No, No Arks Required........

[Minimalist]

[Rhondazvous]

Wiki 'Miller Urey experiment"

1952? I'm all late.

[Rhondazvous]

I thought the dinosaurs were gay and god smote them

That's a possibility. The angels struck them all blind so they couldn't see the asteroid coming. That could be a new movie. sodomaurus Rex or Joyassic Park.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nearly everything was killed, it was an extinction event.  It's a bit of a simplification to say that everything got wiped out by an impact.  More the lasting effect of that impact (and other contributing factors not related, specifically, to any impact event).  Straw that broke the camels back kind of thing.

I doubt everything got wiped out.

Doubt?  We're discussing the kt boundary, and kt exinction event, are we not?  You might have missed the word -nearly-, above.  

 some things had to survive, or we would not be here.  New life could not have developed on earth after the oxygenation event, so if everything got wiped out, that would be it.

Indeed, it would be....but...uh......  

Hey, couldn't scientists easily recreate the beginning of life on earth in a controlled environment?

IDK, if they could, I don't think that it could really be described as being easy. The urey miller experiment, for example, didn't create life - and what we -do- know of the early conditions has told us that some of the parameters of that experiment were woefully wrong. It;s a popular experiment to point to not because it explains the origins of life, but because it answers any objections as to the impossibility of a natural origin.

Don't we know all the necessary conditions?

No.

[Rhondazvous]

I doubt everything got wiped out.

Doubt?  We're discussing the kt boundary, and kt exinction event, are we not?  You might have missed the word -nearly-, above.  

 some things had to survive, or we would not be here.  New life could not have developed on earth after the oxygenation event, so if everything got wiped out, that would be it.

Indeed, it would be....but...uh......  

Hey, couldn't scientists easily recreate the beginning of life on earth in a controlled environment?

IDK, if they could, I don't think that it could really be described as being easy.  The urey miller experiment, for example, didn't create life - and what we -do- know of the early conditions has told us that some of the parameters of that experiment were woefully wrong.  It;s a popular experiment to point to not because it explains the origins of life, but because it answers any objections as to the impossibility of a natural origin.

Don't we know all the necessary conditions?

No.

Yes, you did say "nearly," didn't you. Touché.

Vorlon just turned me on to Miller-Urey. I'd have to read beyond what Wikipedia has to say about it to discuss what their experiment did and did not do.

[Minimalist]

Here, Rhonda. 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notroc...3FYRqLQPmY

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life

Using modern techniques, around a billion times more sensitive than those Miller would have used, Parker identified 23 different amino acids in the vials, far more than the five that Miller had originally described. Seven of these contained sulphur, which is either a first for science or old news, depending on how you look at it. Other scientists have since produced sulphurous amino acids in similar experiments, including Carl Sagan. But unbeknownst to all of them, Miller had beaten them to it by several years.

[dyresand]

I thought the dinosaurs were gay and god smote them

[Expired]

I thought the dinosaurs were gay and god smote them

[Anomalocaris]

Here, Rhonda. 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notroc...3FYRqLQPmY

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life

Using modern techniques, around a billion times more sensitive than those Miller would have used, Parker identified 23 different amino acids in the vials, far more than the five that Miller had originally described. Seven of these contained sulphur, which is either a first for science or old news, depending on how you look at it. Other scientists have since produced sulphurous amino acids in similar experiments, including Carl Sagan. But unbeknownst to all of them, Miller had beaten them to it by several years.

That's nice, except it is now generally accepted that Miller and Urey's notion of the content of the primordial earth atmosphere was all wrong.  So Miller Urey shows some steps in creation of amino acid can be achieved in a simple laboratory experiment that uses conditions unlike those that actually prevailed on earth at the origin of life.  That's it.  It didn't offer insight into how by far the most important and poorly understood step, which is how the right amino acids are concentrated and encouraged to react in thermal dynamically plausible ways that wouldn't blow the whole thing apart, can be achieved.  So It's actual value in replicating any step in origin of life is much overstated and not remotely as high as once thought.

People should really caveat Miller Urey if they wanted to cite Miller Urey in arguing the process of origin of life is understood.

[Gawdzilla]

Haven't they found amino acids in asteroids?