Murchison Meteor Questions

Kuresu: Yes, that is right. And looking back, we all have some room to grow. As Buzz said, so far so good. Sorry if I made it sound as if it was a one-sided equation. Clearly it is not.Kuresu: Well, at least it is there to see...I mean, if we could see any evidence of an suprisingly simple, self-replicating system other than the incredibly complex biological organisms we do see (one capable of operating directly from energy other than ATP woudl be nice), it would appear to be reasonable to assume that it could have happened guided by nothing other than chemical laws and a little influx of energy.But as it stands generally, a dog looks like a dog, a man looks like a man, a fish looks like a fish, and design looks like design.What does 'undesign' look like?Why did Francis Crick make the comment that, 'we must constantly keep before our minds, that these systems were not designed, but evolved'.I'll tell you why... because they scream of design!Kuresu: Well... do you have any comments regarding the extraction of adenine from the Murchison meteor? Because they appear to be well designed, or perhaps it would be better to say, 'crafted'; to produce a desired result.I answered your questions... but let's not make this a debate about design. Clearly, some things are designed. That is what the evidence indicates.Since the parent thread related to energy conversion, do you have evidence of life that is undesigned and strictly natural by way of eliminating ATP as an energy source? That's what the hoopla about adenine is about... That would at least be more relevant to the topic.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

And such is not the case. Unless you think that life is designed by mutation and natural selection.Let me ask you a question rob. Can chemical reactions occur without ATP? Can biochemical reactions occur without ATP?

First thing, I think this is the cleanest and most civil I have seen you argue, I mean that as a genuine compliment. I think you sound much more intelligent here than I have previously seen.I wish to make a point about the appearance of design in the experimentation process. The world isn't, and wasn't previously, a homogenus environment, conditions were as varied across the surface as they are today, maybe more so. We don't have the luxury of experimenting with every possible condition that might have arisen, instead we use the ones that are possible to have existed somewhere at some point, at some time in the ancient past, on the surface of the earth, and seem to fit the context of the subject at hand. These different conditions include but are not limited to atmospheric conditions, acid types and concentrations, temperature variations, etc. I think that is why you are seeing 'design' in these experiments.Great thread, keep it going. I learn much more when it stays on thread too.Edited by EighteenDelta, : spellingEdited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Razd: I just don't know what to say...The fact that you would even attempt to use parasites of any kind as a possible example of pre-biotic life is mezmerizing. Don't you see the need for a host organism?I simply am at a loss for words...And what does this mean? Razd:You are assuming the existence of non cellular life without any evidence? Yet you lecture me about naturalism and empiricism?You know what... you're right! The actual evidence (that viruses use host organisms) doesn't necesarily... mean that viruses always used them. But it certainly... doesn't mean they didn't.If anything, the evidence as it is, would actually promote the idea that they did. They're parasites!Razd: That's funny, because Glavin and Bada seemed to think it was worth mentioning:And here you do it again... Razd:No razd it doesn't necessarily mean that. But the evidence showing biological systems using ATP, certainly does not suggest otherwise. The actual evidence would tend to point toward processes that can be observed.Razd:And what does the evidence show?The evidence shows organisms that convert energy of differing types into ATP.Your argument would be effective if some life converted different energy sources into different biological energy, or directly used a raw source of energy to fuel itself. But that is not the case. All organisms convert energy into ATP. Not a lot of diversity there to suggest evolution.All of your assumptions as to things being different biologically are just that; assumptions. You have no evidence to give.In fact, the evidence itself rebukes you. Just wave your magic wand is that it? I don't think so...From your article: So what are you saying Razd? That a group of intelligent designers creating an experiment with very limited conditions and variables, controlling the solution, it's components, and the amount of energy available is akin to proving that it happened in an environment with an almost incalculable number of additional variables?There is nothing 'self' about those experiments, the molecules actions were utterly dependant upon the designers and the system designed for them.Not to mention that it presupposes the existence of the molecular material to begin with. There is a whole host of questions I could ask... for example: Were these chiral amino acids taken from existing life?If not, then what relevance does it have for the evidencial life we see today?If so, then how does taking from life... prove non-life?As I said before, there is nothing self about replication. You offer nothing but assumptions and give no evidence to support them. Your materialistic bias is shining for all to see in spite of your clammoring for empiricism.I am stunned!

That's not what I think...I don't think natural selection has anything to select until said organism is there to begin with. You cannot mutate what does not exist. That should be obvious to all...Kuresu: Many of them can of course... but not replication. So without ATP there is no natural selection. So natural selection cannot explain the arrival of ATP as a universal biological necessity. ( http://dna_replication.totallyexplained.com/ )Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Well, now we know you know squat about biology. Especially when paired with your previous statement: They way you originally worded makes it sound like you think natural selection is what mutates DNA and RNA. I don't think that's what you meant to say. Regardless, even if read in another light (that is, you know that natural selection isn't mutation), the fact that you say that you can't mutate what doesn't exist is ignorant. Mutations can create and change. Not just change. Really? Your quote only mentions that DNA replication is regulated by the ratio of ATP to ADP. In other words, your quote is saying that the ratio is responsible for when replication is allowed to start (as in, when the cell is large enough).You'll notice that it doesn't even mention ATP in the process of DNA replication in bacteria (both the plasmid and circular DNA).Also note that a very key enyme in DNA replication is DNA polymerase (it doesn't exactly start the process as I understand it, but it makes copying DNA a lot easier). ATP is not, as far as I can tell, a part of DNA polymerase.Another interesting tidbit: DNA replication - WikipediaWait, DNA replication without ATP!?!?But then, you're the one claiming that ATP is necessary for DNA replication. How about finding conclusive evidence for that? You're quote doesn't support your position, and the issue of ATP is not addressed by the rest of the article (or even by the wiki).

Kuresu: Kuresu, you do know that Wiki doesn't cover everything right?ATP is involved in multiple functions. I was only giving one example. Do you think I make assertions without having at least some knowledge of what I'm talking about? I may only be a truck driver (and inapropriately impatient at times) but I am not stupid or dishonest.I don't know all of the functions of ATP in biology, but I do know they are effectively endless... ( NCBI )Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

[qs]Kuresu: But in this case, that is only pertaining to intiation. There are an incredible number of processes involved before and after; all of which are necessary for replication. ( http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/10/7327 )I added the (parenthesis info) in the quote for definition...This study concurs: ( http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/031/0674/0310674.pdf )Though this is quite enjoyable, has anyone seen the topic?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I can't have evidence for what is a contradiction in terms. There can't be any such thing as a "pre-biotic organism", because any organism by definition must be biotic.If you want to know about the prebiotic chemical precursors of the first organisms, I plead ignorance, and can only attempt to direct you to the scientific consensus on the issue. That kind of biochemistry is something that I know little about, as yet.It was soley my intent to speak to your misunderstanding about what "falsifiable" actually means. Did you have a comment in response to my remarks on that subject?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Crashfrog: Kuresu and I already went through this here: http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energyAnd here: http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energyOrganism:Merriam Websters 1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life.That's exactly what prebiotic chemistry seeks to uncover... and you're right Crash... it is a contradiction in terms. But you don't seem to realize that you've turned everythng upside-down. You're the ones looking for what is a clearly a contradiction. And you're right again... you have no evidence.Crash: No, because I agree with your analysis on the matter. The only difference is that you have it backwards. Your upside-down man...Come to your senses and live....

I don't see it that way at all. We're looking for the chemical precursors to life. There's nothing contradictory about that. At some point, an increasingly complex chemical system became complex enough to be considered "life", but that's a fuzzy boundary, like "when does it start raining?" (It's not raining when a single drop of water falls on you, nor when two... fifty in two minutes is probably a good rainstorm, but where exactly in between fifty and two does it start raining? It's a gradient, not a sharp boundary. So too with life. There are some chemical systems that are so simple we don't consider them alive, and some chemical systems that we definitely consider alive, like a bacterial cell; but where in between not-life becomes life is a fuzzy boundary.)It contradicts your Bible, sure; but so what? Have what backwards? I have literally no idea what you're trying to say, here.

Consider that all parasites evolved from organisms that were not parasites, they did not spring de novo once a host appeared. Look at the evidence of the mimivirus. No, I am going on evidence that viruses are as old or older than known life. Read the links. Evolved life would tend to use efficient processes in place of less efficient ones, thus new systems would replace original ones. Once the ability to make ATP evolved it would replace other methods of acquiring energy from the environment. The evidence shows that modern life forms with the benefit of 3.5 billion years of evolution use ATP. The evidence of early life form energy processes is missing. You said there were no replicating molecules. I showed you a reference to several. All you are doing here is full denial of this evidence. Stop trying to move the goalpost rob. It presupposes that pre-biotic molecules were available, and as we have seen from the Murchison meteor (and other pieces of evidence) they were. The full quote is:

quote:

---

It is important to emphasize that the purines identified in formic acid extracts of Murchison were not detected in water extracts [4]. This suggests that the purines are either bound to other organics, or were produced (e.g. oligomerization of HCN) during acid extraction. Although a previous study has shown that the synthesis of adenine from HCN in acid is highly temperature dependent and inefficient at 100C [8], we cannot rule out the possibility that some purines may have been synthesized during formic acid extraction of Murchison. We found that in previous formic acid extraction and sublimation experiments using pure nucleobase mixtures, thermal deamination of the nucleobases did not occur [5]. Therefore, the production of hypoxanthine and xanthine by thermal deamination of adenine and guanine during the extraction procedure is very unlikely.

---

There is no contesting the other (not adenine) molecules that were found with the water extraction method, so those were not formed in the acid process. Is it likely that only adenine would be so formed?Further, IF it was formed, THEN there were still the molecules from which it was formed available for the formation of adenine.We have evidence from the bottom up in pre-biotic molecules and self-replicating molecular systems, and we have evidence from the top down in viral life forms. The gap in knowledge decreases every day.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.

Not really. I was just pointing out that your primary objection to abiogenesis is based not upon any specific weakness in abiogenesis specifically but upon a misunderstanding of the nature of science generally, which would be a topic for another thread. In other words, I was trying to help you understand why your objection was off-topic.Abiogenesis is the very fabric upon which this thread is writ, and as such it helps to understand what abiogenesis really is. The word abiogenesis is being used to mean a couple different things in this thread. The definition this thread should use is simply that abiogenesis is the process by which life arose from non-life. The definition you're trying to use is that abiogenesis is the theory that life arose by non-supernatural means. That definition is definitely off-topic because it belongs in a discussion about the nature of science.--PercyPS - Both Google and Firefox provide spellcheckers.

Need the internal contradictions be pointed out? I have no idea what you're saying, either.The difficulty of proving something impossible is often summed up with the phrase, "You can't prove a negative." Your misunderstanding of the nature of science is causing you to chart a course using this type of argument, which by its fundamental nature cannot succeed. Whether your position is right or wrong (I believe it is wrong, of course), the approach you're taking to arguing your position contains a fundamental fallacy: you can't prove something's impossible (this general rule can be made much more nuanced, of course, but we'll start simply).More specifically, you're trying to show that abiogenesis couldn't have happened naturally by showing that no natural pathways for its occurrence exist. This is an impossible task. Take a tip from scientists who understand that the existence of such things as Bigfoot, ESP, UFOs and so forth cannot be disproven, either. All that can be done is to highlight the dearth of evidence and show that it doesn't even come close to reaching the bar for acceptance of these phenomena as real.By the fundamental nature of the style of argument you're using you cannot prove the insufficiency of natural explanations for abiogenesis. You must therefore take another tack, which is to provide evidence supporting supernatural explanations, which would, of course, be way off-topic. But enumerating things science does not know as if they constituted evidence for the supernatural is merely the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument, and this thread is really just a smokescreen for you to push this argument, which is also off-topic.If what you really want to talk about is the flawed nature of science and how it should include the supernatural, you should propose a new thread.--Percy

Razd: There are moments like these... they happen often with certian members of EVC. And I for one would like to see moderator action. That's what a moderator in a debate would do for the audience.You see, Razd here, says I was talking about 'replicating molecules'. That is false, I was talking about 'self replicating molecules'. Some molecules do replicate with the help of intelligent chemists. But they are not self replicating. That was my point, and that was what I said in my last reply.And then he accuses me of moving the goalpost. Pehpas it is so clear to the audience that it doesn't need to be pointed out...Maybe it is my responsibility to simply ignore him.

quote:

---

It is important to emphasize that the purines identified in formic acid extracts of Murchison were not detected in water extracts [4]. This suggests that the purines are either bound to other organics, or were produced (e.g. oligomerization of HCN) during acid extraction. Although a previous study has shown that the synthesis of adenine from HCN in acid is highly temperature dependent and inefficient at 100C [8], we cannot rule out the possibility that some purines may have been synthesized during formic acid extraction of Murchison. We found that in previous formic acid extraction and sublimation experiments using pure nucleobase mixtures, thermal deamination of the nucleobases did not occur [5]. Therefore, the production of hypoxanthine and xanthine by thermal deamination of adenine and guanine during the extraction procedure is very unlikely.

​

Razd:

There is no contesting the other (not adenine) molecules that were found with the water extraction method, so those were not formed in the acid process. Is it likely that only adenine would be so formed?

---

Well, we know that adenine can be sythesiszed by HCN. That is what Miller called 'the rock of faith'. You do remember the ground we've already covered?As for the other molecules... I don't know if there is a rocess of sysnthesis for them or not.I do know this; Glavin and Bada realize that the previous study used a mixture of pure nucleobases and therefore may not be a sufficient control to using mixtures of Murchison, who's chemical composition contains 'unknowns'. there is a lot of mystery surrounding Murchison. And a lot of disagreement. I think that is why some, like MattP, have decided it best to look elswhere for evidence of pre-biotic precursors.As for controversy on Murchison (in this case the issue of chiralty) consider this article entitled, 'Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?': http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=...Razd: Now that I can agree with...But your side has no bilogically plausible explanations for constructing a self replicating cycle without invoking environments that are destructive to life. If you could find life on other planets or mooons with different environments then you'd have something. But if you'll take the time to watch documentaries like 'The Privilaged Planet': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdxRj49m5c , you'll see that life shouldn't even exist here in terms of probability. And the conclusions are based upon actual evidence.The point is, that molbiogirl stated emphatically that adenine had been found. That's not the case at all. It's a big- fat- maybe!And the other point is that you guys are the ones who always lecture about evidence. Your 'the superior and disciplined methodological naturalists' among us simple folk, who demand to see evidence of everything. But you have none.Percy is trying to make it sound as if I am arguing against a negative to infer design. That is not so... it is Kuresu and JavaMan who brought up design in this thread. I only discussed it in defense.I think they are worried that the lack of evidence points to the counterargument. Well maybe it does, but this thread is not about design... it's about evidence.Got any?