The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

Composition and transformation of substance.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#41  Postby Rumraket » Apr 14, 2010 3:50 pm

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Remind us where you are published again, Rainbow.

I haven't told you which papers I've written and co-authored. Nor will I.
My credentials are not the topic of discussion, and I'll thank you to avoid this kind of personalisation in future.


Well in a certain sense you are trying to argue for us to trust your judgement over that of the author and the peer review process it went through. That in itself is an appeal to authority.
I don't mean to be an asshole, but in a comparative case of trust I'll put my "faith" on the actual scientists, not you.

You can of course change this by supplying a valid rebuttal to the author.
I think you should write him your reasonings and we can try and take it from there? Or if we are lucky someone can access the full paper for us, who know, maybe the specific reasonings for the procedures are mentioned therein.
Last edited by Rumraket on Apr 14, 2010 3:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12993
Age: 37

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#42  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 14, 2010 3:52 pm

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Remind us where you are published again, Rainbow.

I haven't told you which papers I've written and co-authored. Nor will I.
My credentials are not the topic of discussion, and I'll thank you to avoid this kind of personalisation in future.


Is it against the FUA to ask you where you published?

No. Of course it isn't.

It's not even remotely 'personalising' it, so I would thank you to stop making up bullshit to avoid responding.


So, as you are not prepared to offer your credentials, we can only work with what we have.

1) A tenured professor of Chemistry at a British university with a number of peer-reviewed publications under his belt, including a highly cited paper on the topic.

2) A guy on the internet that brings zero evidence to the table.


It's a valid nod to authority, as I posted earlier. As in, Sutherland has established authority in this subject, and you either do not, or are too coy to submit your credentials.

Who to trust when we don't know all the details? I will go for the professional, as I am sure that any sane person would.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#43  Postby Just A Theory » Apr 14, 2010 10:47 pm

The authors state that the experimental conditions are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. I'm honestly not sure what your line of reasoning here is rainbow.

If you think that the conditions ARE inconsistent with early-Earth geochemical models, please present your case in the form of an actual argument rather than a series of open questions. To clarify, you have asked about the concentrations of reactants and expressed (in the form of an open question) doubt that the actual concentrations could have been that high.

Should you wish to rebut on the basis of concentration, please show that the reaction will not proceed with lower concentrations and also make the positive case that whichever concentration of reactants are required (high or low, depending on your response to the first half of the sentence) are implausible under early-Earth geochemical models.

We can then have a discussion if you want it. If you would prefer not to discuss, please continue asking open questions.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#44  Postby Newmark » Apr 15, 2010 6:48 am

rainbow wrote:
Preparative synthesis of 2-aminooxazole 11 using phosphate catalysis
To a solution of glycolaldehyde 10 (1.2 g, 20 mmol) in sodium hydrogen phosphate
buffer (1.0M, 10 mL, pH = 7.0) was added cyanamide 8 (840 mg, 20 mmol). The
solution was stirred at 60°C for 3 h, cooled to r.t., and extracted with EtOAc (5 × 20
mL). The combined EtOAc extracts were concentrated in vacuo to give 2-
aminooxazole 11 (1.2 g, 75%) as a white powder.

Now besides the problematic concentrations, pH and temperatures, has anybody got an idea how a vacuum pump got to be there in the PreBiotic Earth?


Now, rainbow, this is becoming a far too common error on your part. Do you really think that a real scientist like Sutherland would postulate an environment required for his hypothesis that includes a vacuum pump, and then be stupid enough to claim that the environment containing a vacuum pump represents "prebiotically plausible conditions"? If you've heard the term "straw man", that is exactly what you set up here. I can only think of two explanations for this inane comment:

Either you don't know the difference between an environment postulated as a requirement for a hypothesis, and the set up of an experiment to achieve that environment under laboratory conditions. This is a very basic concept of science, and if you don't even understand that, why should I lend any respect to any of your other opinions regarding science?

Or you do know of this difference, and yet deliberately make this this blatantly false statement, presumably to dishonestly undermine real research done by real scientists. Why you want to do this is beyond my comprehension, but I can only assume that it is because this paper doesn't conform to your precious pet theories.

In either of these cases, you have shown yourself completely unable to accurately present the contents of scientific papers, so exactly what can you contribute to this discussion?

EDIT: spelling and grammar
Last edited by Newmark on Apr 15, 2010 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#45  Postby Newmark » Apr 15, 2010 6:59 am

EDIT: Double post
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#46  Postby rainbow » Apr 15, 2010 10:32 am

Newmark wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Preparative synthesis of 2-aminooxazole 11 using phosphate catalysis
To a solution of glycolaldehyde 10 (1.2 g, 20 mmol) in sodium hydrogen phosphate
buffer (1.0M, 10 mL, pH = 7.0) was added cyanamide 8 (840 mg, 20 mmol). The
solution was stirred at 60°C for 3 h, cooled to r.t., and extracted with EtOAc (5 × 20
mL). The combined EtOAc extracts were concentrated in vacuo to give 2-
aminooxazole 11 (1.2 g, 75%) as a white powder.

Now besides the problematic concentrations, pH and temperatures, has anybody got an idea how a vacuum pump got to be there in the PreBiotic Earth?


Now, rainbow, this is becoming a far too common error on your part. Do you really think that a real scientist like Sutherland would postulate an environment required for his hypothesis that includes a vacuum pump, and then be stupid enough to claim that the environment containing a vacuum pump represents "prebiotically plausible conditions"? If you've heard the term "straw man", that is exactly what you set up here. I can only think of two explanations for this inane comment:


How silly of me. Of course you are correct, there couldn't have been a vacuum pump.
How do you suggest that the vacuum was obtained under prebiotically plausible conditions?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#47  Postby Rumraket » Apr 15, 2010 11:21 am

rainbow wrote:
Newmark wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Preparative synthesis of 2-aminooxazole 11 using phosphate catalysis
To a solution of glycolaldehyde 10 (1.2 g, 20 mmol) in sodium hydrogen phosphate
buffer (1.0M, 10 mL, pH = 7.0) was added cyanamide 8 (840 mg, 20 mmol). The
solution was stirred at 60°C for 3 h, cooled to r.t., and extracted with EtOAc (5 × 20
mL). The combined EtOAc extracts were concentrated in vacuo to give 2-
aminooxazole 11 (1.2 g, 75%) as a white powder.

Now besides the problematic concentrations, pH and temperatures, has anybody got an idea how a vacuum pump got to be there in the PreBiotic Earth?


Now, rainbow, this is becoming a far too common error on your part. Do you really think that a real scientist like Sutherland would postulate an environment required for his hypothesis that includes a vacuum pump, and then be stupid enough to claim that the environment containing a vacuum pump represents "prebiotically plausible conditions"? If you've heard the term "straw man", that is exactly what you set up here. I can only think of two explanations for this inane comment:


How silly of me. Of course you are correct, there couldn't have been a vacuum pump.
How do you suggest that the vacuum was obtained under prebiotically plausible conditions?


I don't think he suggests that there was a vacuum at all. I don't think the author does either. It could simply be a case of using a vacuum for purification purposes before sample analysis. We don't know. Before we can go ahead and speculate on this or claim that the presence of a vacuum destillation process constitutes a problem for the prebiotic plausibility of the proposed reactio, we need the author of the paper to specify the intention of the vacuum pump.

Please don't pretend we are accepting your reasonings out of hand.
The implication in your question is that the author of the paper thinks it is prebiotically plausible for a vacuum pump to be present on the early earth(or a similar effect). Further, by asking newmark to answer it, you are assuming that newmark agrees that the author implies this. We don't know the purpose of the vacuum pump in the the reaction. We don't have the full paper and apparently neither do you. In this absense, I think you should write Mr Sutherland and ask him, since it seems you are the one having doubts about the veracity of the experiment.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12993
Age: 37

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#48  Postby Newmark » Apr 15, 2010 11:39 am

rainbow wrote:
Newmark wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Preparative synthesis of 2-aminooxazole 11 using phosphate catalysis
To a solution of glycolaldehyde 10 (1.2 g, 20 mmol) in sodium hydrogen phosphate
buffer (1.0M, 10 mL, pH = 7.0) was added cyanamide 8 (840 mg, 20 mmol). The
solution was stirred at 60°C for 3 h, cooled to r.t., and extracted with EtOAc (5 × 20
mL). The combined EtOAc extracts were concentrated in vacuo to give 2-
aminooxazole 11 (1.2 g, 75%) as a white powder.

Now besides the problematic concentrations, pH and temperatures, has anybody got an idea how a vacuum pump got to be there in the PreBiotic Earth?


Now, rainbow, this is becoming a far too common error on your part. Do you really think that a real scientist like Sutherland would postulate an environment required for his hypothesis that includes a vacuum pump, and then be stupid enough to claim that the environment containing a vacuum pump represents "prebiotically plausible conditions"? If you've heard the term "straw man", that is exactly what you set up here. I can only think of two explanations for this inane comment:


How silly of me. Of course you are correct, there couldn't have been a vacuum pump.
How do you suggest that the vacuum was obtained under prebiotically plausible conditions?


I don't suggest that that vacuum was obtained under prebiotically plausible conditions, and as far as I can tell, neither does the paper. Certain concentrations were made in vacuo during the course of the experiment, but this is as relevant as claiming that you need a stove to boil water just because such an experiment can be preformed on one.

The paper has passed peer review (unlike your unfounded opinions), so I'm very certain that it motivates why the conditions it simulates can be considered "prebiotically plausible". If you find a mention of vacuum there, I'm sure it will be explained to you. Until then, I'm still not sure if you don't know squat about scientific experiments, or if your straw men are intentionally duplicitous. Either way, your credibility just keeps sinking...

EDIT: rainbow, your tag about you being " :silenced: by Moderator Intolerance" is blatantly false, which was explained to you here.
Last edited by Newmark on Apr 15, 2010 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#49  Postby trubble76 » Apr 15, 2010 11:42 am

As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable. The point, i believe, is to show that given similar ingredients and conditions, the same reactions can be shown in the lab, thereby demonstrating that it's possible to create the pre-life building blocks of life, and by extension brings convincing evidence of abiogenisis a step closer.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#50  Postby Newmark » Apr 15, 2010 11:49 am

trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable. The point, i believe, is to show that given similar ingredients and conditions, the same reactions can be shown in the lab, thereby demonstrating that it's possible to create the pre-life building blocks of life, and by extension brings convincing evidence of abiogenisis a step closer.


:nod:
This is a good summary. Unfortunately, rainbow does not yet appear to have grasped that there is a difference between what happens in the environment you are supposed to test, and what steps has been taken achieve this environment under workable conditions.
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#51  Postby rainbow » Apr 15, 2010 12:43 pm

trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place. It does however mean that they are moving away from plausible conditions though.
The point, i believe, is to show that given similar ingredients and conditions, the same reactions can be shown in the lab, thereby demonstrating that it's possible to create the pre-life building blocks of life, and by extension brings convincing evidence of abiogenisis a step closer.

I've no doubt that it is possible to 'create the pre-life building blocks of life'.
None at all.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#52  Postby trubble76 » Apr 15, 2010 1:06 pm

rainbow wrote:
trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place. It does however mean that they are moving away from plausible conditions though.
The point, i believe, is to show that given similar ingredients and conditions, the same reactions can be shown in the lab, thereby demonstrating that it's possible to create the pre-life building blocks of life, and by extension brings convincing evidence of abiogenisis a step closer.

I've no doubt that it is possible to 'create the pre-life building blocks of life'.
None at all.


So we agree that this experiment demonstrates proof of principle? And therefore increases our understanding of abiogenisis, taking us one step closer to demonstrating that it's not only possible, but highly likely that given the correct ingredients and sufficient time, life will emerge from non-life. Thus lending strong support to the argument that any sort of divinity is completely unnecessary to explain the origins of man.
Excellent.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#53  Postby rainbow » Apr 15, 2010 1:23 pm

trubble76 wrote:
So we agree that this experiment demonstrates proof of principle?

I expect so, though you don't say what principle.

And therefore increases our understanding of abiogenisis, taking us one step closer to demonstrating that it's not only possible, but highly likely that given the correct ingredients and sufficient time, life will emerge from non-life.

I would agree on the 'possible' bit, however 'highly likely'?
What do you base this on?

Thus lending strong support to the argument that any sort of divinity is completely unnecessary to explain the origins of man.

Do I have to remind you that this is a science forum? Please keep it that way.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#54  Postby Newmark » Apr 15, 2010 1:24 pm

rainbow wrote:
trubble76 wrote:As far i understand experiments which try to recreate Early-Earth conditions to examine abiogenisis-related hypotheses such as we have here, the biggest stumbling block is the fact that in the real conditions, these reactions may have taken hundreds of thousands of years to get started, clearly we do not have that amount of time with which to duplicate the process. Therefore working with pure versions of ingredients that probably weren't as pure in real life is a method used to cut experiment time down from 100,000 years to something a little more managable.

No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place. It does however mean that they are moving away from plausible conditions though.

The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible? We've got one peer reviewed paper suggesting that they are, and your Argument from Ignorance that they are not. Guess which one I take seriously?
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 351
Age: 39
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#55  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 15, 2010 1:24 pm

rainbow wrote:
No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place. It does however mean that they are moving away from plausible conditions though.


Non-sequitur.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#56  Postby rainbow » Apr 15, 2010 1:27 pm

Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

Fair point!
Please define 'sufficiently prebiotically plausible'.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#57  Postby Rumraket » Apr 15, 2010 1:29 pm

rainbow wrote:No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim? Has the author specified this reasoning somewhere?

rainbow wrote:It does however mean that they are moving away from plausible conditions though.

This is simply an assertion which you have yet to substantiate with experimental support.

We don't have the authors reasonings for their starting concentrations. It is entirely possible that you are correct, but you haven't shown that. It may also simply be a case of the authors wishing to make a large sample-size from which to do easy measurements on the products of the reaction. It may also be the case that the reaction can take place at extremely low concentrations, but that this will require a lot of time to complete and will be hard to reliably measure.

As I have said before I personally suspect that the author wanted insights into all the individual steps in the whole chain of reactions from the start to the end product, which is why you would see them break up the experiment in the many steps with sample preparations for analysis in between.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12993
Age: 37

Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#58  Postby trubble76 » Apr 15, 2010 1:31 pm

rainbow wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
So we agree that this experiment demonstrates proof of principle?

I expect so, though you don't say what principle.

And therefore increases our understanding of abiogenisis, taking us one step closer to demonstrating that it's not only possible, but highly likely that given the correct ingredients and sufficient time, life will emerge from non-life.

I would agree on the 'possible' bit, however 'highly likely'?
What do you base this on?

Thus lending strong support to the argument that any sort of divinity is completely unnecessary to explain the origins of man.

Do I have to remind you that this is a science forum? Please keep it that way.


1) What do you mean "what principle"? The principle addressed.
2)If it can be shown to be possible on such a small scale, it stands to reason that when the process is enlarged both geographically and temporally it's likelyhood too increases (like buying 14million lottery tickets makes winning the lottery highly likely)
3)This is a rational skepticism forum, please keep your condescending crap to yourself.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#59  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 15, 2010 1:32 pm

rainbow wrote:
Newmark wrote:The question is, are the conditions still sufficiently prebiotically plausible?

Fair point!
Please define 'sufficiently prebiotically plausible'.



Please read:

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland1
Nature 24 March 2009
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The Sutherland Synthesis - Plausible?

#60  Postby rainbow » Apr 15, 2010 1:33 pm

Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:No problem with that. They are tweaking the concentrations and purities to improve the chances of the desired reaction taking place.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim? Has the author specified this reasoning somewhere?


Oh it wasn't my claim. It was in reply to what trubble said. If you disagree with trubble, you take it up with trubble.
OK?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Chemistry

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest