|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Murchison Meteor Questions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and the fact, as noted by kuresu, that scientists found the Oklo natural reactors -- and that they found them after the bomb was made shows that your position is logically invalid.
Note further that the existence of these natural reactors was predicted based on the knowledge derived from the laboratory experiments and the development of radioactive reaction technologies. If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : note 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Razd: If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.
Wow...Razd! One wrong defense against your analogy and my whole argument is demolished? No Rob, your "defense" had nothing to do with it. What you claim is that "empiricism" follows observation of natural phenomena and that the replicating molecules don't qualify because we don't have the observation of natural phenomena, while the rock does. The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors. This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally.
... but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality. ... which is what the rest of your post entails: predicted behavior Rob. Your failure to accept the absolute and utter failure of your argument leaves you no option, because logic and rationality have refuted you. Your song and dance is amusing, but a false portrayal of reality. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just to be clear you are actually claiming that the byproducts of nuclear fission found at Oklo are not really the result of nuclear fission?
Your denial of evidence is that deep? Or have you just not looked at it. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm not sure how you made the leap to say that I said that the by-products of nuclear fission were not the result of nuclear fission. I don't see that anywhere in what I emailed to Rob. Did you look at it? In other words the distinction you made is pointless. Thank you for that clarification. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. So the point stands then that this destroys your argument:
Message 94 The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors. This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally. Thank you for clarifying that this argument is valid. Now that we have clarified that there is no difference between things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in nature and things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in experiments, we can validly conclude that self-replicating molecules do in fact exist. These self-replicating molecules are not some kind of artifact of the experiment, but the result of things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) once the initial conditions have been met. This, of course, does not mean that abiogenesis happened, or even that these molecules were in any way involved. All this shows is that self-replicating molecules are possible under certain condition. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As far as the Murchison meteorite goes, if I understood the posts in this thread, the analyses were inconclusive as to the possible presence of adenine. The experiments on Murchison, Murray, Orgueil, and Tagish meteors show that either adenine was there on Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil, OR that the materials needed for the ready formation of adenine with a simple acid bath (similar to the extraction process) were on the Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil meteors but not on Tagish. Rob has essentially conceded this point:
Message 45 Further, IF it was formed, THEN there were still the molecules from which it was formed available for the formation of adenine.
Now that I can agree with... and
Message 65 That is true... And good evidence to support the potential of adenine undiscovered. But it still doesn't preclude the adenine from being synthesized rather than extracted. And we still don't know how the unknown material, or unique composition of substances in the meteor would affect the reactions, if at all. Material that was shown to be "adenine-phylic" enough to prevent extraction of adenine with water, and material from which, logically, the adenine was synthesized IF it did not exist as complete adenine molecules, as the extraction process chemicals (formic acid, for example) are inadequate for forming adenine on their own. Furthermore, hypoxanthine, and xanthine were also identified on the meteor, and these are products of degradation of adenine (xanthine is also a product of degradation of guanine). Thus the existence of these on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today. Note that it is extremely highly unlikely that the extraction process both synthesized and degraded adenine ... leading to the conclusion that adenine was on the meteor in the past if it is not there today. AND we have seen the production of adenine in space modeled to show how it can occur naturally, providing the source of adenine for the meteors. Any way you cut the evidence, this is a large step away from saying that adenine was not available during the formation of early life on this planet. Nor does this in any way rule out the possibility of adenine being on meteors during the period of heavy meteor bombardment of the early earth. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... that adenine did in fact degrade rather rapidly if left in the acid solutions. I'll find it and get back soon. Sorry I do not have it now... No hurry. Just consider, however, that this means that the same mechanism that constructs the adenine takes it apart ... as fast as it makes it? Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Demolished? Self replicating molecules exist... yes, but are designed by intelligent agents Razd). So what if they exist if they are irrelevant to nature... Can we move on? As soon as you acknowledge that your argument is demolished. OR explain how you get around this conundrum:
quote: Seeing as you can't be a member of both classes at the same time, there can be no distinction between them: the distinction is a figment of your imagination devoid of reality. You've already acknowledged that there is no difference between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the rock starts to fall. Now you have the case that there is no difference in the nuclear reactions between the designed reactors and the natural reactors once the reactions start to run. You claim there IS a difference between the designed self=replicating molecules and naturally occurring self-replicating molecules solely because no naturally occurring self-replicating molecules have been observed. This is the same condition that applied to the nuclear reactors before the Oklo natural reactors were discovered but which no longer exists now that they have been discovered. The nuclear reactions did not suddenly change to some "natural process condition" from a "designed process condition" upon the discovery of the natural reactors, because they already existed and did not change magically upon discovery of the Oklo reactors. Therefore there is no distinction between the "natural process condition" and the "designed process condition" once the process is in operation according to the laws involved. Just as there is no distinction between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the process is in operation according to the laws involved. This holds for the self-replicating molecules and everything else ever covered in an experiment. Your fantasy distinction has been falsified utterly, completely and irrevocably. Time for you to accept this and move on. BTW, this is known as a "Q.E.Doh" logical proof and not something you can just ignore in the hopes it will evaporate. Just repeating your tired mantra (which is all you have done from the start) does not make it any more valid. It just makes you obstinate, falsified and deluded. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Conclusion... higher acidity, faster hydrolysis and higher decomposition. Actually, the way I see it, this makes a distinction between the formic acid extraction and the HCl hydrolysis extraction, both of which produced adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, but only with the HCl hydrolysis process does degradation of adenine to hypoxanthine, and xanthine occur.
quote: And we still get the same basic results. Three different approaches end up with adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine. From http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2004/pdf/5145.pdf again
quote: Formic acid extracts, no HCl hydrolysis. You still end up with these two possibilities: (1) adenine is\was present on the meteor and it is degrading into hypoxanthine, and xanthine, the extraction process also causes degradation, OR (2) adenine is produced by the extraction process -- from compounds like hypoxanthine, and xanthine -- which at the same time is degrading the adenine it just made into hypoxanthine, and xanthine ... (see any problem here?). Given the results of the three different processes noted above, I'll stick with my previous conclusions: the existence of hypoxanthine, and xanthine on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today; that it is extremely highly unlikely that the extraction process both synthesized and degraded adenine ... leading to the conclusion that adenine was on the meteor in the past if it is not there today. Any way you cut the evidence, this is a large step away from saying that adenine was not available during the formation of early life on this planet. Nor does this in any way rule out the possibility of adenine being on meteors during the period of heavy meteor bombardment of the early earth. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added table 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but the only problem is that it takes a great deal of time to hydrolyze adenine at a lower pH. But not to degrade it? You still end up with these two possibilities: (1) adenine is\was present on the meteor and it is degrading into hypoxanthine, and xanthine, the extraction process also causes degradation, OR (2) adenine is produced by the extraction process -- from compounds like hypoxanthine, and xanthine -- which at the same time is degrading the adenine it just made into hypoxanthine, and xanthine ... (see any problem here?). Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's review again.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1022.pdf
quote: Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450. The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Rob, look again.
1. heat 2. pH 3. further hydrolysis of adenine and guanine to produce hypoxanthine and xanthine. Step (3) only applies to half the sample. I am talking about the other half that was NOT hydrolized. They still found hypoxanthine and xanthine.
I can sum all of those problems in one question: How long was the sample exposed to the very low pH level associated with a 95% solution concentration of formic acid, while it was mixed, sealed, and before being placed in the heating block? Probably less time than it took you to type this silly comment. Lab experiments are run under very controlled conditions, and are not like baking in the kitchen. Each sample would be mixed, sealed and placed in the block, and the formic acid was likely pre-heated to 100C ... but feel free to contact them and ask.
1. The temperature in the heating block is irrelevant. They tell us that adenine synthesis from HCN is innefficient at 100C. But they leave out the fact, that adenine synthesis is independant of temperatures between -80C and 100C (the temperature range that the sample would have been while being mixed, sealed and put into the heating block). The amount of time in question here, must be known, if the results are to be thoroughly peer reveiwed. Notice that HCN is an abbreviation for NH4CN below..: You are now basically claiming that the adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine were produced instantaneously during the few seconds of mixing and sealing. And you still haven't addressed the issue of the same process that produces adenine also breaks it down according to your conception. Others have pointed out the error of conflating HCN with NH4CN -- these are not "abbreviations" but chemical formulas for the compounds, compounds with different characteristics and reactions to conditions. Here's a clue google the formulas.
Here is the relevant work by Miller that adresses the temperature and hydrolysis: ( http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller_99.htm ) Which doesn't apply to the half of the sample that is only subject to 95% formic acid at 100C -- no NH4CN, no HCN, and no hydrolysis.
To answer one of your questions Razd, the relevant issue here is the pH, not the type of acid used. Both Hydrochloric acid HCL and Formic acid HCOOH have the hydrogen available for hydrolysis of NH4CN HCN to produce adenine. So although adenine quickly synthesizes at lower pH levels (high concentrations), the yield is low because of the continued hydrolysis of the purines, which leads us to criticism #3. You don't know what hydrolysis is. Hydrolysis - Wikipedia
quote: It has nothing to do with the acid used, and once again: I am talking about the half of the sample that was not subjected to hydrolysis.
3. Hydrolysis of adenine and guanine into hypoxanthine and xanthine. Glavin and Bada: Now that is very interesting, because footnote [5] will take you to another paper by Glavin and Bada: http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/Glavin_PSS.pdf Note that the paper get's results only from E Coli cells, but nothing from the murchison tests: Yes, they are talking about the process with pure nucleobase mixtures rather than the unknowns in the Murchison meteor. They found that in those studies that "deamination of the nucleobases did not occur" -- and they KNOW this from having started with the pure nucleobase mixtures. What they are saying is that under those condition adenine did not degrade into hypoxanthine and xanthine. Those same condition DO apply to the Murchison meteor extraction, because they used the same process. This is how scientists evaluate other possibilities.
Ain't much to glean from footnote [5]. And it says noting about formic acid being used to prepare the samples. It actually refers to sample prep as pertaining to sodium hydroxide NaOH, which is a stong alkaline. The answer to this issue of the presense of hypoxanthne and xanthine is very simple; they are the bi-products of the hydrolysis of adenine and guanine respectively. And that is what we would expect from a strong acid concentration such as 95% formic acid, and 6 N HCL. So just as was said in our other paper above: Glavin and Bada make it out to be about thermal deamination durring sublimation. But the issue is hydrolysis and pH before being put into the heating block, not durring incubation or sublimation. There are some big problems with the Murchison extractions! Only when you understand squat about the processes. And the fact that we are still talking about the half of the sample that was NOT subject to HCl and hydrolysis still identified adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine.
Which brings a 4th criticism... Was this paper peer reviewed? Or does it take a truck driver with a high school education, to do a thorough and objective job of moderating the work of men with 'doctorates'? Buyer beware... there's a whole lot of selling going on in pre-biotic chemistry... but there's no engine under the hood. It was published in a peer review journal, ie it was reviewed by people that know what they are talking about. Given the several rather substantial errors and miscomprehensions that are the basis of your "truckdriver review" I am not concerned with your "conclusions" as they appear to be based on the conflation of every single negative comment or comment of concern in every single article you can find related to the issue whether it really applies to the study or not. Now let's get back to the issue of the sample that is only subject to 95% formic acid extraction at 100C that identified adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine. Without HCl. Without hydrolysis. Without fanfare.
RAZD Message 155 Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450. The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart. You quoted that and then said
Well of course! After all of the ground we covered??? And never addressed the issue. That issue has still not been addressed by you. Once again for clarity the issue is:
RAZD Message 155 Not hydrolyzed, not subject to high HCl conditions that cause observed degradation of adenine. Identified adenine, hypoxanthine, and xanthine, both before and after sublimation at 450. The only processing involved is the 24 hours in 95% formic acid, and you are suggesting that this process both formed AND degraded adenine. Put it together and took it apart. One single, simple process where we are still talking about the half of the sample that was NOT subject to HCl - or NH4CN - and NOT subject to hydrolysis still identify adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine. The fact that several different processes identify adenine, hypoxanthine and xanthine in very similar relative quantities should be enough to give you pause in your claim that these are being manufactured during the sampling process, as the different processes used would have very different capabilities. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: Why is there an exothermic reaction? Because the water is being broken down by the acid and energy is released. Let's look at sulfuric acid (which is one of the strongest for this kind of reaction): Sulfuric acid - Wikipedia
quote: 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 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024