Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 216 (422652)
09-17-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rob
09-17-2007 9:25 PM


and the fact, as noted by kuresu, that scientists found the Oklo natural reactors -- and that they found them after the bomb was made shows that your position is logically invalid.
Note further that the existence of these natural reactors was predicted based on the knowledge derived from the laboratory experiments and the development of radioactive reaction technologies.
If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : note

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 09-17-2007 9:25 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rob, posted 09-18-2007 12:07 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 216 (422751)
09-18-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rob
09-18-2007 12:07 AM


Razd:
If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.
Wow...Razd! One wrong defense against your analogy and my whole argument is demolished?
No Rob, your "defense" had nothing to do with it. What you claim is that "empiricism" follows observation of natural phenomena and that the replicating molecules don't qualify because we don't have the observation of natural phenomena, while the rock does.
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors.
This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally.
... but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.
... which is what the rest of your post entails: predicted behavior Rob. Your failure to accept the absolute and utter failure of your argument leaves you no option, because logic and rationality have refuted you. Your song and dance is amusing, but a false portrayal of reality.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rob, posted 09-18-2007 12:07 AM Rob has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 216 (423009)
09-19-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ken
09-19-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
Just to be clear you are actually claiming that the byproducts of nuclear fission found at Oklo are not really the result of nuclear fission?
Your denial of evidence is that deep? Or have you just not looked at it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 9:03 AM Ken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 10:00 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 216 (423029)
09-19-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Ken
09-19-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
I'm not sure how you made the leap to say that I said that the by-products of nuclear fission were not the result of nuclear fission. I don't see that anywhere in what I emailed to Rob. Did you look at it?
In other words the distinction you made is pointless. Thank you for that clarification.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 10:00 AM Ken has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 216 (423032)
09-19-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:06 AM


Back to self-replication then ...
I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural.
So the point stands then that this destroys your argument:
Message 94
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors.
This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally.
Thank you for clarifying that this argument is valid.
Now that we have clarified that there is no difference between things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in nature and things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in experiments, we can validly conclude that self-replicating molecules do in fact exist.
These self-replicating molecules are not some kind of artifact of the experiment, but the result of things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) once the initial conditions have been met.
This, of course, does not mean that abiogenesis happened, or even that these molecules were in any way involved. All this shows is that self-replicating molecules are possible under certain condition.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 216 (423039)
09-19-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
09-19-2007 10:14 AM


Summary of the case for adenine
As far as the Murchison meteorite goes, if I understood the posts in this thread, the analyses were inconclusive as to the possible presence of adenine.
The experiments on Murchison, Murray, Orgueil, and Tagish meteors show that either adenine was there on Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil, OR that the materials needed for the ready formation of adenine with a simple acid bath (similar to the extraction process) were on the Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil meteors but not on Tagish.
Rob has essentially conceded this point:
Message 45
Further, IF it was formed, THEN there were still the molecules from which it was formed available for the formation of adenine.
Now that I can agree with...
and
Message 65
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.
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.
Material that was shown to be "adenine-phylic" enough to prevent extraction of adenine with water, and material from which, logically, the adenine was synthesized IF it did not exist as complete adenine molecules, as the extraction process chemicals (formic acid, for example) are inadequate for forming adenine on their own.
Furthermore, hypoxanthine, and xanthine were also identified on the meteor, and these are products of degradation of adenine (xanthine is also a product of degradation of guanine). Thus the existence of these on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today. Note 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.
AND we have seen the production of adenine in space modeled to show how it can occur naturally, providing the source of adenine for the meteors.
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.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 10:14 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 216 (423151)
09-19-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:40 PM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
... that adenine did in fact degrade rather rapidly if left in the acid solutions. I'll find it and get back soon. Sorry I do not have it now...
No hurry. Just consider, however, that this means that the same mechanism that constructs the adenine takes it apart ... as fast as it makes it?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:40 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 11:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 216 (423154)
09-19-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:55 PM


yes demolished, the logic has not been refuted by repetition of the (false) argument.
Demolished?
Self replicating molecules exist... yes, but are designed by intelligent agents Razd). So what if they exist if they are irrelevant to nature...
Can we move on?
As soon as you acknowledge that your argument is demolished.
OR explain how you get around this conundrum:
quote:
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind ("designed by intelligent agent") -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock.
Seeing as you can't be a member of both classes at the same time, there can be no distinction between them: the distinction is a figment of your imagination devoid of reality.
You've already acknowledged that there is no difference between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the rock starts to fall. Now you have the case that there is no difference in the nuclear reactions between the designed reactors and the natural reactors once the reactions start to run.
You claim there IS a difference between the designed self=replicating molecules and naturally occurring self-replicating molecules solely because no naturally occurring self-replicating molecules have been observed. This is the same condition that applied to the nuclear reactors before the Oklo natural reactors were discovered but which no longer exists now that they have been discovered.
The nuclear reactions did not suddenly change to some "natural process condition" from a "designed process condition" upon the discovery of the natural reactors, because they already existed and did not change magically upon discovery of the Oklo reactors.
Therefore there is no distinction between the "natural process condition" and the "designed process condition" once the process is in operation according to the laws involved. Just as there is no distinction between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the process is in operation according to the laws involved.
This holds for the self-replicating molecules and everything else ever covered in an experiment. Your fantasy distinction has been falsified utterly, completely and irrevocably. Time for you to accept this and move on.
BTW, this is known as a "Q.E.Doh" logical proof and not something you can just ignore in the hopes it will evaporate.
Just repeating your tired mantra (which is all you have done from the start) does not make it any more valid. It just makes you obstinate, falsified and deluded.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 PM Rob has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 216 (423161)
09-19-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rob
09-19-2007 11:17 PM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Conclusion... higher acidity, faster hydrolysis and higher decomposition.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 11:17 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:22 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 146 of 216 (423168)
09-20-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
09-20-2007 12:22 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
but the only problem is that it takes a great deal of time to hydrolyze adenine at a lower pH.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:22 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 155 of 216 (423213)
09-20-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rob
09-20-2007 12:58 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Let's review again.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1022.pdf
quote:
Sample Preparation and Sublimation Experiments: A powdered sample of the Murchison meteorite (104 mg) was sealed in a clean test tube with 1 mL of 95% formic acid (Sigma-Aldrich) and incubated in a heating block set at 100C for 24 h.
HPLC Results and Discussion: Prior to sublimation heating, the Murchison formic acid extract eluted as several small HPLC peaks with retention times similar to adenine, guanine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, and possibly uracil (Fig. 1a). A large unidentified peak in the chromatogram with a retention time of ~ 5 min and showing significant tailing, made it difficult to accurately quantify these nucelobases, especially uracil, in the Murchison formic acid extract. However, this large non-volatile organic component was removed after sublimation of the Murchison formic acid extract at 450C and peaks corresponding to adenine, hypoxanthine, xanthine and uracil were readily identified (Fig. 1c).
Table 1. Recovery of Nucleobases from Murchison
Meteorite Formic Acid Extracts (in ppb).
Nucleobase This Study* Schwartz [3,4]
--------------------------------------------
Adenine 204 267
Cytosine < 11 < 30,000
Thymine < 255 < 3
Guanine < 16 234
Uracil 145 63
Hypoxanthine 232 215
Xanthine 356 530
*sublimed at 450C for 5 min

Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450.
The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart.
Enjoy.
Edited 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:58 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 09-21-2007 2:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 159 of 216 (423324)
09-21-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rob
09-21-2007 2:11 AM


Problems with Rob's "truckdriver review"
Rob, look again.
1. heat
2. pH
3. further hydrolysis of adenine and guanine to produce hypoxanthine and xanthine.
Step (3) only applies to half the sample. I am talking about the other half that was NOT hydrolized. They still found hypoxanthine and xanthine.
I can sum all of those problems in one question: How long was the sample exposed to the very low pH level associated with a 95% solution concentration of formic acid, while it was mixed, sealed, and before being placed in the heating block?
Probably less time than it took you to type this silly comment. Lab experiments are run under very controlled conditions, and are not like baking in the kitchen. Each sample would be mixed, sealed and placed in the block, and the formic acid was likely pre-heated to 100C ... but feel free to contact them and ask.
1. The temperature in the heating block is irrelevant.
They tell us that adenine synthesis from HCN is innefficient at 100C. But they leave out the fact, that adenine synthesis is independant of temperatures between -80C and 100C (the temperature range that the sample would have been while being mixed, sealed and put into the heating block). The amount of time in question here, must be known, if the results are to be thoroughly peer reveiwed.
Notice that HCN is an abbreviation for NH4CN below..:
You are now basically claiming that the adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine were produced instantaneously during the few seconds of mixing and sealing. And you still haven't addressed the issue of the same process that produces adenine also breaks it down according to your conception.
Others have pointed out the error of conflating HCN with NH4CN -- these are not "abbreviations" but chemical formulas for the compounds, compounds with different characteristics and reactions to conditions. Here's a clue google the formulas.
Here is the relevant work by Miller that adresses the temperature and hydrolysis:
( http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller_99.htm )
Which doesn't apply to the half of the sample that is only subject to 95% formic acid at 100C -- no NH4CN, no HCN, and no hydrolysis.
To answer one of your questions Razd, the relevant issue here is the pH, not the type of acid used. Both Hydrochloric acid HCL and Formic acid HCOOH have the hydrogen available for hydrolysis of NH4CN HCN to produce adenine.
So although adenine quickly synthesizes at lower pH levels (high concentrations), the yield is low because of the continued hydrolysis of the purines, which leads us to criticism #3.
You don't know what hydrolysis is.
Hydrolysis - Wikipedia
quote:
Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction or process in which a chemical compound reacts with water.[1][2] This is the type of reaction that is used to break down polymers. Water is added in this reaction.
In inorganic chemistry, the word is often applied to solutions of salts and the reactions by which they are converted to new ionic species or to precipitates (oxides, hydroxides, or salts). The addition of a molecule of water to a chemical compound, without forming any other products is usually known as hydration, rather than hydrolysis.
It has nothing to do with the acid used, and once again: I am talking about the half of the sample that was not subjected to hydrolysis.
3. Hydrolysis of adenine and guanine into hypoxanthine and xanthine.
Glavin and Bada:
Now that is very interesting, because footnote [5] will take you to another paper by Glavin and Bada: http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/Glavin_PSS.pdf
Note that the paper get's results only from E Coli cells, but nothing from the murchison tests:
Yes, they are talking about the process with pure nucleobase mixtures rather than the unknowns in the Murchison meteor. They found that in those studies that "deamination of the nucleobases did not occur" -- and they KNOW this from having started with the pure nucleobase mixtures. What they are saying is that under those condition adenine did not degrade into hypoxanthine and xanthine. Those same condition DO apply to the Murchison meteor extraction, because they used the same process. This is how scientists evaluate other possibilities.
Ain't much to glean from footnote [5]. And it says noting about formic acid being used to prepare the samples. It actually refers to sample prep as pertaining to sodium hydroxide NaOH, which is a stong alkaline.
The answer to this issue of the presense of hypoxanthne and xanthine is very simple; they are the bi-products of the hydrolysis of adenine and guanine respectively. And that is what we would expect from a strong acid concentration such as 95% formic acid, and 6 N HCL.
So just as was said in our other paper above:
Glavin and Bada make it out to be about thermal deamination durring sublimation. But the issue is hydrolysis and pH before being put into the heating block, not durring incubation or sublimation.
There are some big problems with the Murchison extractions!
Only when you understand squat about the processes. And the fact that we are still talking about the half of the sample that was NOT subject to HCl and hydrolysis still identified adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine.
Which brings a 4th criticism...
Was this paper peer reviewed? Or does it take a truck driver with a high school education, to do a thorough and objective job of moderating the work of men with 'doctorates'?
Buyer beware... there's a whole lot of selling going on in pre-biotic chemistry... but there's no engine under the hood.
It was published in a peer review journal, ie it was reviewed by people that know what they are talking about. Given the several rather substantial errors and miscomprehensions that are the basis of your "truckdriver review" I am not concerned with your "conclusions" as they appear to be based on the conflation of every single negative comment or comment of concern in every single article you can find related to the issue whether it really applies to the study or not.
Now let's get back to the issue of the sample that is only subject to 95% formic acid extraction at 100C that identified adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine. Without HCl. Without hydrolysis. Without fanfare.
RAZD Message 155
Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450.
The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart.
You quoted that and then said
Well of course!
After all of the ground we covered???
And never addressed the issue.
That issue has still not been addressed by you. Once again for clarity the issue is:
RAZD Message 155
Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450.
The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart.
One single, simple process where we are still talking about the half of the sample that was NOT subject to HCl - or NH4CN - and NOT subject to hydrolysis still identify adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine.
The fact that several different processes identify adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine in very similar relative quantities should be enough to give you pause in your claim that these are being manufactured during the sampling process, as the different processes used would have very different capabilities.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 09-21-2007 2:11 AM Rob has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 166 of 216 (423402)
09-21-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rob
09-21-2007 10:56 AM


Re: Problems with Murchison extractions... but not for adenine
If you'll take the time to read the OP, the question is whether adenine was extracted or synthesized from the Murchison samples.
So there is no mystery as to it's origins really. It is manufactured by biological organisms themselves.
and ...
Let's be clear: you cannot say that adenine was NOT on the meteor(s). You can be uncertain about it (tentative science eh?) but you cannot rule it out.
You also cannot rule out that adenine is\was produced in space and is\was available to be on meteors that showered the earth in the early days.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 09-21-2007 10:56 AM Rob has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 216 (423410)
09-21-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ken
09-14-2007 12:38 PM


your "Center for Science and Culture" article
So then, if the organic compounds required for life could not have already been present on earth, they must have been introduced.
A more complete answer to this (logically false) assertion and your article is at Message 14
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ken, posted 09-14-2007 12:38 PM Ken has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 175 of 216 (423471)
09-22-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rob
09-22-2007 12:13 AM


The acid test.
5% ain't much mind you... but based on the ease of the reaction, that it is enough to get the purines in Parts per Billion from the Murchison samples.
This is what you are down to. Less than 5% water in the formic acid used for the extraction is now responsible for all the adenine composition AND its decomposition.
You do know that acid has a high affinity for water don't you? That you should never add water to acid but acid to water? Because if you don't there are serious consequences. Google water in acid if you doubt me. One result:
Why is acid always added to water, and not the reverse?
quote:
A large amount of heat is released when strong acids are mixed with water. Adding more acid releases more heat. If you add water to acid, you form an extremely concentrated solution of acid initially. So much heat is released that the solution may boil very violently, splashing concentrated acid out of the container! If you add acid to water, the solution that forms is very dilute and the small amount of heat released is not enough to vaporize and spatter it. So Always Add Acid to water, and never the reverse.
Why is there an exothermic reaction? Because the water is being broken down by the acid and energy is released. Let's look at sulfuric acid (which is one of the strongest for this kind of reaction):
Sulfuric acid - Wikipedia
quote:
The reaction is best thought of as forming hydronium ions, by
H2SO4 + H2O ’ H3O+ + HSO4-,
and then
HSO4- + H2O ’ H3O+ + SO42-.
Because the hydration of sulfuric acid is thermodynamically favorable, sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent, and is used to prepare many dried fruits. The affinity of sulfuric acid for water is sufficiently strong that it will remove hydrogen and oxygen atoms from other compounds;
This means that the water will not exist as water (H2O) in high concentrations of acid. If you want to hydrolyze the compounds you will need to mix it with sufficient water to overcome the affinity of the acid so that the water can react with the compounds.
Molbiogirl's analysis and sources proved to be incorrect many times before in the previous thread, and the thread previous to that.
Can you definitively say that there was absolutely no adenine on the meteor?
Can you definitively say that there was absolutely no hypoxanthine on the meteor?
Can you definitively say that there was absolutely no xanthine on the meteor?
Can you definitively say that these molecules were produced during the process?
Message 170
But I have never maintained, nor thought, that it is impossible for adenine to have been in the meteor since I didn't know anything about it before this...
I have never said as your last sentance declares that, 'Adenine could not have been produced on the early earth'.
Good. That's a start.
You rail about the authors claiming to have found adenine on the meteors because of a minuscule amount of scientific uncertainty they document in their proceedings. You demonstrate (amply) that you know jack about chemistry, and make numerous faulty assumptions based on that ignorance, yet you seem incapable of realizing that the scientists reached the conclusions they did (that adenine was on the meteor) due to the preponderance of evidence from a number of different tests, and from their long experience with and understanding of the chemical processes involved.
You also do not understand the significance of running other tests to validate the results. As noted in my Message 159 above:
(Message 156)
3. Hydrolysis of adenine and guanine into hypoxanthine and xanthine.
Glavin and Bada:
Now that is very interesting, because footnote [5] will take you to another paper by Glavin and Bada: http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/Glavin_PSS.pdf
Note that the paper get's results only from E Coli cells, but nothing from the murchison tests:
Yes, they are talking about the process with pure nucleobase mixtures rather than the unknowns in the Murchison meteor. They found that in those studies that "deamination of the nucleobases did not occur" -- and they KNOW this from having started with the pure nucleobase mixtures. What they are saying is that under those condition adenine did not degrade into hypoxanthine and xanthine. Those same condition DO apply to the Murchison meteor extraction, because they used the same process. This is how scientists evaluate other possibilities.
Based on that study they KNOW that hypoxanthine and xanthine are not produced by the formic acid bath from degrading adenine during the extraction process.
It is the preponderance of evidence for adenine that leads to their conclusion.
Message 171
... It's the cyanide (the CN in both NH4CN) and HCN) ...
... While these facts seem to present a more realistic solution in terms of increasing the yield in a primitive ocean, these compounds are either acidic themselves or in acidic solution. As such the primitive pH of the ocean, calculated to be 8.0-8.1 (7), would be lowered, thus making the seas an environment unsuited for chemical evolution. Since many organic compounds are unstable and dissociate below a pH of 7, it is doubtful that the addition of acid solution naturally would enhance the chance of survival of a primitive organism should it have evolved.
See Message 14. There are a lot of unknowns out there on this issue, but nothing yet says abiogenesis could not have occurred through natural processes.
Message 173
It really only means that life itself produces the adenine needed for biological life.
Which is not the topic of this thread, but life itself produces the amino acids needed for biological life, even though they exist freely in the biosphere. Thus this point is not only off-topic but totally irrelevant to the question of the origin of life.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : )
Edited by RAZD, : -msg
Edited by RAZD, : msg 173

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 12:13 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024