Murchison Meteor Questions

I have posted quotes from two sources, Berlinski and Shapiro, the first of which also quoted Miller. Add up all the evidence presented to you, and I am biased two to one on the evolutionist side of the argument. Ignore the evidence that Berlinski quoted Miller, and I have offered a quote from each side that agrees with the other. Insert your personal assumptions that I have not agreed with you here, just like Shapiro, therefore we must both be creationists, and you end up with a logically false conclusion that you keep pursuing even though it has no relevance to the topic.Edited by Ken, : No reason given.Edited by Ken, : No reason given.

I really only need to address your first comment. Percy:Actually, that would be 'emperical'. It is different from empericism, however they are related. The emperical is the veiw that reality is perceived by the senses. As we see, the emperical does not necessarily incorporate both observation and experiment.But in terms of natural science we are talking about empericism which does incorporate both sense evidence and experimentation. They say that anything follows from a falsehood. The rest of your post is a good example, though I don't mean that as an insult or that it isn't very confusing for all of us. I had this same confusion earlier. Mark24 and I had to iron out the difficulties.I already knew what I was referring to here as far as definitions because of that earlier exchange with mark 24 in another thread which can be read here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?It was the philosophers like David Hume that changed the paradigm back in the 16th and 17th centuries Percy. They've confused whole generations since. I've discussed it at length elsewhere in many threads (for example: http://EvC Forum: Great Debate / The Humean Arguments -->EvC Forum: Great Debate / The Humean Arguments ) You aught to try and get hold of the concept.So because of clever philosophers like Hume, you've got some things backwards Percy. My arguments against you are not doomed to failure, I'm afraid yours are.I have the grounds of empericism here though I am not invoking them to show design. Abiogenesis does not, and that is what I am attempting to show in this thread. And I believe I have done so effectively.Though I do not suppose to convince true believers in materialism such as yourself and Razd otherwise, I do believe that any objective readers or audience can perceive the difference.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

... by palming the pea? Hardly. What you fail to realize is that once the rock starts to fall it does not matter whether it was there naturally or placed, the laws of physics take over.Likewise once the conditions are set up by for the experiment it does not matter if they occurred naturally or were the result of the experimental design, the laws of chemistry take over. The replication of the molecule was a result of the laws of chemistry, not because of the "design" of the experiment.The fact is that these (and other) self-replicating molecules exist. Denial does not alter that fact. Pretending to hide behind your straw man argument with "intelligent chemists" doesn't alter that fact. That doesn't necessarily explain all the other results though:

quote:

---

The concentrations of these nucleobases in our extracts ranged from 145 to 356 ppb and are similar to those originally reported by Schwartz and coworkers (see Table 1).
Table 1. ... Nucleobase This Study* Schwartz [3,4]

---

It seems the extraction system used by Schwartz was similar:[3] Van der Velden W. and Schwartz A. W. (1977) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 41, 961-968.
Search for purines and pyrimidines in the Murchison meteorite - NASA/ADS[4] Stoks P. G. and Schwartz A. W. (1981) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 45, 563-569.
Nitrogen-heterocyclic compounds in meteorites: significance and mechanisms of formation - NASA/ADSSo that is not conclusive (other than that they identified adenine as well).But also see Adenine adsorption on and release from meteorite specimens assessed by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

quote:

---

The trapping of organic molecules in minerals is considered to be an initial step in the genesis of life. We have previously explored the adsorption of adenine and RNA on clay. We have now used surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) to characterize adenine adsorption on and release from specimens of two meteorites, the Zagami Martian meteorite and the Murchison meteorite. Powdered meteoritic material was incubated with very dilute adenine solutions. An adenine SER response of the resulting supernatant weaker than that of the initial solution indicated that adenine was bound to the meteorite. SER signal with the pellet meant that adenine that was initially adsorbed on it was transferred to the silver colloid SER probe. Adenine adsorption on and release from the Murchison carbonaceous chondrite and the mineral Zagami meteorite depended on the composition of the meteorites. Adenine was much more strongly bound to the Murchison meteorite, which contains bioorganic matter, than to the purely mineral Zagami meteorite.

---

They added adenine to the Murchison meteor and then had trouble recording it due to the strong bond of the "bioorganic matter" -- that would be confirmation that this material bonded to any adenine on the meteor and prevented the water extraction method from identifying the adenine.From the original Glavin article again:

quote:

---

Although a previous study has shown that the synthesis of adenine from HCN in acid is highly temperature dependent and inefficient at 100C [8], ...

---

Thus IF adenine were being made in this process we should see a difference - a marked difference - between the two tests made: it should be higher in proportion when the higher temperature is used.

quote:

---

Fig. 1. ... (a): UV absorbance (=260 nm) of the formic acid extract from the Murchison meteorite sample, (b): sublimed unextracted meteorite heated at 450C for 5 min, (c): the cold finger residue after heating a formic acid extract of the meteorite at 450C for 5 min, and (d): a serpentine blank carried through the same processing procedures as the Murchison sample.

---

Only (c) was heated to 450C and adenine is identified in both (a) and (c) -- it is higher in proportion for (a), the lower temperature extraction.To me that says that adenine was on the meteor and was not significantly made during the extraction process.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.

Thanks Admin. You're right and I concur that members are not suppose to clutter threads with behavior complaints. (Rob, I hope you take note as you proceed in this thread.) This was an oversight on my part.

Razd: Well your rock analogy is a bit simplistic Razd...We can all imagine a rock being there to begin with. But we don't all assume that pebiotic organisms existed. It's actually a contradiction in terms, so it could not have existed other than de novo. But de novo excludes evolution as the means to the end. De novo would (as Orgel has said) be a near miracle. I digress...Razd: So on the one hand your assuming the existence (without evidence) of prebiotic organisms. And with the other hand, your creating (designing) the organism (or extracting extremely sophisticated molecular material from modern life) and then protecting it from a real-life environment full of variables and dangers, so as to prove that it could happen without intelligent guidance.If that's not palming the pea will somebody please tell me what is?Razd: The only fact, is that molecules designed or extracted by intelligent biochemical engineers are not self anything!This is going nowhere... I do not understand the difficulty in understanding this. Razd: Well that's strange... because it cearly says in the abstract above that, "The presence of adenine could not be confirmed.'Razd:Now this one above takes a closer look. Check the last line in the quote:

quote:

---

Concentrations ranging from 114-655 ppb of the purines adenine, guanine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine were found to be present in acid extracts. All four biologically significant purines, as well as the pyrimidine uracil have been identified in meteorites. It was concluded that the suite of N-heterocyclic compounds identified in meteorites do not permit a clear distinction between mechanisms of synthesis such as the Fischer-Tropsch type, and other candidates.

---

So they cannot clearly discern it's synthesis from extraction either eh? No wonder Glavin and Bada were covering their bases about the oligomerization of HCN. But they're sure popular fellows in the right circles huh?Razd: If you call not confirming the presence of adenine in the 1st one, and not being able to clearly distinguish methods of synthesis from extraction in the 2nd identification, then yes.But you'd not be a scientist if you said so. You'd be a zealot!Razd:That is true... And good evidence to support the potential of adenine undiscovered. But it still doesn't preclude the adenine from being synthesized rather than extracted.Razd:Well that's a much better argument in my opinion. And it actually mirrors some of the questions I had myself.But Glavin and Bada do not mention the ideal temperature for adenine synthesis by oligomerization of HCN. They only point out that it is highly temperature dependant and innefficient at 100C.You're assuming that a higher temperature would lead to higher yeilds, but as it is, a lower temperature is the more efficient condition for synthesis. And this could have occured as the temperature was raised from anywhere from -80C to 100C. Though then, we would have to ask if the hydrolysis is fast or slow, and have some idea of the time given for possible synthesis.And we still don't know how the unknown material, or unique composition of substances in the meteor would affect the reactions, if at all. ( http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller_99.htm )Notice also the hydrolysis times for synthesis in HCL (which are relevant to some of the other extractions cited in the OP).Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

So noted... my apologies. I was losing confidence that I could handle the situation. I guess I was just whining...History seemed to be threatening to repeat itself. So, please note that any strength thus far, is not my own. They'll be no more about it than that...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You have some problems in this post Rob. The first is about the history of science. What do you think it's history is?This is what's pretty much agreed upon as being the history of science. Modern science starts around 1600. It's focus from the start is on natural causes.
Try this:
Scientific Revolution - WikipediaThis means, from the start of what we could call science, it has always been about looking for the natural causes of things. The big change was in how to go about discovering how the world worked. Do it like Aristotle and assume everything has ultimate causes and that experiments are worthless, or should you combine induction and deduction?Here's your second problem. I know that you're truly itching to say that abiogenesis is caused by a supernatural agent. Here is why science goes by natural caused methods only.
First, since science is, as you say, empirical, you need to find empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There is none I'm aware of to date.
Second, assuming you can determine the existence of the supernatural agent (and that he does exist), you need to be able to tell the difference between actions he causes and actions we would define as having natural explanations. In other words, how do you tell the difference between a god-caused action and a natural-caused action?So your problem with including the supernatural in science is two-fold: you need verifibale empirical evidence that such exists, and then you need to be able to differentiate between super-caused and natural-caused.
Can you do that? If so, you're the first. I dare say you are doing what you accuse us of. Your evidence of the existence of the supernatural rests solely on something that is not verifiable--your personal experience and a two-thousand year old book which states its true because it says its true.

Don't get bogged down in terminology, Rob. 'Empirical' and 'empiricism' are just two grammatical forms of the same word. The first is an adjective, the second is a noun - that's the only real difference. 'Empiricism' is the belief that we acquire knowledge only through the senses. It contrasts with 'Rationalism', which is a belief that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone. Hume is dismissive of scholastic metaphysics because it is based entirely on logic - he's not necessarily being dismissive of 'the supernatural' as such.The reason why I think that the contrast between 'empiricism' and 'rationalism' is interesting in your case is that you have a tendency to argue like a 'Rationalist'. Firstly, you spend whole topics arguing about the intricacies of word etymology, as though the meaning of a word were something separate from the way people use it.And secondly, you have a tendency to counter arguments by turning them back upon themselves, as though creating a logical paradox somehow invalidated them. A perfect example is your argument against Hume in the post you reference, which is, to paraphrase you: 'Hume is making a metaphysical argument when he argues that metaphysics is worthless, therefore his argument is invalid.' Amusingly, it's just this kind of spurious logical jiggery-pokery that Hume is criticising.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Yep. You need to make a decision: take the evidence where it leads or stick to your (biased) opinions. You not only digress you wrap yourself in a knot trying to make something impossible when it isn't. Nor is it a contradiction in terms to assume prebiotic structures that replicate but do not meet the definition of life, and this certainly has no effect on the behavior of chemicals or rocks in the real world.What the self-replicating experiments show is that there is a chemical process that can occur, and that when the conditions of that chemical process are met that those molecules will replicate themselves. This is not magic, it is just chemistry operating according to the laws of chemistry. It is no different than the rock. Now you are moving the goalposts again: the original argument was that there were no self-replicating molecules. There are. Now you argue that they don't qualify because they don't meet special conditions that you have added. The claim is not that these molecules necessarily represent actual pre-biotic organisms in the pre-biotic world, just that they are self-replicating molecules. At best they provide us hints about that prebiotic world operation, but there is no necessary relationship.What they do show without doubt is that chemistry can cause self-replication under certain circumstances, just as physics can cause rocks to fall under certain circumstances.What they do make impossible are rational logical arguments that there are no self-replicating molecules. Thus the only way you can argue that is by palming the pea. The molecules self-replicate: they build copies of themselves. Denial does not make that fact go away. This is no different than any other chemical reaction, whether set up in an experiment or occurring naturally.Go back to the rock example and tell me, once the rock has started falling, whether there is any difference between (a) naturally falling and (b) intentionally placed rock falling: if you cannot tell me what is different in the physical behavior of the rock once it has started falling, then you have no argument other than bluster in your personal incredulity.I'm going to separate this from Murchison data so that you can rail on about it - to no avail.I would say that this is fundamental to your misunderstanding of how science operates across the board.As does your absolute failure\inability\willingness to learn how to spell empirical -- even when you quote the dictionary definition -- speak to your unwillingness to learn.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : emirical

---

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.

This is consistent with other tests that found lower levels of adenine than the other DNA type molecules, and this was in 1977, possibly the first attempt to isolate them. Not quite what they said Rob. Again you should read the paper not the abstract. This could be nothing more than scientific tenuousness.They identified adenine this time though, along with the other DNA type molecules. They identified adenine. They could not eliminate possibility of some being formed in process, but they still identified it. Capice? It answers the question of why water extraction did not find adenine. That can no longer be used as evidence that adenine was not there. In the quantities identified. These are people familiar with these processes, and they conclude that they found adenine on the meteor.Another argument is that we have four meteors that have been studied so far: three where they identified adenine, and one where they did not (Tagish). Using the same extraction procedures, then IF the adenine was manufactured in the extraction process, why did they not identify any from Tagish?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.

Razd: But your're not talking about the real world. You're talking about the imaginary (once apon a time) pre-biotic world. And that is different from the real world. Your rock analogy is not analogous, because all of us have seen rocks fall. None of us has seen prebiotic structures (as you are now calling them). They are organized right? Self replicating right? I like that last line too. It relates to our discussion on adenine that you enjoyed so much. It's the difference between designing (synthesizing) and extracting (discovering). You obvioulsy have a difficult time percieiving the difference. From your rebellious Zen Desit perspective, you can do pretty much say anything you want eh Razd?Razd:The inclusion of a designer (in this case biochemical engineers) automatically detracts from being 'self'. I suppose it does prove that once a designer designs a self-replicating life form, that said life can then operate relatively autonomously. Others can see this Razd. Only the blind materialists have a problem understanding it.Razd: And here is your problem of evidence again. Where does it occur naturally? All you have is the experiment... but what are you trying to reproduce?You can't reproduce something that has never been observed. You have only produced!Razd:Science tries to confirm the agreement between evidence and theory by testing. Theory is just theory. It only means that it is possible under a given set of laws. For example, just because the bomb worked for Einstein, doesn't mean bombs have been made in nature that are anything like 'the bomb'.Science is empiricism. Theory is tentative. And theory does not necessarily corrospond to reality. If it did, we wouldn't need science would we?

Razd: Unknown differences (some of the differences are known actually) in composition which affected the reactions.Go to go to work now...

Hi Rob,As Javaman has already informed you, "empirical" and "empiricism" are just different forms of the same base word. One's an adjective and the other's a noun. There are literally tons of examples of such words in the English language, like "intelligent" and "intelligence".I'll spend just a little time clarifying the definition of empiricism: Empirical investigations must *always* include observation. Conducting an experiment (which one then observes) is optional. Once again, "empirical" and "empiricism" are not representative of different concepts. You're reaching false conclusions by making Talmudic analyses of dictionary definitions, even combining alternative definitions together. And offering Hume as the final authority on empiricism is just the fallacy of argument from authority, plus I think you've misinterpreted him.But the empirical nature of science isn't the topic of this thread. You believe that if you can demonstrate that the Murchison meteorite contained no adenine that this somehow constitutes evidence against a naturalistic explanation. First, the absence of adenine in any one meteorite is extremely slim evidence against an extraterrestrial origin, as there are tons of other meteorites plus comets and interplanetary dust represent other more likely sources. And second ,this in no way speaks to terrestrial possibilities. The possible sources of and processes resulting in adenine are incredibly numerous.What you're hoping to do is demonstrate that there is no possible natural source of adenine, and that there must therefore be a non-natural explanation. But you will never be able to prove a negative, as you yourself concede while at the same time failing to realize that this is what you're attempting to do. In the end it is really just the "god-of-the-gaps" approach, offering the supernatural as the answer for anything science does not know.By the way, how can you continue to misspell empiricism after looking it up in the dictionary. Google and Firefox do provide spellcheckers. When I run Google spellcheck on my posts, quotes from you light up like a Christmas tree.I've been trying to coax people toward better spelling because the 3.0 version of dBoard that will hopefully be released late this year will include a very robust search facility, but it won't be able to find misspelled words.--Percy

When you can either (1) tell me the difference between the two rocks falling or (b) tell me how the molecular self-replication does not follow the rules of chemistry, you will have an argument.Until then, all you are doing is wasting bandwidth on your argument from ignorance and incredulity. People have seen self-replicating molecules. Declaring something doesn't happen because you haven't seen it happen just absolutely fails as a logical argument.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.

God of the gaps argument. You are claiming that the process creates adenine. It did not do so on the Tagish meteor and it did not do so on the serpentine blanks (you know, those control pieces that they put through the same procedure and testing). Thus we know adenine was not synthesized from the extraction process chemicals.As noted by Percy the presence or absence of adenine on Murchison does not mean that adenine was not available. What we have noted before is that we have either (A) adenine on the meteor of (2) compounds from which adenine is readily synthesized in a simple reduction environment, such as would be readily available in a pre-biotic earth. These are the only remaining explanations for the adenine identified from the Murchison meteor, and in either case adenine is delivered by the meteor from space to earth available for use.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last PEdited by RAZD, : .

---

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.