Murchison Meteor Questions

jar:It's better than that!You can actually watch him say it in the Q&A portion of the DVD documentary, 'The Privilaged Planet'. And you get all of the other context to boot!You can watch it here at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdxRj49m5c&mode=related&... but you'll have to purchase the DVD to get the bonus material and this particular Davies quote.I've bought many of them, and give them away faster than my wife will allow me to purchase them.

Change that from "can" to "does" and you'd be right. Didn't I already tell you to be careful with your word choice? Nuclear fusion is a one of the bomb types, and we find that in stars (and look at the energy released in there. Be specific and say "nuclear fission bombs".As to nuclear bombs not being natural, read this: A nuclear fission bomb is a bomb that uses a sustained nuclear chain reaction.The only reason Oklo didn't meltdown is because the neutron moderator (water, in this case) would boil away, slowing down the reaction. But it was, too, a sustained nuclear chain reaction.Nuclear bombs (both fission and fusion) are natural. Actually, they are. All you have to argue against this is personal incredulity. And a tired argument of "well, it was originally directed by us, so it can't be natural!!"The only difference is that in the rock analogy we put the rock on top of the cliff. But a rock can fall on its own. So how is one not natural and the other is if the outcome is the same?

Um, oookay. I guess the earth, or the moon, or venus, or any of the other planets and their respective moons don't exist.I also suppose this means that GPS satellites don't exist.Because they do exist in nature.What you should have said (since this would at least follow your tradional argument) is that those things are not natural. But you'd still be wrong, because the planets and the moons are natural. A satellite is simply something that orbits something else.Glad to see you're finally careful with the word "nuclear fission bomb" (as opposed to simply "nuclear bomb").

And so as usual, instead of addressing the issues you segue into a commercial.The Facts are that Paul Davies starts with the classic con of palming the pea.When you begin with a false premise as he did, there is no way to go except down.Paul Davies nonsense is falsified in Message 132. Continuing to repeat it is either willful ignorance, delusion or just plain dishonesty.

No it isn't. What you quoted him saying was: It's simple English, Rob. Ken said that first the bomb was completed and tested, then afterwards that that work predicted that "real world natural fission was possible."And as I just explained in the prior message, the opposite is the case. First theory predicted that sustained nuclear fission was possible, then that was demonstrated in 1942 by Enrico Fermi, a full three years before the first atomic bomb test.This atomic bomb discussion is off-topic, but I thought it important to respond because it's a microcosm of your and Ken's fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science, which is off-topic for this thread, too, but this misunderstanding seems to be driving your pursuit of "proof" that adenine cannot arise by natural means, and so it keeps coming up.Though so many of your posts are off-topic, it's hard not to respond because, like this one, they're declaring that "black is white". They're just so blatantly wrong that it's impossible to resist responding. How would you like it if I kept misspelling Jesis, then after I said my brother had told me that Jesis ate the last super before overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple and was corrected, I denied that my brother had said any such thing, despite that there it was in black and white.So please stop wasting bandwidth with inane posts like this. You seem to make the most errors when making a quick series of short chat-style posts as you're again doing tonight. The topic is adenine and the Murchison meteorite. RAZD says that this thread presented evidence that adenine or it's precursors through a simple acid bath process were found in the Murchison and other meteorites. I think that's what you need to address.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Rob, I think you may be confusing two different definitions of the same word again, though for a different word this time. There are two contexts in which one can claim something is unnatural. In one context, unnatural means created by people. In the other context, unnatural means supernatural.In this atomic bomb discussion we're using unnatural to mean supernatural, not "created by people". Fission created by people is just as natural as fission at Oklo. It doesn't matter whether a critical mass of radioactive material was collected by people or not, such a critical mass will experience fission. And it will be the exact same type of fission, given the same materials and other conditions.I think that where you and Ken are confused must be that you believe that what scientists learn through observation and experiment is somehow some artificial, non-natural effect that has no connection to the real world. This could not be further from the truth. Science assumes that the the laws of the universe apply everywhere, including in the laboratory. The laws of the universe don't stop at laboratory walls.There can be a difficulty in applying the results of laboratory experiment to the real world. Laboratory experiments usually carefully control all variables, while the world outside the laboratory is a very messy and complex place. For simple things like the rate of acceleration in a vacuum or nuclear fission it doesn't matter, the real world is no more complex than the laboratory, but for more complex things like disease studies it can be very unclear how the result under simple conditions might generalize to the real world.--Percy

Actually, the way I see it, this makes a distinction between the formic acid extraction and the HCl hydrolysis extraction, both of which produced adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, but only with the HCl hydrolysis process does degradation of adenine to hypoxanthine, and xanthine occur.

quote:

---

We have also investigated the hydrolysis of the supernatant at pH 8, which is a more reasonable model of primitive oceanic conditions, and found that the adenine yield is comparable to that obtained with acid hydrolysis (approximately 0.1%).

---

And we still get the same basic results. Three different approaches end up with adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine.From http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2004/pdf/5145.pdf again

quote:

---

Table 1-Summary of nucleobases concentration in the
formic acid extracts of Murchison meteorite (in ppb)
Nucleobases   Stoks [1,2]   Glavin [3]   Our study
-----------------------------------------------------
Uracil           33            145          131
Thymine           1           <255           41
Guanine         234            <16          <11
Xanthine        530            356           10
Hypoxanthine    215            232          156
Adenine         267            204           95

---

Formic acid extracts, no HCl hydrolysis.You still end up with these two possibilities:(1) adenine is\was present on the meteor and it is degrading into hypoxanthine, and xanthine, the extraction process also causes degradation, OR(2) adenine is produced by the extraction process -- from compounds like hypoxanthine, and xanthine -- which at the same time is degrading the adenine it just made into hypoxanthine, and xanthine ... (see any problem here?).Given the results of the three different processes noted above, I'll stick with my previous conclusions: the existence of hypoxanthine, and xanthine on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today; that it is extremely highly unlikely that the extraction process both synthesized and degraded adenine ... leading to the conclusion that adenine was on the meteor in the past if it is not there today.Any way you cut the evidence, this is a large step away from saying that adenine was not available during the formation of early life on this planet.Nor does this in any way rule out the possibility of adenine being on meteors during the period of heavy meteor bombardment of the early earth.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added table

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Razd:I see what you mean, but the only problem is that it takes a great deal of time to hydrolyze adenine at a lower pH. And the extractions in the Glavin and Bada paper were using 95% formic acid; hardly a pH 8!I don't think it is the strength so much as the pH. Hot Hcl systhesis is not only high in pH, but very strong.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Who's Pual davies?You had better watch it jar, these guys get pretty fussy about spelling.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

And yet again you do not respond to the topic or even the content of posts but just try to misdirect peoples attention in the hope no one notices.As pointed out in Message 139 and other posts:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But not to degrade it?You still end up with these two possibilities:(1) adenine is\was present on the meteor and it is degrading into hypoxanthine, and xanthine, the extraction process also causes degradation, OR(2) adenine is produced by the extraction process -- from compounds like hypoxanthine, and xanthine -- which at the same time is degrading the adenine it just made into hypoxanthine, and xanthine ... (see any problem here?).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That would actually make it very basic.
Hydrochloric acid has a very low pH. It all depends on the concentration and what else is mixed though. Your stomach has a pH of 2, roughly.A 10% concentration of HCl has a pH of -.5
That would make it at least 100 times stronger than what's in your stomach. (pH is a logarithmic scale, where each shift of one point is equal to ten times (or ten times less) the previous. So a pH of 6 is ten times more acidic than a pH of 7, while a pH of 8 is ten times less acidic (or ten times more basic) than a pH of 7.
Hydrochloric acid - WikipediaI have to do some digging to see if there are some more errors here (I'm thinking some possibility exists in you describing their solution as 95% formic acid, given that such a solution would be classified as an R35--capable of causing sever burns. Something with a pH of 8 would not cause severe burns).ABE: your average sea water has a pH of 7.7-8.3. Hand soap has around 9.0 to 10. Can these materials really cause severe burns?
ABE2:
yeah, there is an error in your statement that they are using a "95% solution of formic acid". They used one mL of 95% formic acid solution. So they got a pH of 8, that is not even acidic--that's basic.So here's the final problem, since I can't follow your line of reason (and it's probably this problem that is causing this).You state in message 134: you follow that up with in message 143.A low pH is something with higher acidity. So you say high acidity leads to faster hyrdolisis of adenine but then you say that high acidity leads to slower hydrolosis of adenine.So just what is your argument?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Kuresu:I see... so concentration (strength) and pH, are the same thing. Low concentration, low pH.I kind of thought I blew it when I said strength doesn't matter, but pH. Duh!So 95 % formic acid should be pretty hot in temrs of pH. And that is what the murchison extrations were in the Glavin and Bada paper.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Razd:That's the point! It is stable at a near neutral pH of 8. But it takes 95% formic acid (or the equivalent HCL) to hydrolyze the oligomers. Hotter HCL only speeds synthesis and degreding.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Uh, no. Higher concentration of an acid in a solution, the lower the pH.Look at the pH chart for different concentrations of HCl.
Hydrochloric acid - Wikipedia
Notice the HCl concentration of 38%. It has a pH of -1.1