Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
truelgbt wrote:This reminds me of my disappointed reaction to the Miller-Urey experiment which also started by introducing products of DNA (methane, ammonia) which, IMHO, is almost equivalent to "stacking the deck" or "planting evidence" into the experiment. Yes, I understand they were trying to mimic the prehistoric environment of methane from volcanoes, for example, but studies show that about 95% of methane on earth is due to life forms, i.e. products of DNA, so methane itself can, and is, largely considered to be a product of DNA.
theropod wrote:I think we just need to go ahead and build a replicator, and then we can convert energy into any material we choose. We could produce whole living organisms, or any part thereof. Then, and only then, would science denialist semi-accept that life is no more than chemistry. Maybe. Sort of. Almost.
RS
Destroyer wrote:theropod wrote:I think we just need to go ahead and build a replicator, and then we can convert energy into any material we choose. We could produce whole living organisms, or any part thereof. Then, and only then, would science denialist semi-accept that life is no more than chemistry. Maybe. Sort of. Almost.
RS
Well, I am certainly no science denialist: I implicitly trust that the physical universe functions independently and is not reducible to any God. However, I also implicitly trust that chemistry is not the source of life; despite the evidence which indicates that it IS... What that means is that despite my rejection of God being the source of the physical I am nevertheless absolutely certain that life is His property.
Rumraket wrote:truelgbt wrote:This reminds me of my disappointed reaction to the Miller-Urey experiment which also started by introducing products of DNA (methane, ammonia) which, IMHO, is almost equivalent to "stacking the deck" or "planting evidence" into the experiment. Yes, I understand they were trying to mimic the prehistoric environment of methane from volcanoes, for example, but studies show that about 95% of methane on earth is due to life forms, i.e. products of DNA, so methane itself can, and is, largely considered to be a product of DNA.
This makes no sense at all. There are clearly nonbiological sources of methane. You even write yourself that 95% of extant methane is produced by life, but then 5% isn't. So using methane can't be stacking the deck in any way.
So going back before the origin of life, there was volcanoes, and they would have produced some methane.
Blackadder wrote:Destroyer wrote:theropod wrote:I think we just need to go ahead and build a replicator, and then we can convert energy into any material we choose. We could produce whole living organisms, or any part thereof. Then, and only then, would science denialist semi-accept that life is no more than chemistry. Maybe. Sort of. Almost.
RS
Well, I am certainly no science denialist: I implicitly trust that the physical universe functions independently and is not reducible to any God. However, I also implicitly trust that chemistry is not the source of life; despite the evidence which indicates that it IS... What that means is that despite my rejection of God being the source of the physical I am nevertheless absolutely certain that life is His property.
Which god? There are people who are abolutely convinced, even unto the red font, bolded and italicised, that life is the property of Lord Brahma. And they are in possession of exactly the same evidence for their convictions as you are.
laklak wrote:Good for you.
Fenrir wrote:Excluding any molecule known to be associated with life would be self defeating, as it would, you know, remove all molecules associated with life, making the biogenesis of said life rather problemmatic.
However, add an actual byproduct or product of life itself (methane or ammonia), methane and ammonia
But detecting lots of methane on Mars would not be convincing evidence of life by any stretch. The gas can also be produced by abiotic processes, such as the degradation of interplanetary dust particles by ultraviolet light and interactions between water and rocks.
§3. FROZEN AMMONIA (NH3)
Submillimeter observations have shown that NH3 is one of the most abundant gas-phase molecules in dense clouds (see Cesaroni et al. 1994) where models suggest that NH3 should be formed in the gas phase (see Scott, Freeman, & McEwen 1997). At the low temperatures typical of dense clouds (T<50 K), NH3 should freeze onto grains very efficiently (Sandford & Allamandola 1993). The presence of solid state NH3 is implied by the fact that gas phase NH3 is enhanced in warmer cloud regions, where it is posited to be subliming from ices (see Cesaroni et al. 1994).
truelgbt wrote:Fenrir wrote:Excluding any molecule known to be associated with life would be self defeating, as it would, you know, remove all molecules associated with life, making the biogenesis of said life rather problemmatic.
Methane and ammonia are not just "molecules" associated with life like water or nitrogen or hydrogen but products directly associated with living things like bacteria, thus methane and ammonia are actually byproducts of DNA, not just water molecules which all of life needs, for example.
truelgbt wrote:
Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest