Talk:Miller-Urey experiment

I've heard Creationists claim that the Miller-Urey experiment isn't valid because there was no oxygen used; according to them, no oxygen on a primitive Earth means no ozone, and because of that any life would be scorched. So is the presence of the ozone layer really dependent on the presence of oxygen? (my uncle is a Creationist, and he handed me a bunch of tapes from the Institute for Creation Research to look through [the horror!], so this won't be the last question I post). Stilldeciding (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ozone (O₃) is an allotrope of oxygen (O₂) so no oxygen does rather imply no ozone. Whether this means that life would be scorched is a rather different matter. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) A quick Google reveals that the ozone layer originated in the Paleozoic Era, 500 million years ago. But Jack is right - no ozone does not mean "all life scorched." Heck, it might have even provided more opportunities for mutation because of all the radiation. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks to both of you! Stilldeciding (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

you might be interested in http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/ the wersite of Dr Jack Szostak 67.72.98.45 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

UV was also important in early evolution, it appears. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does not the experiment show that the conditions for producing 'amino acid soup' are somewhat broader than occurred on Earth - so increasing the chances of life (whether or not as we know it Jim)? (I do know that 'the whole caboodle' is likely to involve many more factors, but the more starting opportunities the more likely it is to happen.) Anna Livia (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)