Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
217 online now:
kjsimons, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 215 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 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 yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 100ºC for 24 h. As
a control, 100 mg of crushed serpentine that had been
heated in air at 500ºC 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

( http://www.biocompare.com/itemdetails.asp?itemid=364377 )

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 responded

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 169 of 216 (423456)
09-22-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rob
09-22-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Rob writes:

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.

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.

Rob writes:

Molbiogirl's analysis and sources proved to be incorrect many times before in the previous thread, and the thread previous to that.

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.

Something stinks...

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.

We're intellectuals!

:eek:

No ego problems in your family, I guess, you've got it all.

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.

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.

There is certainly no such thing as proof in the theoretical sciences.

If this is your actual position, then why did you just waste my time questioning this?

I am questioning... that's all.

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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 11:40 AM Percy has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 responded

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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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.
( http://www.grisda.org/origins/03009.htm )

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 yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4096 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 172 of 216 (423467)
09-22-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
09-22-2007 11:40 AM


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?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 11:40 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 12:40 PM mark24 has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 responded

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

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4096 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 174 of 216 (423469)
09-22-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rob
09-22-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Rob,

So, what's your point mark?

My point is that having a biological source of adenine doesn't rule out another source.

The point is... that adenine being manufactured in the living machinery doesn't mean there is another source either.

So, I ask again, what's your point? Because the above means nothing as far as this thread is concerned, it doesn't rule out other sources.

If you are trying to make the point that adenine production is impossible outside of living organisms, then you have failed to show it, you are in the position of disproving a negative, as has been pointed out several times.

If you are merely pointing out that adenine production hasn't been observed outside living organisms then I have to ask, so what? It has never been observed to never have occurred, either.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 12:40 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 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):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid

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 responded

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 176 of 216 (423477)
09-22-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
09-22-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Rob writes:

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...

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:

Rob in Message 1 writes:

Hmm… do I hear motive?

...

Oh how curious! Isn’t it curious? Don’t you think so?

...

It’s all about the acid folks… Stanley Miller knew how to do it! Too bad it’s biologically irrelevant.

...

So what’s the deal with Murchison? In my opinion, the complex mixture of compounds and the unknowns about Murchison make quantifiable and accurate results questionable. There is much that remains a mystery. For those who have broad interest in constraining the issue and finding adenine… It’s not time to celebrate yet.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 11:40 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 2:19 PM Percy has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 100ºC

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 responded

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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19080
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 179 of 216 (423493)
09-22-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
09-22-2007 2:19 PM


Re: Not arguing a negative...
Rob writes:

You may think that I have no right to question these things... but I believe we are all equal.

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?

Einstein said somewhere, that he wasn't any smarter than anyone else, he only stayed with the problem longer.

Exactly. Einstein took the trouble to know what the @#$% he was talking about.

Learn some elementary chemistry before you start challenging chemists. Learn that CN isn't exactly the same thing every place you see it. Learn what pH is.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 2:19 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Rob, posted 09-22-2007 2:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021