Talk:Stanley Miller

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The main page (26 Oct) says, "he received a B.S. from University of California, Berkeley, where he was a student of Harold Urey". Urey himself was a grad student at Berkeley and got his Ph.D. there in 1923. Thereafter, he taught at Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Chicago and Oxford. He didn't return to the UC system until 1958, 5 years after the Miller-Urey experiment at Chicago. I don't think that Miller could have been a student of Urey at Berkeley in the 1947-1952 timespan. Miller was a student of Urey's at Chicago in 1953. I hope that someone can either authenticate the main article or reconcile the apparently contradictory info (Urey biography).

According to the references I found (and included in article) Urey was at Chicago with Miller--not at Berkeley.Glendoremus 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

Someone please fix this article.

I noticed some vandalism

I tried to fix it but probably I am not up to the task. I replaced 'His cult' by 'His work' and 'Australia' by 'California'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.123.179 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub classification

This article is a stub due to its relative shortness. It needs to be expanded with more sources. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Does anyone know good reason (other than vandalism) why an anonymous user should keep changing the introduction?

How does one go about protecting the page? Davy p 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Stanley Miller did not create life in a laboratory. He created amino acids and tar. Furthermore, he didn't even correctly duplicate the supposed conditions of earth at that time period. He left out several conditions that he himself asserted were present at the earth's formation, because he knew if he added them, the experiment would not work. I have not said one single word about either creationism or ID; I am simply pointing out holes in widely accepterd theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.130.160 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find parts of the article that are factually incorrect e.g. "he created life in the lab" then go ahead and change them but make sure that you cite one or more reliable sources for your info because this is just an encyclopedia and nothing more. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Entire revision

I have revised the entire text with proper citations and better sequence of the timeline. I have also removed this portion, which I think is more relevant to other pages like abiogenesis or Urey-Miller experiment:

In 1828 Friedrich Wöhler had shown that it is possible to synthesize urea. As urea is an organic molecule, many at the time thought it could only be made by living organisms. This led to recognition that there is no obvious difference between a physically produced and an organically produced molecule. Miller's experiment went slightly further by showing that basic biomolecules can be formed through simple physical processes, and that it was not impossible for the first stages of abiogenesis to have occurred on the early earth.

Chhandama (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Life and Career" section

This entire section reads as if it were written by a racist stereotype Japanese cartoon character. It needs a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.9.240 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily Japanese, could be Russian, or some other language whose grammar lacks the definite and indefinite article. Short of a complete re-write, even some aggressive copy editing would go a long way. I'd work on it myself, but I fear I would make content mistakes, it needs to be done by somebody who has some degree of familiarity with the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelgale (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

dangerous vandalism

In this stanley miller article, under the reassessment subheading, in the second paragraph, is a reference to "... liguid chromatography time of flight mass spectrometry. " I have never heard of such a test, Ibelieve or hope it is merely a mistake Frioshesd987 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The cited source says "The residues in the vials were resuspended in 1-ml aliquots of doubly distilled deionized water and characterized by high-performance liquid chromatography and liquid chromatography–time of flight mass spectrometry that allows for identification at the sub-picomolar (<10−12 M) level (2)." There's a Time-of-flight mass spectrometry article and perhaps you can see this at google books Liquid Chromatography Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry, Imma Ferrer, E. M. Thurman, 2009, Wiley ISBN 978-0-470-13797-0 Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)