Murchison Meteor Questions

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.

---

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.

Rather than untangling this jumble of claims to put them all in the proper context, I'll just focus on the important issue for this thread, which is that science focuses on the natural. You cannot single out abiogenesis for criticism about something that is true of all science.The more general argument that science is misguided in its focus on the natural world should be taken to another thread. This is true. But science is defined as the study of the material world that is apparent to our senses. If there are aspects of reality that lie outside the material world, they are beyond the reach of science.So while it is a valid to argue that there is more to the universe than is dreamt of by science, it isn't valid to argue this point in this thread. We're discussing abiogenesis, not how science should be changed. What makes you think that I don't think there's any evidence for the intelligent design (and implementation) of life? We're getting closer every day to creating artificial life in the lab. A recent news item estimated that success is only ten years away.The objection to the argument that only an intelligence could have designed life, which is what you're using the Murchison meteorite to argue in this thread, is not based upon any misguided notion that intelligence cannot design life. If scientists didn't believe life could be created in the lab they wouldn't be trying to do it. Obviously we believe intelligence can create life.The objection to the assertion that conditions on the early earth were insufficient for abiogenesis addresses three main possibilities:

1. The possibility that some supernatural agent created life on earth. This possibility cannot be considered scientifically because science is focused on the natural, not the supernatural.
   ​
2. The possibility that a race of intelligent beings created life on earth. This possibility fails immediately because of an infinite regression, which goes like this:
   1. If life was created by intelligent beings, where did those intelligent beings come from?
      1. If from a supernatural agent, see point 1.
      2. If from a previous race of intelligent beings, then return to (a).
   ​
3. The possibility that life on earth was seeded by material that drifted in from outer space. This is known as panspermia and is certainly a possibility, but it suffers from the same regression as point 2. If the early environment on earth was incapable of providing the necessary materials for the first life such that that material had to come from outer space, then where was that material originally produced? If it had a supernatural origin, see point 1. If it was produced somewhere else in the universe before drifting here, then there must have been sufficient conditions in that other place for the production of the necessary material. And if the conditions in that other place were insufficient, then where did those materials ultimately come from?

The approach you're taking in this thread is to argue that there are no natural sources of adenine on the early earth, and that therefore it must have come from some other source. As has already been pointed out over and over again, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove there were no sources of adenine on the early earth, and many or your arguments are just expressions of incredulity. And if you're advocating a supernatural origin then that's just not a scientific alternative.--Percy

I have before. But not here. (you can't call shotgun when I'm already in the passenger seat).I mean you already know where I am coming from. But this thread is a critique of you and your 'science', not me...Here I have a different agenda other than evangelism. To show that it is you who want to bring materialism in, without due cause. And we all know where you are coming from too!Kuresu:I was never talking about fusion... only fission. But let's make a syllogism as per Kuresu and Razd.Some nuclear bombs are fission bombs. Nuclear fission is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all fission is a bomb.All life replicates. Life is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all replications are life.Now those are sloppy syllogisms, but I think they show that it does not follow.You see, the bomb didn't prove that bombs are natural. It only proved that fission is. In the same way, replicating molecules do not prove that replicating molecules are natural, only that replication is.It takes more than a molecule to get natural selection up and running.Kuresu:Completely off topic... if you didn't notice, the thread topic is 'Murchison meteor questions'. Although all of these other questions, designed to get the attention off of materialism and onto the design inference have helped me to make some other points as well, it is very distracting to the audience as a whole.

Thanks for the attempted clarification, but this just confuses things further. You say fission by-products at Oklo were found but not observed? How does one find something and then fail to observe it? Were you trying to say that while fission by-products were found at Oklo, the actual fission process itself was not observed and therefore can't be said to have happened? So what if it wasn't observed? Where do you think the fission by-products came from? Dinosaur dung?If that's what you're arguing then this is just the fallacy of "we can't know anything about unobserved events," and if you can make such arguments stick then there are many criminals in jail due to forensic evidence who would love to hear how to do it.By the way, since you've figured out how to include names in quotes, perhaps you can explain it to Rob.--Percy

Rob, what I've quoted above from you reveals that, just as I've been arguing all along, your real agenda in this thread is arguing against the materialistic nature of science, not against the Murchison meteorite as a source of adenine on the early earth.Whether you accept the material presented to you or not, your questions about the Murchison meteorite have been answered. If you want to discuss the nature of science you should propose a new thread for the [forum=-11] forum.--Percy

Percy:No I'm not!There is a natural source for adenine. It is synthesized in the living machinery. That is the empirical reality (science).I am not trying to prove that nature cannot produce it in some other way. Intelligence can sysnthesize it under the laws of physics. so it is possible!The point is... that you guys haven't shown conclusively (empirically) that it can be produced other than in the living machinery. You only believe that it can.Maybe your right, but there is no evidence. You do think evidence is important don't you Percy? So that we can't just make things up?Your next response will be... we haven't found it yet, but there are many possible paths to adenine production in nature (you've said that at least three times already). And it certainly is possible...But it is also possible that the pink unicorn 'pooped' the universe into existence. I would just like some evidence.And that makes me wonder... how do you know or assume that something (material explanation) exists, when there is no evidence? Because you assume there is a material explanation for everything.How is that any different from me assuming the is a supernatural explanation for some things? The difference is clear and bold.Do you want to continue to argue philosophy as a means of refuting my asking for material evidence f adenine in the meteor?Your defending against my material questions, by questioning my philosophy. You only have to answer the question...Got any evidence that the Murchison extractions are legit? Can you defend the results and show them to be conclusive?

Percy:I am all for material (empirical) evidence Percy.Got any?Percy:Well then please do tell Percy. They were answered with material assumptions, not evidence.

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?

Perhaps now would be a good time for those of you defending the Murchison extractions to recap what you have thus far...

Razd:I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. Only that fission bombs are.Bombs are necessarily designed with a purpose; to kill and destroy. Nuclear fission is not.

Hi Rob,As I've said before, "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. No one is claiming conclusive evidence exists for the origin of adenine on the early earth, or that conclusive evidence exists for the presence of adenine in the Murchison meteorite.So if the ultimate scientific answer for the origin of adenine turns out to be, "I don't know," what can you conclude from that? You seem to believe that a valid answer is, "Science's focus on the natural world is insufficient." That's a topic for a thread in the [forum=-11] forum.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.--Percy

In other words the distinction you made is pointless. Thank you for that clarification.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.

So the point stands then that this destroys your argument: 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.

---

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.

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: and 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.

---

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.

With regard to fission, the difference between controlled fission and a fission bomb is one of degree only. A little fission and things warm up and you get some neutrons. More fission and things melt and you get lots of neutrons. Too much fission and things go boom with radioactivity everywhere.Ken got some of his science history wrong: That sustained fission was possible was predicted long before the first nuclear bomb. It's why Einstein wrote the 1939 letter to Roosevelt advocating an atomic bomb effort. Going from memory, the first controlled fission experiment took place at the University of Chicago in 1942 in an experiment conducted by Enrico Fermi under some bleachers.So sustained nuclear fission as a process of the natural world was first predicted by theory, then demonstrated by experiment prior to testing of the first atomic bomb, not afterwards.--Percy