RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >   
  Topic: Abiogenesis discussion thread, No trolls please, we're adults< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1968
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,02:09   

Quote
I guess we could envision a  microscopic bubble which forms automatically through simple mechanical actions like waves coming ashore or bubbles created in an underwater hot vent.  From several sources I've read pieces discussing the self-replicating nature of the spheres being due to the specific structure of the enclosing membrane.


Think of waves crashing up aginst rocky coast.  Trillions of bubbles every few seconds.  With higher tides on a fairly fast cycle, you generate astronomical numbers of "trials" every day.  Every high tide leaves billions of trillions of oily bubbles exposed on the shore to dry out and also be soaked in UV light.  The products are recovered for further reactions on the next tide.  

I have never been impressed with the so-called "cosmic upper bound"  What is the number Dembski likes to spout?  10^150?? This is supposed to represent the number of states that universe could possibly have given the number of particles in the universe and their possible states.  Piffle, piffle.  Lets say 10^15 bubbles per kilometer of shoreline (very modest), recycled/repeated 10^4 times every day for maybe 50 million years. The notion of how long is a shoreline is difficult, but let's pull a number out of the air; 10^6 kilometers (very modest).  We are well on the way without adding rivers, waterfalls, storms, wind caps, oceanic waves, under water thermal vents, geysers etc...  I think that every single bubble is a "trial."  Now repeat for a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars, for say ten billion years, just to bring us up to bat, and we have nearly 50/50 odds.  (unless it is very late at night and I can't add).  I doubt that every star has planets of that every planet could support life.  There are also good reasons we need to wait until there are metal rich star systems.  So even shedding a few orders of magnitude here and there, the odds are far from grim and we can top Borel's number of 10^50 cited by Dembski.

Earlier I was asked if I were a pessimist about abiogenesis, and obviously I am not.  I am doubtful that we will be able to demonstrate that a "particular" pathway to life was inevitable, unique in the universe, or the particular one followed here on earth.  I know it happened, we are here aren't we?

Edited by Dr.GH on Jan. 14 2007,02:19

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,17:31   

Quote
I would like to skip the language exam, BTDT.  


no worries; they made that optional a long time back - at least as far back as '88 in the UC system, as that's when i started and was told that right off.  They might ask for something else instead, though I doubt it.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1968
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,19:41   

It has been a long long time.  I am trying to convince myself that it is a dumb idea.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,20:55   

*redface*

I'm 42 and have been considering going back into a lab as well.  Not the first time.

It's simply GOTTA be easier the second time around, right?

right?

*sigh*

I do wonder if my memory would serve me well enough to pass an orals exam the second time around.

are you sure you don't want to just go for a post-doc somewhere?  that might be a lot easier; talk to the guys at Scripps and see if there is room in somebody's lab, then go after some funding.  If anything looks positive, you might have an easier time going that route.

BTW, that would effectively bypass all the irritating crap and get you focused strictly on the research.  the downside being that support is far more dependent on your own abilities.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,01:43   

I'm changing jobs at the moment too. I'm very seriously considering bunking out of the pharmaceutical industry (great pay, get treated like a human being, research is directly vital* but occasionally dull) permanently and doing a postdoc with a view to permanent academic research (terrible pay, get treated like shit, research is occasionally directly vital, but very frequently exciting).

Dr GH and Icthyic, if you guys do go back you have my eternal admiration and my support. Research is hard. Perhaps that's  why the IDCists don't do any.

Louis

*By "directly vital" I'll give you an example of what I mean. I've been working at late stage drug development in the pharma industry for the last 2 years. The company I'm working for has an anti-HIV drug in the final stages of filing. One of the projects I was briefly working on (so little credit to me, big credit to those guys working on it for ages) was this HIV drug. Our mandate: make the bulk synthetic route to this drug so cheap, so environmentally friendly, so efficient, that we can give it away for free to the third world. No one who isn't a synthetic chemist will realise just how tough that is, but everyone should realise just how directly vital such a piece of research could be. If it works millions of lives will be saved. That's one reason I love working in the pharma industry, despite all its many flaws, you know that what you are doing should have a real net positive effect on humans or animals.

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1968
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,08:28   

Louis, that is a great pep talk.  Wesley's wide ranging career is also inspiring.  The post-doc idea is good, the proposal then is either funded, or I get to go fishing.  

I only had one friend with 2 PhDs.  His first was in math and he said he needed the second in ICS to "remove the stain" of the first.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,09:01   

Dr GH,

Erm I wasn't aware it WAS a pep talk, but YMMV! Either that or there's some sarcasm going on. Although since I'm so knackered today you could whack me around the head with a sarcastic clue by four and I'd still not get it, I'm probably hallucinating. (Writing a review on organocatalysis, up late dealing with stuff, mind is in meltdown)

2 PhDs would be a brilliant achievement though. Postdoccing would be easier in some senses. At least most academics think you border on being a human as a postdoc. But then as a PhD less is expected of you in terms of responsibility etc.

The fishing element looks good.

"Which agency funds this postdoc? NIH? NAS?"

"Nah YTI"

"YTI?"

"Yellowfin Tuna Incorporated!"

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:43   

Dr GH,

Any news on funding sources?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1968
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:18   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,08:43)
Dr GH,

Any news on funding sources?

Louis

Check back in June.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dizzy



Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,09:39   

I hope you'll pardon a reply and stupid questions from a definite non-scientist, but:

Quote
1) A self replicating molecule or self replicating series of molecules or a series of interacting molecules that template the synthesis of other molecules.


It seems to me that this is a basic requirement for us to term anything as "bio" (living or life-like) at all...is that right?

In that case, I would venture to guess that this would have to occur first, *except* that:

Quote

3) A series of effector molecules/physical scaffolding/chemoselective processes which allow for a relatively high level of "copying fidelity".


I don't quite understand this requirement.  If there is zero "copying fidelity," how can we understand a set of molecules to be "self-replicating" in the first place?  By identifying this as a requirement, doesn't it logically follow that 1) cannot occur without this?

I feel like I'm missing some important subtlety or detail here...wonder if you can help me out.

Quote

2) Some form of cellular encapsulation, which at least must incoporate a semi permeable membrane or barrier.


Daniel Dennett (not a scientist, I know, but certainly more well-read than I am) takes an interesting perspective on one aspect of life: the separation, or "dividing line" between the organism and its environment.

One property of living organisms seems to be that they expend energy to keep everything "inside" them ordered, essentially fighting against the increasing entropy of its environment and the universe at large.

For us, I guess the "line" would be our skin, or our epithelial layer, which (as I understand it) covers every part of our body that is exposed to the environment and literally acts as a wall, allowing us to expunge "disorder" (waste) while keeping out disorderly material from our environment.

But it seems like the line isn't quite as clear for some organisms; I think ants are an interesting example.  If one of the requirements for calling something "living" is the ability to replicate on its own, then a single worker ant isn't technically "alive," is it?  I.e., only one member of the colony, the queen, is actually capable of producing offspring.

If we look at the colony at large, though, it's the colony that replicates, right?  If the queen dies, another ant becomes the queen so that the colony can continue to replenish itself.  Therefore, it seems to me that the ant *colony* is in fact the "living" entity, while individual ants are "parts" necessary to make it work.

If that's true, then the "dividing line" isn't quite so clear anymore...the organism doesn't "end" at the exoskeleton of each individual ant, but includes a good portion of the environment, as well - e.g., the chemical trails that direct each ant to its task.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, if a similar situation can apply at a molecular level (not sure if it can), then 2) may well have developed after 1) and 3).  Again, not being a biologist or chemist, I have no idea if this is actually possible, but at least conceptually, I can imagine it.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,19:26   

At least some of what you're cogitating about above was also mulled by Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype, or at least so it seems to my increasingly dim memory.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,10:56   

Hi All,

Since what I am really interested in at the moment is abiogenesis I thought I'd revive this thread and use it to dump some of my developing thoughts etc on.

I recently took out a personal subscription to "Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres", the journal of ISSOL, which is interesting at least, even if it isn't one of the most impacting journals out there. I've also just bought a book by Pier Luigi Luisi and it contains lots of info I didn't know (on a first pass rapid read) and hits on lots of topics I haven't visited since undergrad days. So with a view to expanding on fledgling ideas I have about abiogenesis involving topics such as organocatalysis and natural products,

I hope nobody minds if I indulge myself here a little and bounce some ideas off our other resident chemists and hopefully off of everyone else as well. Since I cannot envisage a way to do this without chemical structures and diagrams, I'll be drawing them up and adding the images to the posts so I'd appreciate someone with the requisite internets knowledge telling me how I can get these images (i.e. ones not on the net already) into my posts. Are there hosting sites etc? Are they free?

Also, since I'm going to be indulging myself if there are ny questions that come up I'll happily try to answer them, although I can't promise to be quick about it all the time.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,11:05   

Dizzy,

Sorry for taking so lon to get back to you.

Quote
I don't quite understand this requirement.  If there is zero "copying fidelity," how can we understand a set of molecules to be "self-replicating" in the first place?  By identifying this as a requirement, doesn't it logically follow that 1) cannot occur without this?

I feel like I'm missing some important subtlety or detail here...wonder if you can help me out.


You're quite right about "zero copying fidelity", but I'm talking about higher degrees of fidelity that are not necessarily 100%. You made me think of an interesting point which is there should be a copying fidelity threshold below which self replication is pointless and drowned out by noise. I'm working on an idea (on my own time, so it's really poorly thought out atm) at the moment about the side products of a less than 100% copying fidelity self replicating system being a positive benefit (after all one of the generators of genetic diversity in evolution is less than 100% copying fidelity, the same could be true of simpler chemical systems). This all relates to an idea about natural products I have but is very much in the really tentative stages.

Your second point hits on a very key topic: just what IS "life". I think defining "life" is like defining "species": bloody difficult. Perhaps I'll get to it down thread! Thanks for you comments and I reckon your ideas have a lot of merit, the order of these events is a tricky thing to decide.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,11:41   

I recently read Shapiro's "Planetary Dreams". He seems to be advocating more space exploration as a way of developing OOL research, and confirming or eliminating "panspermia" possibilities as per the Drake equation.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,07:59   

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING IS HUGE!

A couple of weeks ago I got my October copy of "Origin of Life and Evolution of Biospheres". It's a special issue based around a meeting, as the blurb explains. It seeks to ask 9 basic questions about abiogenesis and in the remainder of the journal provide some answers/thoughts on them.

Enjoy! Discuss!

Quote
Basic Questions About the Origins of Life:
Proceedings of the Erice International School
of Complexity (Fourth Course)
Pasquale Stano & Pier Luigi Luisi
Received: 16 April 2007 / Accepted: 16 April 2007 /
Published online: 30 June 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007
Keywords Origins of life . Evolution . Protocells . Theoretical models

Foreword

This Special Issue of Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres contains in more detailed
form the oral contributions presented at the 4th Course of the International School of
Complexity, hold in Erice (Italy) from 1 to 6 October 2006. Alan Schwartz generously offered
this space to record the various “answers” to the Basic Questions on the Origins of Life, given
by the participants. The Erice meeting was characterized by a novel format: speakers were not
requested to illustrate their own work as is usually the case. On the contrary, it was expected that
each speaker provides an answer or a comment to a specific question/statement, chosen from
the list of nine given below. As with all innovations, the new format was only partially
successful, but a considerable number of contributionsmatched well with the spirit of the event.
Considering the originality of the format, we are pleased with the current collection of papers
presented in this Special Issue, also in view of their scientific quality. Some of the questions/
statements were given in a provocative fashion, and in fact several authors actually contradicted
them, often providing opposite viewpoints and arguments on the basis of theoretical or
experimental findings. This Special Issue shows a considerable diversity both in form and
length, but beyond this heterogeneity, the reading of it already gives an idea of the depth and
complexity of the questions which are still unanswered in the field of the origin of life. To
conclude this foreword, and before illustrating the Basic Questions proposed in Erice, we would like to thank all the participants and the speakers. Thanks to their efforts and kindness, the Erice meeting was a profitable event to exchange ideas, comments, stimulating scientific discussion, and to build a community. We are also very grateful to the “Ettore Majorana”
Foundation and Centre for the Scientific Culture, that has hosted and supported the meeting;
Mrs. Fiorella Ruggiu, the Manager of the Centre, with all her team, is particularlyacknowledged for her precious assistance in organizing the event.

Basic Questions About the Origins of Life

Below is a series of statements and/or questions related to the origin of life. Some of them
are presented in a provocative form just to foster a more lively discussion. About 50
scientists (from 18 countries), most of them speakers, contributed to a fruitful debate, which –
however – was not meant to find a definitive answer to each question, but only to elicit critical
thinking. The outcome was a fruitful meeting, whose atmosphere improved by virtue of the
nice framework of Erice.

Question 1. Basic Questions About the Origin of Life

1.1 On Prebiotic Low Molecular Weight Compounds
Many low molecular weight compounds have been produced under alleged prebiotic
conditions. Generally, they can be considered products under thermodynamic control
(formed by “spontaneous” reactions because they are the most stable products under the
given conditions). The “free ticket” of thermodynamic control is however not sufficient: if a
chemist is given all these compounds in any amount he wishes, he would be unable to make
life. For making life, one needs a series of additional reactions and products under kinetic
control – enzymes and nucleic acids are not with us because they are the most stable chains.
Thus, the origin of life can be traced back to the origin of kinetic control. Do you agree with
this statement; and how would you envisage the prebiotic evolutionary bridge between
thermodynamic and kinetic control?

1.2 On Contingency vs. Determinism
The proteins (or nucleic acids) existing on our Earth correspond to an infinitesimal part of the
theoretically possible sequences – the ratio between possible and existing structures corresponds
more or less to the ratio between the space of the universe and the space occupied by one
hydrogen atom. The above ratio can be interpreted as an indication that our “few” proteins have
not been selected primarily because of distinctive properties (such as thermodynamic or thermal
stability, solubility, particular kinetic processes of formation etc...) – but rather due to a most
significant contribution of the vagaries of contingency. Do you agree with this statement, and
with its corollary, that then life on our Earth, which is based on these “few” proteins, is not an
obligatory pathway, but is largely based on contingency?

Question 2. On Astrobiology

2.1 What Do We Learn From Astrobiology?
The compounds found in meteorites and the cosmos correspond to thermodynamically stable
products, synthesized under prebiotic conditions and are therefore of great significance to the
origin of abiotic organic compounds on our Earth. The fact that, until now, no oligopeptides or
nucleotides have been detected in cosmic material may signify that these oligomers do not tend
to form spontaneously. Thus, what we learn from cosmic products is of limited interest
regardingmacromolecular prebiotic molecular evolution. Do you agree with this statement, and
where would you see than the importance of astrobiology?

Question 3. On Macromolecular Sequences

3.1 How to Make Prebiotically Long Hetero-Peptides or Hetero-Nucleotides?
There are no or rather scanty reports in the literature on how to make under prebiotic conditions
long – say 30 residues – specific sequences of co-oligopolypeptides (or polynucleotides) in
many identical copies containing say five to six different amino acid residues or three to four
bases (the Merrifield method cannot be considered a prebiotic method). Methods for homopolypeptides
(chains containing only one type of residue) have been described, but they are in
principle not valid for mixtures of different amino acids – as all rules of copolymeration teach
us. Random polymerisation of mixtures of amino acids (which we also we do not know how to
make under prebiotic conditions) would produce a wildmixture of different chains, with a circa
zero probability to make two identical chains. Do you agree then that we do not know – neither
conceptually nor experimentally – how to make macromolecular sequences in many identical
copies under prebiotic conditions? And if it so, would you not conclude that the bottom-up
approach to the origin of “our” life is made impossible by the very definition of contingency?

Question 4. On Chirality

4.1 No Longer a Problem?
The origin of homochirality in nature is usually debated in terms of two opposite views.
According to a deterministic (ex-lege) approach, one of the two enantiomers has a lower
intrinsic energy and therefore a greater probability of occurrence. The alternative is a
stochastic process, according to which the selection of one enantiomer over the other out of
a racemate was determined by contingency. From recent experiments, it appears that the
breaking of symmetry may be achieved rather easily in the laboratory, possibly under
prebiotic conditions. Do you agree then with the view, that the origin of homochirality in
nature “is no longer a problem”?

4.2 Prior to the Onset of Macromolecules, or After?
Was homochirality in nature implemented originally at the level of bio-monomers; or only
after, namely at the level of the separation of diastereomeric macromolecules originated
from racemic bio-monomers? (some authors assert that it is easier to physically separate
diastereomeric macromolecules than enantiomeric monomers).

Question 5. On the RNA-World

5.1 On the Impact of the RNA-World on the Origin of Life
There is little doubt that the RNA-world has written some of the most significant and
outstanding pages of modern molecular biology – and also, quite generally, shows the
importance of macromolecular evolution. However, the importance and success of the
RNA-world is restricted to the field of synthetic biology, whereas its impact in the field of
the origin of life it is negligible. The question “who/what made RNA?” is in fact still unanswered
and, presently, no generally accepted routes to the prebiotic synthesis of
mononucleotides have been described, nor their prebiotic 3?–5? stereospecific polymerisation,
let alone the question of the prebiotic synthesis of specific long RNA sequences in
many identical copies. Do you agree with these statements, and in general with the point,
that we have learned very little or nothing about the origin of life from the RNA-world?

5.2 On the Chemical Reality of the RNA-World
There is a lot of emphasis in the RNA literature about a possible self-replicating RNA as the
primary motor for the origin of life. However, when one puts chemical constraints to this view,
one realizes that self-replication cannot be achieved by one single molecule (it needs at least
two), and generally for any workable chemical system one needs RNA local concentrations of
at least femtomoles – which still means billions of identical copies of this compounds (and
larger concentrations of the mono-nucleotides). Do you agree with this statement, and with the
corollary that even in such a hypothetical scenario, such amounts of RNA can only come from
an active previous cellular metabolism?

Question 6. On the Genetic Code

We have not yet reached a generally accepted view on how the genetic code might have
originated. Models that have been presented are generally theoretical scenarios without
reliable experimental proof. It appears indeed to be a very complex machinery. On the other
hand, some recent studies may indicate that the genetic code may be as old as 4 billion
years. Is there anything solid that we can actually state at the moment, on the origin of the
genetic code? Has it sense to invoke a genetic code prior to the onset of cellular life?

Question 7. On Early Cells

The simplest cells on our Earth contain at least 500–600 genes, and more generally several
thousand. This observation elicits the question, whether this high complexity is really
necessary for the simplest form of cellular life, also in view of the fact that early cells in the
origin of life and evolution could not have been as complex as modern cells. This would
imply that the first early cells were alive (although perhaps in a kind of “limping” life form)
with a much smaller number of genes. This, in turn, results in a the possibility of
constructing in the laboratory, models of early cells, displaying a kind of primitive cellular
life (self-maintenance + self-reproduction + evolvability), based on a number of genes
which is one order of magnitude smaller than the present day simplest cells. Say a living
cell with 30–40 genes. Do you believe that this is indeed a possibility?

Question 8. On Theoretical Models of the Origin of Life

There are many theoretical models of the origin of life which are based on notions of
complexity. Particularly well known, and very often cited, is, for example, the model
developed by Stuart Kauffman on the spontaneous origin of catalytic networks. One can
say, however, that this and other theoretical models have had very little influence on the
experimentalists in the field of the origin of life, mostly due to the fact that they have never
been observed in the real world of organic chemistry. Do you agree?

Question 9. On Artificial Life

Artificial life deals with life as it might have been, and researchers involved in this field aim
to create forms of life which are different from “our” life based on DNA and proteins. Up
until now these efforts have not been very successful, and it almost appears that there are no
forms of life simpler that “our” life. Do you have data to counteract such a (rather negative)
statement; and do you accept the notion that alternative forms of life (still within the general
category of metabolism + self-reproduction + evolvability) may be possible with different
chemical systems?


--------------
Bye.

  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,16:46   

Louis,

That sounds like a potentially fascinating symposium. I would love to discuss any or all of those questions. (Not that I'm knowledgable in any of those areas, you understand.)

However, I'm not sure where to start. Assuming you've had time to at least skim through the journal, maybe you can tell us which question(s) generated the most interesting responses?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2007,03:11   

I was going to give a bit of a summary of each answer. I'm away this weekend, so I might have to wait until next week to do it, but I reckon it's a fascinating insight into some perspectives on the subject. By no means is this a series of "definitive answers" but I reckon from my quick reading of it that the questions are part description of problems in the field and part set up. Some of the ways the questions are phrased aren't exactly precise and did raise my eyebrows occasionally.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2007,23:33   

I realize that you have spent your coin for this journal but for the sake of those of us that are too cheap to do likewise tidbits of the papers included would be greatly appreciated.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,06:07   

Interesting article in Discover Mag on experiments involving an icy abiogenesis.

Quote
Miller had filled the vial in 1972 with a mixture of ammonia and cyanide, chemicals that scientists believe existed on early Earth and may have contributed to the rise of life. He had then cooled the mix to the temperature of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa—too cold, most scientists had assumed, for much of anything to happen. Miller disagreed. Examining the vial in his laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, he was about to see who was right.

As Miller and his former student Jeffrey Bada brushed the frost from the vial that morning, they could see that something had happened. The mixture of ammonia and cyanide, normally colorless, had deepened to amber, highlighting a web of cracks in the ice. Miller nodded calmly, but Bada exclaimed in shock. It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules. Tests later confirmed Miller's and Bada’s hunch. Over a quarter-century, the frozen ammonia-cyanide blend had coalesced into the molecules of life: nucleobases, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The vial’s contents would support a new account of how life began on Earth and would arouse both surprise and skepticism around the world.


The full article is about 4 pages long, and pretty interesting.  Kinda sad when the guy had a stroke and the U threw out most of his experiments, though.  Apparently, a bunch of them had been running for years and years.  Even worse, he was there for several hours, watching them flush his life's work.

(ht to WhoreChurch, who used to post here as "Scary Facts".)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,17:03   

Wow, my thread has been successfully spammed with porn. I'm so impressed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,17:08   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 06 2008,23:03)
Wow, my thread has been successfully spammed with porn. I'm so impressed.

Louis

Not only that, the spambot quoted you as well. I didn't know you used to post things like that!

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,17:16   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 06 2008,23:08)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 06 2008,23:03)
Wow, my thread has been successfully spammed with porn. I'm so impressed.

Louis

Not only that, the spambot quoted you as well. I didn't know you used to post things like that!

Neither did I!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,21:22   

Speaking of abiogenesis-- This past weekend I got to witness a fight on that very topic between Susanna Manrubia and Valerian Dolja.  Me and Marco were cheering on Susanna (Valerian was dead the second he brought up astrophysics).

We were all eating Tex-Mex.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2008,08:15   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 06 2008,21:22)
Speaking of abiogenesis-- This past weekend I got to witness a fight on that very topic between Susanna Manrubia and Valerian Dolja.  Me and Marco were cheering on Susanna (Valerian was dead the second he brought up astrophysics).

We were all eating Tex-Mex.

Muy Buen!  Dos Margaritas, Por favor!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2008,10:31   

So how come FtK doesn't post her "molecule to man" questions over here? She could get answers and Louis-porn at the same time...

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2008,12:43   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 07 2008,16:31)
So how come FtK doesn't post her "molecule to man" questions over here? She could get answers and Louis-porn at the same time...

Because:

1) I am Teh Big Meanie and she will not talk to me EVAR!

and

2) She doesn't want the answers nor could she understand them. She knows both aspects of this, hence her standard performance.

Once you get passed the idea that FTK is genuinely curious, and I confess I haven't fully managed that myself yet, it makes a lot more sense apparently.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2008,18:55   

1 Spam comment deleted.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2008,08:11   

Quote (diisantosmar @ Oct. 09 2008,07:52)
jetsons porno

Ruh-roh, Reorge!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2008,08:36   

I'm very flattered that this thread has been dredged out of antiquity to a) merit special pornographic attention, b) remind me that one of these days I really must make good on my intentions to write something substantive for this thread, and c) show pictures of interracial double penetration on (a topic very relevant to abiogenesis no doubt), but I have been wondering if anyone has any science to contribute.

After all, the squirting pictures and lady en repose avec dildo are all well and good, but a discussion about (for example) "metabolism first" or "replication first" models of  abiogenesis might be more interesting.

Of course, the fact that THIS specific thread has been targeted is interesting. If the porn becomes sweaty wrestlers, we'll know what's going on.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2008,10:52   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 09 2008,08:36)
Of course, the fact that THIS specific thread has been targeted is interesting. If the porn becomes sweaty wrestlers, we'll know what's going on.

Louis

DaveTard finally managed to hack us?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
  177 replies since Dec. 15 2006,11:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]