Murchison Meteor Questions

No it isn't. What you quoted him saying was: It's simple English, Rob. Ken said that first the bomb was completed and tested, then afterwards that that work predicted that "real world natural fission was possible."And as I just explained in the prior message, the opposite is the case. First theory predicted that sustained nuclear fission was possible, then that was demonstrated in 1942 by Enrico Fermi, a full three years before the first atomic bomb test.This atomic bomb discussion is off-topic, but I thought it important to respond because it's a microcosm of your and Ken's fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science, which is off-topic for this thread, too, but this misunderstanding seems to be driving your pursuit of "proof" that adenine cannot arise by natural means, and so it keeps coming up.Though so many of your posts are off-topic, it's hard not to respond because, like this one, they're declaring that "black is white". They're just so blatantly wrong that it's impossible to resist responding. How would you like it if I kept misspelling Jesis, then after I said my brother had told me that Jesis ate the last super before overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple and was corrected, I denied that my brother had said any such thing, despite that there it was in black and white.So please stop wasting bandwidth with inane posts like this. You seem to make the most errors when making a quick series of short chat-style posts as you're again doing tonight. The topic is adenine and the Murchison meteorite. RAZD says that this thread presented evidence that adenine or it's precursors through a simple acid bath process were found in the Murchison and other meteorites. I think that's what you need to address.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Rob, I think you may be confusing two different definitions of the same word again, though for a different word this time. There are two contexts in which one can claim something is unnatural. In one context, unnatural means created by people. In the other context, unnatural means supernatural.In this atomic bomb discussion we're using unnatural to mean supernatural, not "created by people". Fission created by people is just as natural as fission at Oklo. It doesn't matter whether a critical mass of radioactive material was collected by people or not, such a critical mass will experience fission. And it will be the exact same type of fission, given the same materials and other conditions.I think that where you and Ken are confused must be that you believe that what scientists learn through observation and experiment is somehow some artificial, non-natural effect that has no connection to the real world. This could not be further from the truth. Science assumes that the the laws of the universe apply everywhere, including in the laboratory. The laws of the universe don't stop at laboratory walls.There can be a difficulty in applying the results of laboratory experiment to the real world. Laboratory experiments usually carefully control all variables, while the world outside the laboratory is a very messy and complex place. For simple things like the rate of acceleration in a vacuum or nuclear fission it doesn't matter, the real world is no more complex than the laboratory, but for more complex things like disease studies it can be very unclear how the result under simple conditions might generalize to the real world.--Percy

I don't think so. HCN is hydrogen cyanide, while NH₄CN is ammonium cyanide. Miller writes that the production of adenine from NH₄CN is independent of temperature between -80^oC and 100^oC, while Glavin and Bada write that the production of adenine from HCN is highly temperature dependent and inefficient at 100^oC. While many origin of life researchers believe that HCN played a key role, Miller speculates that NH₄CN might be a more likely candidate because it produces adenine more efficiently than HCN.But the main point is that you're comparing apples and oranges. HCN and NH₄CN have different properties. Yesterday you didn't know whether an acid is low or high pH, and today you're qualified to perform peer-review of technical papers on prebiotic chemistry? The effort you're making to understand these technical papers is admirable, but I think you can save yourself a lot of time and effort if you recognize that you're attempting the impossible, proving a negative. Even if you prove that it was utterly impossible for any adenine whatsoever to have ever come from the Murchison meteorite either directly or indirectly, you've only got all the rest of the possible sources of adenine left to eliminate, both those we're aware of and those not yet known.Even if science is forced to finally give up and admit that it just can't figure out where adenine came from, an answer of "I don't know" is not evidence of God.You see, conclusions aren't reached from what we don't know. They're reached from what we do know. You won't find God in missing adenine. If you want evidence of God, seek it in something he did.--Percy

No, of course you can't, but you do anyway, claiming truck drivers make better peer reviewers of papers on prebiotic chemistry than scientists. Why do you say such things? CO₂ (carbon dioxide) and CO (carbon monoxide) are even more similar, but look at the difference in their behaviors. Carbon monoxide is fatal at concentrations above 0.04%, while we actually exhale carbon dioxide without any ill effects. A difference of a single atom in a molecule can make an enormous difference in its properties. Miller had previously done research regarding HCN polymerization, and then he later did a reinvestigation that focused more on NH₄CN polymerization. I agree that the heading is less than clear to us laypeople, but it may make perfect sense to those working in the field. Then what's the point of arguing that adenine couldn't have come from the Murchison meteorite? In science you don't find proof, you find evidence. There's no such thing as proof in science. Evidence we have, proof we don't, which is okay since nothing in science has proof. It would be nice if you really wanted to develop a better understanding of chemistry, but reading a basic chemistry textbook might be a better starting point than technical papers on prebiotic chemistry.But let's get real. You're only really interested in chemistry to the extent that it helps you reinforce your preformed conclusions about abiogenesis. Any approach that starts with a conclusion and then goes on a scouting junket for supporting evidence is bound to end up as poorly as you keep ending up *OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN*!Instead of starting with a conclusion, such as, "The production of adenine on the early earth is impossible," start with a question, such as, "Can any possible production avenues for adenine on the early earth be identified?" Then, at least, you'd be getting off on the right scientific foot.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Please stop trying to claim equal competence with those you're debating with. When people discuss material they're unfamiliar with they tend to make lots of mistakes, which is what you're experiencing now. When you start discussing material you're familiar with then the errors will go away. Your record in the previous thread and in this one has been one of continual error and misinterpretation. You're always absolutely certain of how right you are until finally, after who knows how many posted messages of correction, the lightbulb goes on, and then we get a single post of contrition before you resume a tone of absolute certainty. Like now. Yes, Rob, something does, and until you either have an out-of-body experience or let comprehension precede typing you'll be unable to escape it. No ego problems in your family, I guess, you've got it all. Defining words, of which "science" is one, is not part of science. One would never ask, for example, "Is that word definition falsifiable?" If you'd like to discuss the nature of science then propose a thread. If this is your actual position, then why did you just waste my time questioning this? Uh, no Rob, you're not. You're convinced that the production of adenine on the early Earth wasn't possible, and you're seeking supporting evidence. I again suggest that you structure your search around an open question like, "Are there any possible production paths for adenine on the early earth," rather than around a negative assertion like, "Adenine could not have been produced on the early earth."Before you ever read any technical papers on the subject you already had a firm opinion. Before you even knew whether acids had a high or low pH, you already knew that adenine could not have been found in the Murchison meteorite. Not an auspicious way to begin.--Percy

How can you talk about "evidence" with a straight face when just a post ago you were still talking about "scientific proof" and badgering me to justify the assertion that there's no such thing?If you want to now begin on an unbiased investigation of the possible avenues of adenine production on the early earth then I think that would be great, but please don't hand us this dissembling that you've been objectively seeking evidence from the beginning. Here's some excerpts from your opening post: Snide asides are not normally associated with someone beginning an unbiased search for evidence, and you've continued in this way through much of this thread. Should I again quote your claim that truck drivers make better peer reviewers than scientists?And no one was celebrating, by the way. The source of adenine is not some big mystery that has scientists gnashing their teeth in consternation for fear that it might be evidence of creation. Science is not an atheistic alternative to religion - it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, just as knitting and car repair have nothing to do with religion. A mechanic who can't figure out what's wrong with a car does not conclude, "God did it." That would be really stupid. Mechanics deal with the real world, not the supernatural, and motorists aren't really interested in hearing that their car is haunted, they just want it fixed.Just like car mechanics, scientists deal with the real world. "I don't know" is not evidence of God. And "God did it" is not a valid answer when dealing with the real world.So while scientists would be disappointed if sufficient evidence for a source for adenine is never uncovered as time goes by, "I don't know" is not a blow to science, nor is it a victory for divine intervention.That's why this thread of yours is so misguided. You're not motivated by a search for where life came from. You're motivated by a desire to show that natural avenues for the origin of life are not possible. Which is a negative. And a negative cannot be demonstrated. And denying that that's what you're doing isn't fooling anyone because it's so bloody obvious, except maybe to you.If and when scientists become satisfied that they have sufficient evidence for a source of adenine, there will be no celebration. No one's going to win a Nobel Prize for such minor work. If they solve it then they'll just move on to the next problem. And if they don't solve it then they'll just shrug their shoulders and look to areas of investigation more likely to bear fruit.--Percy

I'm not offended. Like probably most other people in this thread, I'm bewildered at how you can so boldly misrepresent without blushing. Once again you've provided a nearly perfect example of declaring "black is white", this time claiming I misrepresented you. Here's what you just claimed you said: Yet you appear to have left something out: So we see now that you were talking about peer review after all, just like I said. You were misrepresenting facts again, I see, and issuing accusations that were untrue. Please stop comparing yourself to others in this thread. Pointing out that that we're all human, an undeniable yet irrelevant fact, doesn't change the fact that the person demonstrating ignorance of the subject matter, making misstatements and misrepresentations, and time and again making the discussion personal by casting aspersions at every turn, is you. If you'd prefer more time be spent on the topic then please stop making blatant and erroneous "black is white" declarations that can't be ignored. Stop getting your facts confused and wrong. Stop digressing down rat holes about the nature of science. That's all it takes.The plain fact of the matter is that casting doubt on the presence of adenine in the Murchison meteorite is a meaningless exercise unless you intend to go on to then cast doubt on all other possible sources of adenine, both known and those we haven't figured out yet. This is what is called attempting to prove a negative, which can't be done. But you continue on anyway, maybe in the belief that though you can't prove a negative, you can get close enough for all practical purposes. That, too, is untrue. It would be so much more convincing if you would demonstrate this by your conduct instead of treating us to empty claims like this.--Percy

Everyone makes mistakes, but you keep trying to excuse your mistakes as if they don't affect your arguments. How many times have you said in this thread (paraphrasing), "We're all human here, we all make mistakes, so we're all doing equally well in this discussion." How well do you think arguments like this would be received in court, Rob: "Sure, your honor, I murdered him, but I'm human, you're human, we're all human, we all make mistakes, so let's just call it even, okay?"The best approach for calling attention to a mistake is denial, so if you don't want your mistakes forgotten then just keep denying them. After enough posts explain things to you, you shift from denying the mistake to claiming that your mistakes are of no matter because "we're all human". You want people to stop calling attention to the mistakes? All it takes is saying, "Oh, you're right." Then merely incorporate the correct information into your arguments from that point on.We're all more than willing to forget your past mistakes as long as you stop ignoring the rebuttals because "we're all human" and other such nonsense. Sheesh! "Gee, teacher, I know I wrote 5+4=10 on my math test, but we're all human, we all make mistakes, it really isn't fair to mark it wrong." Give me a break!--Percy

No, Rob, errors significantly affect the value of arguments. Arguments with errors in the form of mistakes of fact or illogic or containing logical fallacies and so on, usually render the argument worthless, and such is the case with most of your arguments. And now you've misspelled misspelled. Both Google Toolbar and Firefox have spellcheckers. dBoard 3.0 will have a robust search feature (I've been working on it tonight, in fact), and so if in the future you'd like to find your old discussions about empiricism it might help you to spell it correctly. Spellcheckers won't help you find that you really wanted to use "you're" instead of "your". Maybe someday.I'm just responding to your own distractions, Rob. There is no point to offering rebuttals to your flawed arguments if you're going to claim that flawed arguments do not affect the strength of your position. If you're going to continue to do this then I really feel I have no choice but to point out this error in the way you assess arguments.And so if you want to help maintain the focus of this discussion more closely on the topic, then the next time someone points out an error, just say, "Oh, you're right," and move on. Don't post nonsense about how we're all human and all make mistakes and so your mistakes don't really matter, because that forces a response that that's just not so. This isn't a game of pre-school T-ball where everyone wins. When the ball goes through your legs and into the outfield, you lose. Claiming that it shouldn't matter that you failed to field the ball and that opposing players should therefore stop crossing the plate is just silly.--Percy

You've once again misstated my position and so have forced yet another reply.There was never an instance where you committed an error, said "Oh, you're right," and moved on, then I replied claiming the error invalided all your arguments.It was always the case that you made an error, then said that we're all human, we all make mistakes, and therefore your error was of no consequence (or arguments along these lines). This is what I always replied to. That and misrepresentations of my position, such as your misbegotten accusation that I erred in saying you were talking about peer review when that's exactly what you were talking about.It is much easier to avoid error in discussion when you focus on the topic instead of side issues like snide remarks, misleading characterizations of your opponent's positions, and self-serving excuses. Also, when entering into discussion of a topic area unfamiliar to you, to avoid error you have to read over what you just wrote to make sure it makes sense. Read over the relevant portions of technical papers again and again to make sure you understand them. Be on the lookout for misinterpretations, because these are extremely easy to make in unfamiliar technical fields. As time goes by and the area becomes more and more familiar, such practices will become less and less necessary.It is also a good idea to have what someone actually said in a past message right in front of you when revisiting a previous point, rather than going from memory.Such practices would probably have avoided some of your more obvious blunders, like claiming that empirical and empiricism were two different things, or constructing arguments around the assumption that rationality and Rationalism were the same thing, or even your most recent one, where you somehow concluded that RAZD was equivocating simply because he's thorough enough to mention all the known possibilities.--Percy

There are no personal attacks coming from me. When you advance an erroneous argument, noting the errors in your argument is not a personal attack.We're engaged in this subdialogue because you continue to claim that errors in your arguments are of no consequence, that your arguments stand as valid whether they're erroneous or not. That's not true. When your arguments are flawed, your point fails.For example, when you confused Rationalism and rationality, all your arguments based upon that misunderstanding were wrong, and therefore the point you were making about science being misdefined failed.As long as we see no more arguments from you along the lines of, "We're all human, we all make mistakes, therefore my mistakes don't matter," then we're good.--Percy

Rob, I really don't understand what you're on about. There's nothing I can do about any emotional reactions you're having to the discussion.All I can do is call attention to and/or correct any misstatements or errors you might make, so in that vein I guess I have to respond again. Could you *PLEASE* in your next post, if you choose to respond since it isn't really necessary and since you've expressed that you'd like to bring this exchange to a halt anyway, make sure that you don't misrepresent anything? Because if you don't make further misrepresentations then I really have nothing more to add and there won't be any reason for me to respond and you'll get your wish for this subdialogue to go away.Anyway, here's your latest misrepresentation: You did not use "rational" in place of "logic", and no one said you did. You confused rationality with Rationalism, leading you to make arguments based upon the misperception that Javaman had said science isn't rational, when what he actually said was that science cannot be equated with Rationalism.I mentioned this as an example of the type of error that is fatal to an argument, because an example seemed appropriate because you didn't seem to understand that my point was about errors affecting the effectiveness of arguments. I did not by any means intend it as a personal attack. I was not trying to assassinate your credibility. I was, and am, trying to make the point that effective arguments don't contain significant, relevant errors. If you now understand this, there's no need to respond.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I agree with Ringo. You're wasting all your energy on contriving excuses.Concerning rationality versus Rationalism, your claims that you didn't confuse them indicate very clearly that you're still confusing them, as Kuresu deftly points out.No one needs to take pot shots at your credibility, you're doing a fine job all by yourself.The point I've been making all along is that successful arguments make sense and say things that are true about the real world. Your arguments lack these qualities.Since it's obvious now that you'll not accept any correction, and since you still apparently believe erroneous arguments provide as good support for a position as correct ones, I don't even see the point of resuming discussion of the topic.--Percy