Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 160 of 216 (423329)
09-21-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
09-21-2007 4:19 AM


Re: Problems with Murchison extractions...
I see I still have much to learn...
Percy:
Miller writes that the production of adenine from NH4CN is independent of temperature between -80oC and 100oC, while Glavin and Bada write that the production of adenine from HCN is highly temperature dependent and inefficient at 100oC. 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.
I cannot claim to understand all of the chemistry, but there is a strong connection between the two. NH4CN has an additional nitrogen and 4 hydrogens it appears. Both have the cyanideI assumed the abbriviation because of Millers heading in the article:
A Reinvestigation of A, U, G, and C Production from HCN Polymerizations
We have been investigating the effect of temperature, concentration, and hydrolysis time on adenine synthesis from NH4CN polymerizations.
Preliminary results indicate that the yield of adenine is approximately independent of temperature between -80 and 100C.
( http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller_99.htm )
I have to ask why does he use HCN in place of NH4CN in the header?
At the moment the chemistry involved is out of my reach but something tells me that there is more to it than you think, though maybe less than I think.
Percy:
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
Er... actually I keep telling you that I am not trying to prove a negative. It is you (or those in your field) who have to find the positive proof to support the theories.
My other big embarrassment came from not knowing that hydrolysis has to do with water specifically.
I have one question about that for you and razd. 95% formic acid... what does that mean? 95% formic acid with water being the other 5%?
I want to better understand the chemistry of water hyrdrolysis and the olgiomerization of peptides. Seems that hydrolysis and oligomerization is strongly linked, yet reducing other agents that are anhydrous produces the same results.
Sorry for my ignorance, but I am not convinced that you guys really know either. I'd appriciate the assitance of a Doddy or Matt P whether I am right or wrong. Just dumb it down for all of us (or at least me)...
I am going to have to take a big step back for now...
Good job boys!
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 09-21-2007 4:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by mark24, posted 09-21-2007 10:19 AM Rob has replied
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 09-21-2007 3:23 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 162 of 216 (423335)
09-21-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by mark24
09-21-2007 10:19 AM


Re: Problems with Murchison extractions...
mark24:
Er... actually you are. Is it not your contention that adenine cannot form naturally under earthly conditions?
No mark...
If you'll take the time to read the OP, the question is whether adenine was extracted or synthesized from the Murchison samples.
However... elsewhere I have reminded folks that adenine is sythesized in the living machinery of the cell. That is empirical fact.
So there is no mystery as to it's origins really. It is manufactured by biological organisms themselves.
My only point has been that there has been no empircal proof thus far, of adenine synthesis in nature apart from biological organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by mark24, posted 09-21-2007 10:19 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 09-21-2007 11:18 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 8:12 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 168 of 216 (423420)
09-22-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
09-21-2007 3:23 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Percy:
Then what's the point of arguing that adenine couldn't have come from the Murchison meteorite?
I have never said it couldn't. Molbiogirl said that it did (ie. it was certain in her mind).
I want to know if it did really! I am questioning... that's all. And I simply don't believe the premise or implication that scientists are any better disciplined or self regulating than you or I. We're all human.
Molbiogirl's analysis and sources proved to be incorrect many times before in the previous thread, and the thread previous to that.
Something stinks... So I am pursuing every conceivable avenue to find out for myself if this claim is accurate. And learning much along the way even if it leads to temporary embarrasment now and then. All of us have taken those risks. It's ok... We're intellectuals! Sometimes we're stupid intellectuals!
I have no preconceived notion, I just smell a rat. But as Buzz very aptly pointed out, I still have some stink myself, so relax... it ain't over yet.
Percy:
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.
Really? Can you prove that?
And that's not just a philosophical trick question... you have a habit of stating things as fact, yet you then say there is no such thing.
There is certainly no such thing as proof in the theoretical sciences. But I am afraid that many things are proven Percy. I shouldn't have to tell you that. If nothing can be proven then how can we say that with any authority? Now that would be trying to prove a negative.
---------------------------------------------
Which brings me to my last relevant question on Murchison that neither you, nor Razd, answered:
Q. Is the 95% formic acid used to process the Murchison samples 5% water?
A. Yes!
Glavin Bada:
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. As
a control, 100 mg of crushed serpentine that had been
heated in air at 500C for 3 h was processed similarly.
All we have to do is go to Sigma-Aldrich online to find the answer:
Assay: 95 %
Reagent grade
Contains 5% water as stabilizer
( Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists )
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.
And it would also explain the presence of hypoxanthine, xanthine et al in the control sample depending on the relative quanities between samples.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 09-21-2007 3:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 11:19 AM Rob has replied
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 1:02 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 170 of 216 (423464)
09-22-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
09-22-2007 11:19 AM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Percy:
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.
Actually, molbiogirl's link to the Glavin and Bada papers knocked me pretty good for a day or so. I only knew there was no evidence of adenine being discovered until she presented me with this paper. It was a day or so later that I analyzed it again and said, 'wait a minute...'.
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...
This is about evidence Percy... and having the evidence behind me, (adenine is produced within the living machinery) gives me confidence to follow my gut here...
Maybe I'm just lucky!
Rob:
I am questioning... that's all.
Percy: 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."
Actually you (and many others) are the one's who are convinced that there is a nonbiological source of adenine.
All I know is that there is a biological source that is emperically known.
I have never said as your last sentance declares that, 'Adenine could not have been produced on the early earth'.
As I said, I am asking questions...
So what do you make of the 5% water that is present in the formic acid solution used to prepare the Murchison samples?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 11:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by mark24, posted 09-22-2007 12:17 PM Rob has replied
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 1:50 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 171 of 216 (423466)
09-22-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
09-21-2007 3:23 PM


Re: Problems with Murchison extractions...
Percy:
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.
Well of course it makes sense to them. It's the cyanide (the CN in both NH4CN) and HCN)I hope one day (soon) to understand the chemistry myself, so that I do not have to simply rely upon the authoritative claims of other men.
Investigators have discovered several means of enhancing the yields of many polymerization reactions through the use of acids, a process known as chemical activation. The presence of phosphoric or polyphosphoric acid nearly doubles the typical yield (20, 25, 26). Also, it has been demonstrated that peptide bonds between amino acids may be promoted by cyanamides in acidic solutions (27, 28). 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.
( Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... )
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 09-21-2007 3:23 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 173 of 216 (423468)
09-22-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mark24
09-22-2007 12:17 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Rob:
All I know is that there is a biological source that is emperically known.
But that doesn't mean that's the only potential source, so what's your point?
The point is... that adenine being manufactured in the living machinery doesn't mean there is another source either. It really only means that life itself produces the adenine needed for biological life.
We do not need bias to believe in evidence; we have the evidence!
We do however, need bias to believe in that which does not appear.
So, what's your point mark?
Do you have anything to offer in terms of explanation as to why Glavin and Bada mentioned the possible oligomerization of HCN durring the extraction process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mark24, posted 09-22-2007 12:17 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by mark24, posted 09-22-2007 12:50 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 216 (423479)
09-22-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
09-22-2007 1:02 PM


Re: The acid test.
Razd:
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?
Of course not! I also cannot definitively say that there are no abominable snow monters anywhere on earth.
How does that prove that there are, or is? It certainly isn't a scientific argument on your part...
Razd:
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.[/qs]
Sorry Razd, but the issue is not thermal deamination, the issue is hydrolysis of adenine and guanine into hypoxanthine and xanthine. And that is one reason I question the work of Glavin and Bada here. I may not understand it, but certainly they should!
Don't you remember that that is why you mentioned earlier that there was no potential for hydrolysis in the 95% formic acid extraction of the control sample? Personally, I thought you had me for a minute...
I was then trying to find out if anhydrous reduction was equivilant to hydrolyisis. I read all kinds of papers. then I thought, 'Wait a minute... what is that other 5%?'
Hydrolysis may still be an issue...
After asking you about it, I then pointed out that the 95% formic acid obtained from Sigma-Aldrich is indeed 5% water. I figure you found that out before I did, since you didn't respond. Why didn't you or Percy come forward with that information? I suppose I shouldn't assume you knew...
I don't call that a misrepresentation when you incorrectly assumed that there was no possiblity of hydrolysis. Percy would have, if I had made such a mistake.
I only call it an error. The kind all human beings make... even scientists.
What I want to know is this... and it has the potential of defeating my position and giving credence to theirs and yours. I do not yet know the answer...
Glavin and Bada mention that, "Although a previous study has shown that the synthesis of adenine from HCN in acid is highly
temperature dependent and inefficient at 100C
But any search I do for such temperatures only come up with Miller experiments of temperature ranges with respect to NH4CN. And that makes me think there is that connection (expressed earlier) between NH4CN and HCN. Also the fact that Miller mentions HCN and NH4CN in the same breath with respect to polymerizations by acid. I just dont understand it yet...
The footnote in Glavin and Bada's paper is footnote 8, which is as follows: [8] Levy M. and Miller S. L. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA., 95, 7933-7938.
So there is a good place to look for info... I cannot do so at the moment, so I leave the fate of my argument in your hands...
happy molding!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 1:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 5:48 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 178 of 216 (423481)
09-22-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
09-22-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Percy:
Should I again quote your claim that truck drivers make better peer reviewers than scientists?
I'll do it myself because I didn't say that. Your so offended that you can't see straight.
Rob:
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'?
What is important is that a thorough and objective analysis is done. Though I have made some errors of my own, that is my intention.
Yet, even so... I have already admitted to my own stench. I am only human. How about you Percy... got any human stench in you?
You may think that I have no right to question these things... but I believe we are all equal. What right did a Patent Clerk named Einstein have to question science?
You know... Einstein said somewhere, that he wasn't any smarter than anyone else, he only stayed with the problem longer. He also talked about the vanity of scientists...
It's humanity really... not any particular group... we're all rather vain.
You've been nothing but a distraction in this thread from the beginning. You've done nothing but question my motives rather than debate the issues. There is only 120 or so posts left. Please engage the subject or move on.
I want to know and learn...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 1:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 09-22-2007 2:48 PM Rob has replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 5:07 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 180 of 216 (423496)
09-22-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
09-22-2007 2:48 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Ringo:
Do you say that when you get on an airplane? Do you go up to the cockpit and tell the captain he's flying all wrong? Do you think you have the "right" to tell him which buttons to push?
I don't have to get on board in the first place. But if you want to ride the magic prebiotic bus, be my guest. You can even have my ticket.
But I certainly have the right to explain why I'm not aboard, and ask those interested in the discussion or piloting the vessel, why they believe in the ride.
Now please Ringo, you've already wasted two posts. If you have nothing to add as for understanding the chemistry involved, I'll just ignore future posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 09-22-2007 2:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 09-22-2007 3:14 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 184 of 216 (423534)
09-22-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
09-22-2007 5:48 PM


Re: The acid test.
Razd:
Actually I knew the acid was mixed with water, but I was not concerned about it. There is no hydrolysis in 95% formic acid, because there are no free water molecules in the 95% formic acid solution, or did you not comprehend the point in Message 175:
Well that's what I thought... You knew all along.
I guess I have met my match and have to concede defeat. My stupidity and zeal has finally got the best of me. My lack of compehension is there for all to see...
I gotta hand it to you Razd... you're relentless in your executions!
Razd:
Seriously Rob. Let me repeat again: you do not have any hydrolysis in the 95% formic acid extraction. The water that was mixed with the acid to stabilize it is not water in the solution that remains.
Again, you fail to explain the existence of adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine in the extract solution.
I see it now... there is no hydrolysis occuring in the acid extractions.
Oh wait!
What's this from Robert shapiro?
The isolation of adenine and guanine from meteorites has been cited as evidence that these substances might have been available as "raw material" on prebiotic Earth (18). However, acid hydrolyses have been needed to release these materials, and the amounts isolated have been low (17-19).
( Just a moment... )
He cites footnote 18 as the work of Stoks and schwartz: 18. Stoks, P. G. & Schwartz, A. W. (1981) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45, 563-569.
That is the comparative study done and referenced by Glavin also:
It is important to emphasize that the purines
identified in formic acid extracts of Murchison were
not detected in water extracts [4]. This suggests that
the purines are either bound to other organics, or were
produced (e.g. oligomerization of HCN) during acid
extraction.
And his footnote 4: [4] Stoks P. G. and
Schwartz A. W. (1981) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.,
45, 563-569.
We have a match!
And in case you think they are refferring to water extractions (don't even try and say that), see here:
We analyze the abundances of purines and pyrimidines in the
formic acid extract of Murchison (Table 1) and Orgueil, compare
it to those reported by Stoks and co-workers [1,2] and to the results obtained by Glavin et al.
( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2004/pdf/5145.pdf )
And their footnote 2: [2] Stoks, P.G and Schwartz, A. W. 1981.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 45:563-569.
You remember your table right?
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
And the footnote here again from Glavin and Bada includes [4] as above. It's formic acid!
Appearently Shapiro thinks that acid hydrolysis is an issue. But maybe he is just misrepresenting like me. Maybe he is a secret creationist who likes to infiltrate the institution and throw monkey wrenches into the great materialist wheel in the sky.
Or, maybe he is just objective.
I am sorry to be messing with you Razd, but I simply do not understand the tone. I have been accused of mirepresentation, of ignorance, of being unable to comprehend, of being unqualified to ask these questions, of having a predetermied belief anchored only in desperate emotional need and delusion. Every mistake and misspelling of mine has been exagerated in an attempt to discredit my entire argument.
Yet, here we are...
And as I have said, I am not accusing you of misrepresentation. We're all human.
What I am saying, as I did in the OP:
So, as I said in message 1 of the parent thread OP that spawned this thread: "I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias."
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 5:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 8:26 PM Rob has replied
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 8:45 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 186 of 216 (423549)
09-22-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
09-22-2007 8:26 PM


Re: The acid test.
Razd:
Everyone makes mistakes, but you keep trying to excuse your mistakes as if they don't affect your arguments.
That's right! They don't affect my arguments.
I mispelled empirical.
I didn't understand hydrolysis properly yet it is still an issue even after a corrected understanding.
I thought HCN was an abbreviation for NH4CN though the two are essentially equivocable in terms of the synthesis of adenine.
All of the other arguments you and I have had, were irrelevant to the issue of Murchison, and were pertaining to philosophy of science and general difference of opinion.
Your just a distraction. There is plenty of time left for more discussion and summation, which will go along way to refining my criticisms of the paper in question.
Now contribute to the discussion or get out. Your participation here would not be tolerated if you and I were standing in opposite shoes. If I were saying the things you're saying, jar would be accusing me of off topic nonsense at every turn.
Razd is at least raising some very good questions and challenges and otherwise doing a bang-up job of engaging the issue. He is doing research, reading papers, and srutinizing details much in the same manner as I. I may not like him, but that is the truth. He is doing the job.
What are you doing here?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 8:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 10:03 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 188 of 216 (423553)
09-22-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
09-22-2007 8:45 PM


Re: The acid test.
Razd:
OR
It was easily synthesized from molecules on the meteor.
I have no problem accepting that. That is precisely what happened as far as I can tell.
If that is the case, then the discussion moves on to the problems with the atmospheric models to accomplish the synthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 8:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 9:28 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 191 of 216 (423563)
09-22-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
09-22-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Moving on then ...
razd writes:
OR adenine existed on the meteor and synthesis on earth is not necessary.
So you are having a hard time making up your mind?
Seems that hydrolysis is an issue according to Shapiro irrespective of how many sentances he commited to the subject.
The extractions were done with acid hydrolysis. That is why they are suspect. Glavin and Bada didn't mention it for nothing.
Verdict?
Inconclusive!
Razd:
This would easily replicate what happened during the extraction process of the experiment, thus resulting in adenine being available.
Unfortunately the same processes that synthesize it, would hydrolyze it further. You need a near neutral pH for stability, and a great deal more adenine than we're discussing here. And even if there was an explanation (which there is not), it takes more than adenine to make an organism. We've not yet even scratched the surface of this problem. That's just the way it is...
razd writes:
ps -- use less keystrokes: type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
tip-of-the-day from your friendly neighborhood evilootionist.
Got it! Thanks for that...
Let's leave the rest for another thread. It's more than off topic here.
ps. You are not friendly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 11:18 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 192 of 216 (423564)
09-22-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
09-22-2007 10:03 PM


Re: The acid test.
Percy writes:
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.
Sorry Percy, but I cannot do that when they (I mean you), say in addition, that because of the error my whole argument is wasted. Sorry about the misspellings.
Id wont hopen agen.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 09-22-2007 10:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 09-23-2007 7:33 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 194 of 216 (423574)
09-22-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
09-22-2007 11:18 PM


Re: Moving on then ...
Razd:
Now we know of at least one mechanism for producing adenine.
And what was that process again?
Wasn't it the same process that Stanley Miller discovered long ago that results in racemic mixtures of amino acids that are irrelevant to biology that posesses chiral molecules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 11:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2007 11:36 PM Rob 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