe the most fascinating homework i ever done in my life.

  4. The Miller-Urey experiment should include water current and water vibration.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Io6lop3mk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYvYysQvBU

  5. You can build your own, I show you how in detail. (Although you probably shouldn't)Mad Science!: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7CGGd2CGlhhzhUi5UdAmynyOgWRbIcOu

  6. Regarding Miller’s experiment, “with a more efficient apparatus, … this type of process would be a way of commercially producing amino acids.” Science Vol 117 page 529 May 15 1953.

  7. if we've found them in comets then they must be significantly common. I have a feeling that extremely simple life happens often in the universe but complex life is the step that is actually the hard part

  8. So, the Miller-Urey experiment was a part of the behavior of emergent life within a large scale experiment executed by the natural laws with the apparatus called Earth?

  9. I'd bet my life on the fact that life is everywhere, but religious nuts would freak, so we will not hear of it with our "economy." I would also bet that it is already a secret.

  10. Has there been any more success with similar experiments? I'd imagine if in the past ~70 years there were a few dozen scientists per year doing experiments like these we would've seen more than just some simple amino acids

  11. Stated Clearly is certainly a deceptive site name .
    I'm fairly certain that your aware that Miller himself stated that his assumed early
    earth atmosphere wasn't correct about 3 years after the initial experiment
    and he was never able to achieve the same results using the proper chemicals.
    Unfortunately for those that prefer to believe a theory over the empirical science,
    the 1000's of times this experiment as been conducted over the last 70 years
    has always led to the same results'

    The couple of amino acid molecules that were produced is light years from explaining
    how it created living organisms.

    So . I'm sure this type of ad-hoc information will continue to be exploited by many
    for the lack of science to support the myth.

  12. the miller urey experiment used a reducing atmosphere which we have no evidence being on earth. in fact, an oxidizing atmosphere would have been necessary to create the ozone layer which would have protected these reactions from ultraviolet radiation.

  13. um yea just going to point out that if you use the atmosphere that is currently thought to be correct you get formaldehyde.

  14. I'm not sure you realize how many people you are affecting. My little nephew loves this channel. I love this channel.

  15. Nice video. But if people do some research it doesn't really help with the origin of life. Many scientist have concluded that the conditions in which they were able to create amino acids, were not the same the conditions in pre historic earth.

  16. Well, Alexander Oparin was not only a soviet, but decorated by Stalin himself and that's where this has a sour taste to it, as anything promoted by Stalin and his band of misfit pirates has an agenda to it that is most likely not suitable for most humans(eg Israel)…

  17. What this video doesn't tell you is that the main result of the Miller-Urey experiment was tar, a nuisance in organic reactions. There were also trace amounts of right-handed and left-handed amino acids. But only left-handed amino acids make up the proteins of life, and just one right-handed molecule prevents their production. So this is certainly something I would never base my beliefs on nor seriously consider a valid means by which life originated on earth.

  18. Evolution requires that spontaneous generation be a reality. Love how the vid skipped the origins question! "He imagined"? You don't say! Science is the study of observable facts? You don't say! And thus we can conclude that Darwinian evolution[ism] is NOT science! Imagining what the early earth atmosphere might have been like ≠ science, it ='s sci-fi! The separate molecules necessary for life have not been shown to arise in a wide variety of environments — collectively. Please! Over 7k applaud this nonsense? The Miller/Urey experiment has long ago been… DEBUNKED! Put it in the trash bin of pseudo-science where it belongs!

  19. Evolution is an absurd idea. People are crazy, Christians who believe in their so called holy book are crazy, Muslims who believe in their so called holy book are crazy and Jews who believe in their so called holy books are crazy, evolutionist are crazy too.

  20. Hey, Stated Clearly, do you know what Harold Urey said about abiogenisis?

    https://goo.gl/images/tQ42Wn

    It seems he doesn't even see how it's possible. And Darwin never made clear the possibility of universal common descent. Even Darwin said that the lack of transitional fossils is a valid argument to evolution. The lack of transitional species is now more apparent. If the Miller Urey experiment produced silicon would you believe that random processes created computers? This is dishonest pseudo science and low resolution thinking.

  21. This has to be the best of all the fake videos that Stated Clearly has ever made. And that is saying a lot!
    No modern scientist thinks that the Miller Urey experiment has anything valid to offer.

    It is like saying someone made a grain of sand. And so the pyramids could have formed by chance.

    First, all life is information based. No life exists without a lot of specified, coded, and complex, information. And science knows that coded, complex, and specified, information only comes from an intelligent source.
    Not sometime, always.
    The simplest cell has at least 180,000 bits of complex, coded, and specified, information.

    Please do your own homework before believing this total crap. If you need me to explain the problems let me know.
    Here is a quote from David Berlinski, Postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University  
    The probability that a monkey will strike a
    given letter is one in 26. The typewriter has 26 keys: the monkey, one working
    finger. But a letter is not a word. Should Dawkins demand that the monkey get
    two English letters right, the odds against success rise with terrible
    inexorability from one in 26 to one in 676. The Shakespearean target chosen by
    Dawkins — "Methinks it is like a weasel"-is a six-word sentence
    containing 28 English letters (including the spaces). It occupies an isolated
    point in a space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million
    possibilities. This is a very large number; combinatorial inflation is at work.
    And these are very long odds. And a six-word sentence consisting of 28 English
    letters is a very short, very simple English sentence.

    What then are the odds of 180,000 bits of complex, coded and specified, information arising by time and chance?

    That is just he beginning of the insurmountable problems.

  22. What was the miller-Urey experiment? A failed attempt to prove that a banana and a whale and humans are related and that life magically sprang itself into being……….they WONT tell you that they removed the oxygen from the test tube because it would oxidize the material and ruin it……..hmmmmmm, there sure is a lot of oxygen now, and amber samples containing nearly 50% oxygen concentration sure would make their bologna experiment look PRETTY far fetched to believe. Abiogenesis is a MYTH. Now, explain to me how 8,000,000 KNOWN species are going to arise out of an impossible scenario like the miller-Urey fraud with all of their infinite complexity. The laws of probability AGAINST even the partial proteins combining ALL BY THEMSELVES into a single cell self replicating organisms, the odds are literally exponential in numbers. Even the simplest organisms on the planet are more complex than most people can wrap their brains around. You are KIDDING yourself if you buy this garbage………… and they teach this crap to kids in school- bona fide make believe, FAITH based belief. Transpeciation evolutionism is a RELIGION drenched in scientific nomenclature as a smoke screen for the fact that academiacs really DO NOT KNOW how all this came into existence, and it does not even enter into their mind as a POSSIBILITY that GOD, an all wise Creator made it all exactly the way He told us through Moses in the Bible. Not even an option for these people. I would boldly suggest that there is FAR more evidence that all of this complexity is Designed. Too much logic in genetics to say ‘random chance’ and their ‘millions of billions and trillions of years. You would laugh at me if I said that you can kiss a frog and it’ll become a prince………..you would say that I believe a fairy tale, then take an evolutionismist and give him a frog and he tells you ‘given enough time he’ll become a prince.’ Who really believes in fairy tales here??? I swear people are getting dumber and dumber and dumber and not thinking for themselves instead I of taking dictation from academiacs.

  23. Scientists tell God that they don't need him anymore, they can create life on their own using a "Water Cycle". God says, If you are to do it by yourself, then you should get your own "Water Cycle".

  24. Could it be possible that, the water Miller used for that experiment was full of microorganisms that already had amino acids???

  25. An amino acid is like a single Lego piece (thus the term "building blocks of life"). A protein, which is built from amino acids, is like a Millennium Falcon scale model built from Legos. Does anyone really believe that if you waited a billion years for random forces of nature to do their thing on Legos, eventually you'd get a Millennium Falcon out of the deal?

    There are 20 amino acids that make up proteins. A "simple" protein consists of about 200 amino acids in just the right order. For those amino acids to form together in the right order by random chance is less than one out of 10^260. The number of atoms in the known universe (10^80) is minuscule compared to that number. And that's just one protein, forget something like a 200-billion atom DNA molecule.

    Waiting for some scientists to get to the next step of life with those amino acids is about the same as waiting in New York harbor for the Titanic to arrive. It's never going to happen. This video is misleading if it gave anyone the impression that scientists are anywhere even remotely close to just the next step in supposedly how life came about.

  26. So we are just a formation of Simple life particales formed by chemicals that reacted so long until they got the mechanism of reproducing, which lead to the mechanism preservation, leading to biological evolution, which got so far as going to us, trying to find out how we are made, and for what? To reproduce, spread and preserve… Great we are just like the earliest forms of life, just with the ability to get depressed. But why stop there, lets create Ai to life in, as a more friendly enviroment just like cells did with organism, than Ai can evolve so far that it becomes sentient trying to underatand where it came from and to produce a more friendly enviroment for it to live in, until that becomes sentient and does the same, until the universe is filled with a single existence finding milion of universes (one entities) around which will Form another group of things like cells, making a body or something until it finds a way to make a more friendly enviroment for all this entitie universes (which could in the end be like a quarks or some shit for a almost infinitely bigger structure like a quarks is in our universe, until these build constructs (electrons, neutrons protons)… I think you know where I am going with this. Well a I know what my next Trip will be about

  27. 'poofing into existence' is non-credible? OK, so how did the universe come into existence? The Big Bang Theory (originated by a Christian priest by the name of Fr. Georges Lemaitre, who based his work on Einstein's theory of general relativity), has the entireity of the cosmos 'poofing into existence' about 14 billion years ago. So 'poofing' everything is a a very cool cosmological theory, and physics precedes chemistry as chemistry precedes biology. So be careful about what poofing you disparage. And the chemical assumptions of the Miller-Urey experiment are so far from what current geophysics has long believed the early earth environs was like that it is outdated and irrelevant. All it ever created was a chemically poisonous mess, not 'prebiotic' monomers or polymers. The very term 'prebiotic' begs the question putatively being answered.

  28. Anything to not have God rule over us. This is utter BS. Evolution ,Big bang , space … it's all lies. God made us and saved us through Jesus Christ. Hope you find that out for yourselves .

  29. The Miller urey experiment did not produce life and what simple amino acids were formed if the chemist lab represents the world what do miller and urey represent. and you have to have all left hand 20 amino acids to form a protein.And you needed Oxygen to produce life and an ozone layer to protect life .Life did not exist on meteorites.

  30. Look at a stand of DNA. There may be a big discovery here connected to how life began. IF 1. the helix denatures, comes apart in high heat, and IF 2. GC bonds are stronger than AU (in RNA) then a daily cycle would denature and anneal, and there would be selection pressure such that more stable configurations would not denature as quickly, and more GC heavy stretches would not denature so quickly. Now do this over a million years and what do you end up with? Bases that are both strong (not denaturing in certain temp) and flexible ( part or whole denaturing in certain temp) . That last is exactly what happens in making genes, or in replication. HEAT! and RNA/DNA.
    This idea is from my sci fi novel, Writings in Science, a history of the future.

  31. It's not possible for life to emerge "accidentally" from Chemistry. The validity of the Miller-Urey is controversial given the number of assumptions they had made. Also, the frequency of the natural cycle they modeled is much faster than the frequency of the natural cycle itself but yields similar products. The rate of production is ridiculously faster as proven by the water turning brown. The color change indicates a very high concentration of matter in the water which is not observed in oceans (which increases the volatility of reactions as reactants are closer together). Therefore, in the real cycle, there would be a significant decrease in the rate at which things are produced, allowing more time for their decomposition or dilution into the natural systems and a decreased chance of interaction of products. Even if the Miller-Urey experiment does hold truth, the production of amino acids is very necessary for, yet highly simple relative to, the construction of life, especially intelligent human life. A comparison would be taking the nonspontaneous formation of a potential difference(Voltage), and assuming that such an incident rationalizes this potential difference "evolving" to form a computer with millions of components, naturally. The probability of an environment that enables amino acid production is small. Furthermore, the probability of amino acids actually forming in this environment is even smaller, and the production of proteins forming naturally from these amino acids is very improbable. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize awardee for determining the structure of DNA, calculated the odds of a protein forming naturally in the sea to be 1:10^260. To put this inconceivably large number into a more comprehensible explanation, I've done some calculations. There are approximately 10^81 electrons in the observable universe. If just one of these electrons is used to represent the occurrence of a protein naturally being produced, 10^179 universes (with the same defined particle horizon and ordinary matter quantity of our own universe) worth of electrons is necessary. One electron out of 10^179 universes worth of electrons is analogous to the magnitude of probability of a protein forming naturally by chance. Continuing down this logical pathway involves considering the probability of proteins combining to form complex polymers which, combined with lipids and carbohydrates, organize into biological systems. Then, these systems must combine to form a singular cell. This cell must survive and learn to reproduce in its lifetime (which could be milliseconds), otherwise, its construction is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It is much more probable for a cell to not learn how to reproduce in its lifetime than it is for the cell to learn to reproduce. To reproduce would require the natural construction of DNA (if not in the most primitive microorganisms, then eventually would be necessary if evolution is true) which is regarded as significantly more complex than any software humans have ever written. Would one expect the software programs behind a computers operating system to naturally be constructed? Of course not. Therefore, the natural construction of DNA would be immensely more improbable.

  32. That was a great video. Lots of information and digestible. I feel like I can set up that experiment myself now.

  33. There are a number of problems with the Miller-Urey experiment. Chief among them is the lack of evidence that a primordial soup existed. Science moves on unabated, but it should be a lesson not to draw too many conclusions from scientific theory.

  34. How absurd, first you state that the experiment attempted to simulate "early" earth environment, then contradict yourself by admitting it's not known what the "early" earth environment was.

  35. This just isn't true. Do your own research and you discover that only a few simple ameano acido were produced and these were destroyed by a process called chiraltie. Left and right handed ameano acids were produced and these effectively destroyed each other leaving a black tar. My research says that Urey was Miller's student not what this chap says. Also, Miller when talking years later about his experiment said that I had failed to develop the argument for chemical evolution. Do your own research.

  36. And all this came from a rock that came from an explosion long ago and far away that came from nothing.

    Brain wash copy paste

  37. Evolutionist: Believes you came from a monkey that came from a fish, that came from a soup that came from a rock that exploded from nothing.

    Nothing but American tax funded Garbage

  38. LMAO seriously? You don't think you left out some things that may have been disingenuous about the experiment?

  39. The narrator states this: "He (Darwin) showed that under the right circumstances relatively simple creatures could gradually give rise to more complex creatures." Yeah, just exactly how did he show that could happen? He must have done some experiment that most of the world has never heard of, because in Darwin's two works, "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man," subjunctive phrases such as "if we may suppose" appear over 800 times! Yes, I counted them! Such is the foundation of modern science's theory of evolution. Darwin showed not one thing. He merely supposed, that is, theorized. That's it!

  40. Charles Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution. In fact, he never used the word. Later atheistic evolutionists came up with that one. Darwin popularized a theory that many in his family believed (and others long before he lived), and Haekel's phony drawings of embryos that were in biology books for decades before they were discovered as fakes turned it into the myth-fact that it is today. That's what atheistic evolution is based on.

  41. The miller-Urey experiment has been widely debunked. After that experiment they determined that only 5 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Also the problem with Abiogenesis isn’t that we. Can’t form amino acids but that we couldn’t resemble them in the right orders to create living cells that are more complex than any computer we have ever made (according to bill gates) James tour arguably the best synthetic chemist in the world destroys the theory of organic materials forming life.

  42. this still doesnt explain the astronomical odds against those complex proteins forming. remember that for that brownish color to form, they needed intelligent life to put together the correct ingredients at the right time and the right place. it didnt happen by chance. they didnt take into account the fact that nature left onto itself will never do this. no one says its impossible, but nature resulting in low entropy is, according to the rule these physicists created, highly unlikely. the debate here is not whether its operationally possible. the debate is how likely such condition will happen if nature is left unto itself.

  43. Wow you have to be an idiot not to understand that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the probability of life forming a-biogenesis. This is way worse than claiming "we have discovered that sand and rock can form naturally, therefore that is a 'scientific' basis for thinking the pyramids just formed naturally". Sorry, the Miler-Urey experiment was worthless, and there has been exactly 0 progress since, and no, they were not even close to what is now considered the scientific-consensus of a pre-biotic state.

  44. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated: After a careful examination of the Miller experiment, Shapiro recognized that the simple chemicals he produced are a far cry from the incredible complexity of a living cell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *