Murchison Meteor Questions

Percy, what are yu talking about? I am not trying to infer design by proving a negative. A negative cannot be proven. I amy be relatively idiotic at times, but I am not a complete dolt!I am simply showing that you have no evidence to stand on. You boys simply assume that life evolved, and did so in a certain way even though there is no evidence for it.You start out with the assumption that there is a material explanation even without any evidence to support the assumption.
Percy: I didn't invoke design in this thread, Kuresu did, and I think JavaMan as well. I only defended my position because of their questions. They don't like being questioned in the manner I am doing so here in this thread, so they attempted to put me in the hot-seat and change the paradigm (topic).My only intent here is to remind you that empiricism requires evidence before the theory is valid. And in the case of abiogenesis there is none. It is actually an assumption in spite of the evidence. And that has nothing to do with design...I think you're trying to make it sound as if I am doing something that I am not (getting off topic), so as to invoke moderator action. If that is true, you deserve a suspension.Personally, I suspect your just lost in confusion...I welcome moderator action here. I tried to warn about it earlier when crash piped in. I saw the writing on the wall.I am not on trial here. The Murchison extraction procedures are.

You're just repeating your error, which is characterizing abiogenesis specifically of something that is true of all science generally. You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science. Uh, Rob, I didn't say you invoked a design argument. You even quoted me saying you're using a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. They're two different things.Getting back to the actual point, what Javaman was saying, and I concur, is that you seem to believe that the absence of adenine in the Murchison meteor is evidence against a natural origin for life. That's the kind of argument one makes when one is trying to prove a negative. So when you say this: It leads me to believe that you still don't understand that you're trying to prove a negative.--Percy

Percy: To be more precise, it is true of the 'current definition' of science (methodological naturalism). But if science were to be objective (as it was historically) it would simply look at the evidence without regard for imposing materialistic expectations. It would be simple empiricism once again, with theories that corrospond to reality.That used to be what science was under a design paradigm, but the materialist philosophers have taken over...Empiricism: 2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b.If you design experiments that are assumed to reflect reality because it makes good sense materially, that is not the same thing as observing real evidence.The definition of science should be, observation of the facts and the formulating of theory that is coherent and consistent with those facts as proven by experimentation (that is what empiricism is...). That way, you cannot invoke material explanations that are not even rooted in evidence. You guys assume the existence of evidence that does not exist. And then you produce and create experiments to give evidence for you presuppositions.Methodological naturalism has taken such extreme license, that it has actually abandoned empiricism. And it does so as Lewontin points out, purely on it's a priori commitment to materialism. And that is why the Lewontin quotes were relevant. Because he is absolutely right, in spite of any irrelevant concensus.Facts are not arrived at by concensus, but by empiricism. And that is what you have abandoned.Percy: C'mon Percy... I don't think that an absence of evidence is evidence at all!It has nothing to do with proving a negative. It has to do with your approach not even being scientific in the historical sense. Your obsolete. There's a 'new revolution'... Before I tell you, do you know who gave that quote Percy?Kind of reminds me of The Who (if you'll pardon the lighthearted humor). They had a famous line at the end of the song, 'Won't Get Fooled Again':"Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss!"Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I hate to try to derail this little off-topic dispute that seems to have been going on since midway through the first page, but I'm curious as to what became of what I thought the actual topic was. RAZD seems to be the only ongoing participant arguing for the accuracy of the tests that claim to have found adenine. I would like to see what molbiogirl herself has to say on the subject. Can she be requested to comment or at least notified that this thread addresses her claims?Edited by Ken, : No reason given.

I also thought the topic was wandering, but in the past I have argued that these topics are all intertwined. So... maybe I'm getting a taste of my own medicine. I also know that AdminBuzzsaw is keeping a watch over the thread, and so far no foul called (and he is a brother). So... it must be staying close enough to be within parameters. Not to mention that this is Percy's forum, and if anyone has drifted off topic it is he and I.As for molbiogirl, she is already aware of the thread I assure you. She has thus far not participated for whatever her reasons. It happens. I have not always participated in threads that were in response to me either. I'd just asume not have her around, we already have a Razd .Anyway we best not get chatty. How about you Ken, have you any thoughts or questions that have yet to be answered?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

If you are going to quibble get the quibble right: the molecules did replicate themselves in the experiments. The "help" provided amounted to creating the environment and then sitting back and watching. The molecules assembled other similar molecules from that environment. That amounts to self replication. To quibble over the use or not of "self" does not detract from the evidence of self-replication in these molecules. Several such experiments have been run, and each one adds to the knowledge of what is required to set up a self-replicating molecular system.I accused you of "trying to move the goalposts" because your post was essentially rejecting any and all experimental studies involving self-replicating molecules as being tainted by the input of "intelligent chemists" rather than looking at the facts of the self replicating molecules.Finding excuses to use in ignoring data does not make the data go away. And some studies also state that adenine has been found. The fact remains that most studies extracted adenine while one we know of (using water extraction) did not. We also know that there is a very good reason for the water extraction to have failed, that not only was this theoretically possible but it was tested and verified.The other possibility - that adenine was formed during the extraction process - has not been replicated by a study to show the formation of the amount of adenine extracted from other possible molecules in the meteor. This remains a hypothetical possibility at best. Even in this case you have the easy to assemble building blocks for the adenine molecule delivered to the doorstep of life, so even in this event you cannot rule out delivery of adenine to a pre-biotic earth ... along with the other amino acids used to make DNA and RNA.This is a big difference from a chemical soup such as creationists and Idologues like to claim was the conditions on earth (like Ken's article). Adenine is formed by combining molecules of HCN into a ring formation: so it is not synthesized by HCN but from it. That would tend to make using HCN for extraction purposes questionable, but you would need to show how it can form adenine under the extraction process.http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/mim/environmental/html/hcn.htm

quote:

---

For example, under pressure and with traces of water and ammonia, HCN produces adenine, one of the bases needed to construct DNA.

---

Were conditions necessary for making adenine from HCN part of the extraction process? If not then it is not likely adenine was made during extraction. And the preponderance of evidence in my opinion is that adenine was on the Murchison meteor.We can also look at the Lake Tagish meteor: in this case no amino acids were found at all. What this demonstrates is that the material carried by meteors is highly variable.A logical next question is what other evidence do we have for adenine and the other amino acids being formed in space?http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=306

quote:

---

Instellar clouds may produce a component of DNA

​

According to an article in New Scientist, researchers in Calcutta claim that interstellar clouds may produce large amounts of adenine. Their findings suggest that the raw materials of life may be common in other planetary systems.

​

As astronomers have long known, collapsing interstellar clouds produce something else as well: stars, planets, and comets. Adenine may have been present when the Earth condensed from dust and gas.Or, adenine may have been carried on the comets that showered the early Earth. A ready supply of adenine from space may help explain how life began relatively quickly after the Earth formed.

​

Scientists have found signs that other raw materials for life may be present in space. For example, observations have revealed complex organic molecules in interstellar clouds. Researchers with the NASA Astrobiology Institute have even produced membrane-like structures inside a simulated comet. Evidence from observations, laboratory experiments and computer simulations increasingly suggests that the ingredients for life may be abundant throughout the universe.

---

Life's Ingredients May Have 'Sprinkled' on Earth | Space

quote:

---

A new computer model indicates clouds of adenine molecules, a basic component of DNA, can form and survive the harsh conditions of space, and possibly sprinkle onto planets as the stars they orbit travel through a galaxy.

​

"There may be only a few molecules of adenine per square foot of space, but over millions of years, enough could have accumulated to help make way for life," said study co-author Rainer Glaser, a molecular chemist at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

​

Glaser and his team's findings are detailed in a recent issue of the journal Astrobiolog

​

Adenine is one of four "letters" of DNA's alphabet used to store an organism's genetic code. Glaser said the idea that large, two-ringed organic molecules like adenine formed in space may seem outrageous, but current evidence leaves the possibility wide open.

​

"You can find large molecules in meteorites, including adenine," Glaser said. "We know that adenine can be made elsewhere in the solar system, so why should one consider it impossible to make the building blocks somewhere in interstellar dust?"

​

Using computer simulations of the cold vacuum of space, Glaser and his colleagues found that hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas can build adenine. Like pieces in a set of tinker toys, hydrogen cyanide serves as adenine's building blocks; the small molecules bond together into chains and, with a little wiggling, eventually assemble into rings.

​

Although adenine's first ring needs a tiny energy boost from starlight to form, Glaser said the second ring of the molecule self-assembles without any outside help.

​

Glaser said adenine's ringed shape helps it absorb and release any excess energy without breaking apart, making it stable enough to form concentrated clouds that planets can drift through.

---

(color added for emphasis)Note that says adenine has been found on meteors.http://www.liebertonline.com/...dfplus/10.1089/ast.2006.0112

quote:

---

CONCLUSION

​

One of the major goals of prebiotic chemistry is the search for possible syntheses of the nucleobases and especially of the purine bases (Levy and Miller, 1999). Building on the results of half a century of studies of adenine synthesis by HCN pentamerization, we have discussed mechanisms for possible prebiotic pyrimidine-ring formation of monocyclic HCN-pentamers. The calculations model gas-phase chemistry, and the results primarily inform discussions of adenine synthesis in interstellar space. The primary conclusions are (a) that 5-(N#-formamidinyl)-1H-imidazole- 4-carbonitrile, 6, can serve as a substrate for proton- catalyzed purine formation under photolytic conditions and (b) that N-(4-(iminomethylene)- 1H-imidazol-5(4H)-ylidene)formamidine, 7, can serve as a substrate for uncatalyzed purine formation under photolytic conditions.

​

Photoexcitation of the initially formed monocyclic HCN-pentamer 5-(N-formamidinyl)-1Himidazole- 4-carbonitrile, 5, provides more than 135 kcal/mol of additional internal energy to 5*. Tautomerization to 7 would convert about one third of the excess internal energy into electronic energy and leave the nascent isomer 7 with just about twice its normal internal energy. Such an isomer 7 might be cool enough to prevent any dissociations, while IR fluorescence dissipates the excess energy. The absence of any sizeable activation barrier for the cyclization 7 # (Z)-2 is remarkable, and it is this feature that allows for the formation of the purine skeleton from 7 without any further activation. The exploration of this chemistry presents a considerable challenge for synthetic chemistry.

---

Conclusion: adenine forms in space from readily available HCN molecules, thus it is available to be on meteors or on dust that sprinkles down on earth.The building block is available for life no matter how you cut the evidence pie.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.

You started off with some good questions, the same questions I have myself. And the best one's to question my position. I just cannot answer them with the limited knowledge of chemistry I currently have. I do think I can help you formulate them more accurately. And then perhpas an actual PhD like MattP can hlep us answer them. Though he seems to have stepped aside.Razd: That is a bit confused.I don't know that most studies found adenine. The formic acid extractions found adenine but couldn't be quantified because of the unknown UV barrier. Your either forgetting the data already covered, or rewriting history for late-comers to the thread.There were at least two water tests, and at least one direct sample test that I cited in the OP that came up negative. And from what I gather, the earliest tests of Murchison were negative btw. It was the later tests that had marginal results, and then Glavin and Bada found a way to supposedly sublime away the unknown barrier to reveal adenine; but it requires the additional acid prep over and above the initial incubation.The other tests that found adenine used very hot HCL extraction methods.Razd: I wandered the same thing... but Glavin and BAda mentioned the possibility, so I assmue that in some of these exchanges chemically, the HCN itself must be possible to produce durring the extraction. The other question is about temperature. They say that at 100c it is an inneficient reaction. And even though the extraction was incubated at 100c, the sublimation was done at 450c (if I remember right, for 5 minutes).I not only do not understand the effect this might have on the experiment, I also do not know (and assume they do not either, as they invoked the possibility) if the unknown composites in murchison could have skewed the results...Now for some of your other comments:Razd: That's right Razd! Maybe it's good enough for you, because you like to see what you want to see but the facts that I supposedly ignore are... that intelligent chemists set up the conditions.The molecules replicated... big deal. But not by themselves. They are therefore not self-replicating. They are designed.And you never answered my first question on the matter: Where did these scientists get these molecules? Were they taken from existing biological life? Or were they designed in the lab? Either way, it doesn't prove anything pertaining to abiotic chemistry. It's an illusion perforemd by modern magicians and though the crowds may marvel at your genius; count me out!Razd: Well no one is denying that amino acids were found in Murchison, though they are racemic mixtures predominantly. But that is not the same thing as finding purines like adenine.The rest of your reply concerns mobiogirl's professer Rainer Glaser. I already covered this with her at the end of the last thread. My exuberance to refute her earned me a suspension since we were supposed to be giving summaries. Evidently she didn't know that and continued to offer debate points.She also took his word for it based on authority. But glaser is running beyond the evidence.Razd: No Razd... No! Adenine doesn't form in space. Did you read what your own links said? Let me highlight them for you (whoah! I'm having deja vu!) It's a debate with molbiogirl all over agian: I am going to be sick (Percy, a 'puke emoticon' would be nice for moments like this)... (btw had to point out that it needs the first step first. That's why it's called first. No self involved...) Too bad it's just a computer model. Seems to need a lot of wiggling to me...Theory is not evidence Razd. Nor are models. We call that theory too. Evidence is what you need the theory to match. That is what empiricism is...This stuff is not empiricism. This is methodological naturalism run amuck! It's not scientific. It's scientific theory in a world of it's own design.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Ken: Have you seen his citations that I have analyzed above? Strange evidence.It's a revisiting of the debate here (deja vu): http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy

Huh?How does stating that nucleic acids were probably later products of evolution lead to being labeled a creationist or IDologue? I was wondering if molbiogirl knew about this thread challenging her post, but now that we have determined Robert Shapiro to be a creationist, someone really needs to shoot him an email so he can stop wondering how life began here on earth.

I can watch an existing rock at the top of the cliff fall, then I can take that rock back to the top of a cliff set it back on the cliff, and watch it fall. There is no difference in the way the rock falls or in the result of the fall. One was a natural the other a "designed" occurrence. In both cases the rock falls under the laws of physics.Your refusal to accept the results of scientific studies as valid on the basis that the studies were "designed" does not mean that (a) they can not be replicated by someone ignorant of chemistry that follow the same procedure or (b) that the same procedure occurring naturally would not end in the same result. The self-replication was not designed: it was a natural result that proceeded from the initial conditions just like the rock on the cliff. Claiming that "intelligent geologists" and "intelligent physicists" put the rock on top of the cliff so therefore the experiment was "designed" in no way affect the falling of the rock or the result of the falling rock.This is a totally bogus argument - if not desperate attempt at self-delusion. Okay, let me quantify that for you: most of the ones I have seen, including the ones I have googled. Feel free to present numerous ones where they were looked for and not found (a lot of early ones did not look, so those don't count eh?). Note that there is an explanation for not finding adenine when using water extraction techniques. That means they found it but could not get an exact figure on the quantity. The molecule was still there. Note that formic acid is not used to make adenine. What this would mean is that the extraction was done at 100c. Once the extraction was complete, then they would heat it to 450c to see what sublimated (and condensed on the "cold finger"). Two different processes. Well actually the ONLY thing being contested is the existence of adenine: all the other DNA components were there and have not been contested. Racemeic is irrelevant at this point (it's not part of the original topic and could easily be a topic on it's own).The point remains that studies have found adenine: explain the results. Note that there is an explanation for not finding adenine when using water extraction techniques. Put the two together: adenine was on Murchison. Happy highlighting. Note you "highlighted" the following too, this time with my highlight:

quote:

---

"You can find large molecules in meteorites, including adenine. We know that adenine can be made elsewhere in the solar system, so why should one consider it impossible to make the building blocks somewhere in interstellar dust?"

---

The model is about interstellar adenine, and not that in our solar system. The model just confirms that it is possible to form adenine in space. Adenine has been found in space. Put the two together.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.

What labels it creationist or IDoloque is the source of the article Is this typical? Ignore the creationist\IDologue article you posted two quotes from and go to the one where you posted a tid-bit from?What I was refering to was the article On the Origins of Life by David Berlinski and posted on "The Center for Science and Culture" which is "a Discovery Institute program" (from their "about CSC" page). Do you think I don't check sources?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

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: Your analogy is severely flawed. I don't even think you are conscious of your own pea-palming. It's just what you believe! so don't think I am trying to shame you...Let's assume for simplicity that you yourself performed the experiments you cited for self replicating molecules:You were not able to watch a natural self replicating cycle. If you were, then you could repeat the experiment as per your analogy. Instead, you have assumed the self-replication as per your a priori commitment to materialism. And then, you have proceded to construct (or design) an aparatus to show that it could occur without design. Beyond the self defeating aspects, you've proven nothing but the extraordinary lengths some will go to avoid the actual scientific method of empericism.I know your having a hard time with this, so I'll put it another way...You are assuming evidence that is not appearent, and then performing an experiment to supposedly verify and reproduce it. But you've reproduced nothing! You've only produced what your bias leads you to believe beforehand. And you've done so under environmental conditions that are irrelevant to the facts as we know them to be today. And under biological conditions that are irrelevant to the chiral aspects of all living organisms. You've found racemic mixtures that are irrelevant to chiral mixtures.Razd: One of your weaknesses, is that you don't read what has been presented to you.From the OP: I think it's later at this point eh? I knew it would come up. MattP made reference to it serveral posts ago, and he was certainly on topic!
In order to believe what you do, you must go outside of science (empericism) and into the realm of metaphysics that are based upon materialist presuppositions. It may be valid, but it is not science. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be tested.You have no evidence other than the evidence that is manufactured by design.Razd:We've benn thorugh this logical fallacy already Razd...Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't. But it certainly doesn't mean they occurred naturally. You assume that they did only because of your materialistic bias. That's not science or the evidence science requires based upon your won definition. Yours is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.Science is supposed to be empirical. Anything less is only tentative theory, not proven science. It is called faith Razd. And you have deep faith in your worldview. That's ok... I do too in my own.Do, you, understand, the, words, that, are, coming, out, of, my, fingers?Razd: Oligomerization of HCN durring the extraction process just as the study said was possible, but not expected. They cannot be sure becuase the consititution of the Murchison samples is not yet constrained.It's not proof Razd. It's compelling, yet speculative. It's tentative, not emperical.Razd: Well professor Glaser is obvioulsy a believer. But he doesn't bother to tell his audience about the questions surrounding the extraction process that are raised even by the scientists themselves. And why should he? They already believe the results even before they've been shown. They're methodological naturalists remember?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

1. My moderating in this thread is pretty much limited to behavior as I am not science apprised enough to judge the science of this topic. I continue to monitor the behavior aspect of it but other than that don't expect much from me in moderating here. I moderated the thread on your request for moderation pertaining to a behavior matter.2. Since it was Admin who promoted the thread, perhaps he will want to moderate on the science aspects of the thread. I do think member Percy would be wise to refrain from moderation as member Percy as it appears he's doing a little of. Of course we all tend to do a bit of moderating as members as some others have here which I don't see objectionable. My suggestion is that he do any significant moderation as Admin.

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

You're making things up. Empiricism is the view that reality is what we experience through the senses. If we were to presume such a thing as supernatural phenomena, then if they're apparent to our senses they are subject to empiricism. The very definition you provided yourself contradicts your own argument, here it is for you: I presume you will agree that observations are made through our senses. You next say: Since science relies upon observation and experiment, science is empirical by your own definition.This is why this thread of yours about the Murchison meteor is so misguided. You're actually using it to question methodological naturalism, which isn't the subject of this thread. This is just false, but if you want to discuss the nature of science and whether the scientific method is improperly biased, propose a new thread. Science has not abandoned empiricism. You can only say this because you still don't understand the nature of science generally, nor the meaning of the analysis of the Murchison meteor specifically. Please.Rob, I'm trying to explain to you that your approach is doomed to failure. The origin of adenine is like looking for something hidden behind one of a thousand doors. You open one door and say, "Not here," then you open another door and say, "Not here, either," and so forth. Then after you've opened a thousand doors and still not found it, you discover that while you've been opening doors scientists have found a thousand more doors for you to look behind. And after you've opened all the doors and there are no more doors to open and you still haven't found the origin of adenine in life processes, all you can conclude is, "I don't know." You cannot conclude, not scientifically, anyway, that God did it.--Percy

Hi Buz,Just an administrative suggestion. I'm not moderating in this thread, nor do I plan to, but Rob is very persistently making many complaints about member behavior in this thread, and my name keeps coming up, so here's just one suggestion. I think it might be better if Rob focused his attention in this thread on the topic of discussion and take any complaints to the moderation thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director