EHRC Homepage | New Category | Your Questions

Such experiments (Miller-Urey experiments produced simple molecules from a mixture of anoxic gases in a spark chamber, and Fox produced a polymer from purified amino acids by heating them in the absence of water) hardly qualify as abiogenic experiments. Take the work of Fox for example. He is an amino acid biochemist, and certainly not himself abiotic. Thus if he participated in any way in the experiment, it could hardly be said to be abiogenic. Then there is the matter of the purified amino acids he used as starting materials. They came from soy beans, certainly not an abiotic source. Then there are the biochemists who purified the amino acids from the soy beans. They would be highly offended if you referred to them as abiotic. Then there is the little matter of the experimental aparatus that Fox designed, and the control of the conditions under which the reactions took place. For example, in order to heat the amino acids without destroying them, Fox had to maintain a precise and specific ratio of (glutamic + aspartic) acids (the only two that do not break down upon heating) and the other 18 amino acids in his mixture. When (glutamic+aspartic) melt they will dissolve an equal volume of the other 18 amino acids. These were all controlled by Fox, who I believe we previously established was not abiotic. So where in these experiments is the abiogenesis coming in? Certainly not in the ingredients, the procedure or the products. Incidentally, Fox was a professor of mine and I have done all these experiments in his lab under his direction. I didn't see anything that qualified them as abiotic then or now. He is just a clever biochemist plying his trade. The same analysis holds for the Miller-Urey experiments. For more details, see this heading in the Technical Papers section of this website.

______________________________________________________ Ó 2010 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.