Murchison Meteor Questions

and ...Let's be clear: you cannot say that adenine was NOT on the meteor(s). You can be uncertain about it (tentative science eh?) but you cannot rule it out.You also cannot rule out that adenine is\was produced in space and is\was available to be on meteors that showered the earth in the early days.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

A more complete answer to this (logically false) assertion and your article is at Message 14Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Percy: I have never said it couldn't. Molbiogirl said that it did (ie. it was certain in her mind).I want to know if it did really! I am questioning... that's all. And I simply don't believe the premise or implication that scientists are any better disciplined or self regulating than you or I. We're all human.Molbiogirl's analysis and sources proved to be incorrect many times before in the previous thread, and the thread previous to that.Something stinks... So I am pursuing every conceivable avenue to find out for myself if this claim is accurate. And learning much along the way even if it leads to temporary embarrasment now and then. All of us have taken those risks. It's ok... We're intellectuals! Sometimes we're stupid intellectuals!I have no preconceived notion, I just smell a rat. But as Buzz very aptly pointed out, I still have some stink myself, so relax... it ain't over yet.Percy:Really? Can you prove that?And that's not just a philosophical trick question... you have a habit of stating things as fact, yet you then say there is no such thing.There is certainly no such thing as proof in the theoretical sciences. But I am afraid that many things are proven Percy. I shouldn't have to tell you that. If nothing can be proven then how can we say that with any authority? Now that would be trying to prove a negative.---------------------------------------------Which brings me to my last relevant question on Murchison that neither you, nor Razd, answered:Q. Is the 95% formic acid used to process the Murchison samples 5% water?A. Yes!Glavin Bada:All we have to do is go to Sigma-Aldrich online to find the answer: ( Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists )5% ain't much mind you... but based on the ease of the reaction, that it is enough to get the purines in Parts per Billion from the Murchison samples.And it would also explain the presence of hypoxanthine, xanthine et al in the control sample depending on the relative quanities between samples.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Please stop trying to claim equal competence with those you're debating with. When people discuss material they're unfamiliar with they tend to make lots of mistakes, which is what you're experiencing now. When you start discussing material you're familiar with then the errors will go away. Your record in the previous thread and in this one has been one of continual error and misinterpretation. You're always absolutely certain of how right you are until finally, after who knows how many posted messages of correction, the lightbulb goes on, and then we get a single post of contrition before you resume a tone of absolute certainty. Like now. Yes, Rob, something does, and until you either have an out-of-body experience or let comprehension precede typing you'll be unable to escape it. No ego problems in your family, I guess, you've got it all. Defining words, of which "science" is one, is not part of science. One would never ask, for example, "Is that word definition falsifiable?" If you'd like to discuss the nature of science then propose a thread. If this is your actual position, then why did you just waste my time questioning this? Uh, no Rob, you're not. You're convinced that the production of adenine on the early Earth wasn't possible, and you're seeking supporting evidence. I again suggest that you structure your search around an open question like, "Are there any possible production paths for adenine on the early earth," rather than around a negative assertion like, "Adenine could not have been produced on the early earth."Before you ever read any technical papers on the subject you already had a firm opinion. Before you even knew whether acids had a high or low pH, you already knew that adenine could not have been found in the Murchison meteorite. Not an auspicious way to begin.--Percy

Percy:Actually, molbiogirl's link to the Glavin and Bada papers knocked me pretty good for a day or so. I only knew there was no evidence of adenine being discovered until she presented me with this paper. It was a day or so later that I analyzed it again and said, 'wait a minute...'.But I have never maintained, nor thought, that it is impossible for adenine to have been in the meteor since I didn't know anything about it before this...This is about evidence Percy... and having the evidence behind me, (adenine is produced within the living machinery) gives me confidence to follow my gut here...Maybe I'm just lucky! Actually you (and many others) are the one's who are convinced that there is a nonbiological source of adenine.All I know is that there is a biological source that is emperically known.I have never said as your last sentance declares that, 'Adenine could not have been produced on the early earth'.As I said, I am asking questions...So what do you make of the 5% water that is present in the formic acid solution used to prepare the Murchison samples?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Percy:Well of course it makes sense to them. It's the cyanide (the CN in both NH4CN) and HCN)I hope one day (soon) to understand the chemistry myself, so that I do not have to simply rely upon the authoritative claims of other men. ( Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... )Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Rob, But that doesn't mean that's the only potential source, so what's your point?Mark

---

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

The point is... that adenine being manufactured in the living machinery doesn't mean there is another source either. It really only means that life itself produces the adenine needed for biological life.We do not need bias to believe in evidence; we have the evidence!We do however, need bias to believe in that which does not appear.So, what's your point mark?Do you have anything to offer in terms of explanation as to why Glavin and Bada mentioned the possible oligomerization of HCN durring the extraction process?

Rob, My point is that having a biological source of adenine doesn't rule out another source. So, I ask again, what's your point? Because the above means nothing as far as this thread is concerned, it doesn't rule out other sources.If you are trying to make the point that adenine production is impossible outside of living organisms, then you have failed to show it, you are in the position of disproving a negative, as has been pointed out several times.If you are merely pointing out that adenine production hasn't been observed outside living organisms then I have to ask, so what? It has never been observed to never have occurred, either.Mark

---

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

This is what you are down to. Less than 5% water in the formic acid used for the extraction is now responsible for all the adenine composition AND its decomposition.You do know that acid has a high affinity for water don't you? That you should never add water to acid but acid to water? Because if you don't there are serious consequences. Google water in acid if you doubt me. One result: Why is acid always added to water, and not the reverse?

quote:

---

A large amount of heat is released when strong acids are mixed with water. Adding more acid releases more heat. If you add water to acid, you form an extremely concentrated solution of acid initially. So much heat is released that the solution may boil very violently, splashing concentrated acid out of the container! If you add acid to water, the solution that forms is very dilute and the small amount of heat released is not enough to vaporize and spatter it. So Always Add Acid to water, and never the reverse.

---

Why is there an exothermic reaction? Because the water is being broken down by the acid and energy is released. Let's look at sulfuric acid (which is one of the strongest for this kind of reaction):Sulfuric acid - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The reaction is best thought of as forming hydronium ions, by

​

H₂SO₄ + H₂O ’ H₃O⁺ + HSO₄^-,

​

and then

​

HSO₄- + H₂O ’ H₃O⁺ + SO₄^2-.

​

Because the hydration of sulfuric acid is thermodynamically favorable, sulfuric acid is an excellent dehydrating agent, and is used to prepare many dried fruits. The affinity of sulfuric acid for water is sufficiently strong that it will remove hydrogen and oxygen atoms from other compounds;

---

This means that the water will not exist as water (H₂O) in high concentrations of acid. If you want to hydrolyze the compounds you will need to mix it with sufficient water to overcome the affinity of the acid so that the water can react with the compounds. 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? 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: 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. 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. 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, : -msgEdited by RAZD, : msg 173

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

How can you talk about "evidence" with a straight face when just a post ago you were still talking about "scientific proof" and badgering me to justify the assertion that there's no such thing?If you want to now begin on an unbiased investigation of the possible avenues of adenine production on the early earth then I think that would be great, but please don't hand us this dissembling that you've been objectively seeking evidence from the beginning. Here's some excerpts from your opening post: Snide asides are not normally associated with someone beginning an unbiased search for evidence, and you've continued in this way through much of this thread. Should I again quote your claim that truck drivers make better peer reviewers than scientists?And no one was celebrating, by the way. The source of adenine is not some big mystery that has scientists gnashing their teeth in consternation for fear that it might be evidence of creation. Science is not an atheistic alternative to religion - it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, just as knitting and car repair have nothing to do with religion. A mechanic who can't figure out what's wrong with a car does not conclude, "God did it." That would be really stupid. Mechanics deal with the real world, not the supernatural, and motorists aren't really interested in hearing that their car is haunted, they just want it fixed.Just like car mechanics, scientists deal with the real world. "I don't know" is not evidence of God. And "God did it" is not a valid answer when dealing with the real world.So while scientists would be disappointed if sufficient evidence for a source for adenine is never uncovered as time goes by, "I don't know" is not a blow to science, nor is it a victory for divine intervention.That's why this thread of yours is so misguided. You're not motivated by a search for where life came from. You're motivated by a desire to show that natural avenues for the origin of life are not possible. Which is a negative. And a negative cannot be demonstrated. And denying that that's what you're doing isn't fooling anyone because it's so bloody obvious, except maybe to you.If and when scientists become satisfied that they have sufficient evidence for a source of adenine, there will be no celebration. No one's going to win a Nobel Prize for such minor work. If they solve it then they'll just move on to the next problem. And if they don't solve it then they'll just shrug their shoulders and look to areas of investigation more likely to bear fruit.--Percy

Razd:Of course not! I also cannot definitively say that there are no abominable snow monters anywhere on earth.How does that prove that there are, or is? It certainly isn't a scientific argument on your part...Razd:Based on that study they KNOW that hypoxanthine and xanthine are not produced by the formic acid bath from degrading adenine during the extraction process.[/qs]Sorry Razd, but the issue is not thermal deamination, the issue is hydrolysis of adenine and guanine into hypoxanthine and xanthine. And that is one reason I question the work of Glavin and Bada here. I may not understand it, but certainly they should!Don't you remember that that is why you mentioned earlier that there was no potential for hydrolysis in the 95% formic acid extraction of the control sample? Personally, I thought you had me for a minute...I was then trying to find out if anhydrous reduction was equivilant to hydrolyisis. I read all kinds of papers. then I thought, 'Wait a minute... what is that other 5%?'Hydrolysis may still be an issue...After asking you about it, I then pointed out that the 95% formic acid obtained from Sigma-Aldrich is indeed 5% water. I figure you found that out before I did, since you didn't respond. Why didn't you or Percy come forward with that information? I suppose I shouldn't assume you knew...I don't call that a misrepresentation when you incorrectly assumed that there was no possiblity of hydrolysis. Percy would have, if I had made such a mistake.I only call it an error. The kind all human beings make... even scientists.What I want to know is this... and it has the potential of defeating my position and giving credence to theirs and yours. I do not yet know the answer...Glavin and Bada mention that, "Although a previous study has shown that the synthesis of adenine from HCN in acid is highly
temperature dependent and inefficient at 100CBut any search I do for such temperatures only come up with Miller experiments of temperature ranges with respect to NH4CN. And that makes me think there is that connection (expressed earlier) between NH4CN and HCN. Also the fact that Miller mentions HCN and NH4CN in the same breath with respect to polymerizations by acid. I just dont understand it yet...The footnote in Glavin and Bada's paper is footnote 8, which is as follows: [8] Levy M. and Miller S. L. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA., 95, 7933-7938.So there is a good place to look for info... I cannot do so at the moment, so I leave the fate of my argument in your hands...happy molding!

Percy:I'll do it myself because I didn't say that. Your so offended that you can't see straight.Rob:What is important is that a thorough and objective analysis is done. Though I have made some errors of my own, that is my intention.Yet, even so... I have already admitted to my own stench. I am only human. How about you Percy... got any human stench in you?You may think that I have no right to question these things... but I believe we are all equal. What right did a Patent Clerk named Einstein have to question science?You know... Einstein said somewhere, that he wasn't any smarter than anyone else, he only stayed with the problem longer. He also talked about the vanity of scientists...It's humanity really... not any particular group... we're all rather vain.You've been nothing but a distraction in this thread from the beginning. You've done nothing but question my motives rather than debate the issues. There is only 120 or so posts left. Please engage the subject or move on.I want to know and learn...

Do you say that when you get on an airplane? Do you go up to the cockpit and tell the captain he's flying all wrong? Do you think you have the "right" to tell him which buttons to push? Exactly. Einstein took the trouble to know what the @#$% he was talking about.Learn some elementary chemistry before you start challenging chemists. Learn that CN isn't exactly the same thing every place you see it. Learn what pH is.

---

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

Ringo:I don't have to get on board in the first place. But if you want to ride the magic prebiotic bus, be my guest. You can even have my ticket.But I certainly have the right to explain why I'm not aboard, and ask those interested in the discussion or piloting the vessel, why they believe in the ride.Now please Ringo, you've already wasted two posts. If you have nothing to add as for understanding the chemistry involved, I'll just ignore future posts.