Murchison Meteor Questions

Razd:I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. Only that fission bombs are.Bombs are necessarily designed with a purpose; to kill and destroy. Nuclear fission is not.

Razd: I don't think that is true... I remember reading in one of the papers durring my research on this subject, 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...

Rqazd:Demolished?Self replicating molecules exist... yes, but are designed by intelligent agents Razd). So what if they exist if they are irrelevant to nature...So do bombs... and cars... and airplanes... and computers... and genetic engineering... etc...All obey the laws of physics and chemistry etc. They all exist!Are they all natural? Can they all be explained by purely natural and material processes?Nuclear fission can follow natural processes. Nuclear bombs only exploit that ability as per the direction of their designer, they are not however the result of natural processes.Can we move on?Razd:And it is possible for men to fly in space under certain conditions as well.All I want you to remember, and remember well... is that that has no necessary bearing on whether or not these things can be explained by nature.

Percy:That is precisely what Ken said in different words.

Bluegenes:Which in turn proceed from the philosophical view that the universe is ordered in an intelligible manner...So... where did science and all of it's wonderful results come from?Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:

​

Davies on the question: ”Does the monotheistic tradition of an intelligible universe have any impact on modern science?’ Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy:Since this whole little scuff between all of you and ken started with my comment about nuclear fission bombs and self replicating molecules not existing in nature, perhpas I should clarify.They do not exist in nature! Just as cars, televisions, and satellites do not exist in nature.They exist yes! But not in nature...They are created, invented, designed, manufactured, etc...

Well this is not the one I found earlier. But it gives you the idea... It's portion of the abstract. There is a whole pfd available with much detail somewhere. It once again makes me wonder what Glavin and Bada are smoking?That's some paper molbiogirl gave as evidence!Conclusion... higher acidity, faster hydrolysis and higher decomposition. ( An Investigation of Prebiotic Purine Synthesis from the Hydrolysis of HCN Polymers - NASA/ADS )Have any more questions Razd? You've been a great asset to this critique! Thanks for everything...

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

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

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

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

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

Kuresu:Yeah... duh again!

Kuresu:Uh, I think they mean that the adenine yield is .1%But you're right, it doesn't take 95% formic acid to hydrolyze (watch your spelling, it's not hyrdrolyze ) but lower pH (higher concentrations) yeild more adenine faster and also degrade it.Do I have that right?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Razd:Well of course!After all of the ground we covered???I see that we must endure more revisiting of the criticism. Well I suppose it is a good time for a summation thus far...The paper in question: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1022.pdfGlavin and Bada: Right there, you have the three problems with these extractions:1. heat

​

2. pH

​

3. further hydrolysis of adenine and guanine to produce 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?1. The temperature in the heating block is irrelevant.Glavin and Bada: 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...Here is the relevant work by Miller that adresses the temperature and hydrolysis: ( http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller_99.htm )2. The pH and ammount time given for hydrolysis. [qs]The original studies by Or and Kimball (1961) showed that the 6 N HCl hydrolysis of the NH4CN polymerization supernatant greatly increased the adenine yield. However, this hydrolysis also decomposes adenine and other purines. Therefore, we have measured the yields from an NH4CN polymerization as a function of hydrolysis time, and found that shorter hydrolytic periods give higher yields of adenine. 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%). The yield of adenine does not decline at longer hydrolysis times because of the greater stability of adenine at pH 8.[qs] ( An Investigation of Prebiotic Purine Synthesis from the Hydrolysis of HCN Polymers - NASA/ADS )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 #3.3. 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.pdfNote that the paper get's results only from E Coli cells, but nothing from the murchison tests: But, in that paper is the following: 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: Here is what Stanley Miller had to say in 1998: ( Just a moment... )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!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.