Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amino acid found in deep space
New Scientist ^ | 10:57 18 July 02 | Rachel Nowak

Posted on 07/18/2002 10:17:50 AM PDT by nuda_veritas

10:57 18 July 02
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

An amino acid, one of the building blocks of life, has been spotted in deep space. If the find stands up to scrutiny, it means that the sorts of chemistry needed to create life are not unique to Earth verifying one of astrobiology's cherished theories.

This would add weight to ideas that life exists on other planets, and even that molecules from outer space kick-started life on Earth.

Over 130 molecules have been identified in interstellar space so far, including sugars and ethanol. But amino acids are a particularly important find because they link up to form proteins, the molecules that run, and to a large extent make up our cells.

Back in 1994, a team led by astronomer Lewis Snyder of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced preliminary evidence of the simplest type of amino acid, glycine, but the finding did not stand up to closer examination (New Scientist magazine, 11 June 1994, p 4).

Now Snyder and Yi-Jehng Kuan of the National Taiwan Normal University say they really have found glycine. "We're more confident [this time]," says Kuan. "We have strong evidence that glycine exists in interstellar space."


Huge blobs

The researchers monitored radio waves for the spectral lines characteristic of glycine. They studied emissions from more locations than before - giant molecular clouds, huge blobs of gas and dust grains. They have also identified 10 spectral lines at each location that correspond to the lines created by glycine in the lab; before they had just two.

The discovery of glycine supports recent lab-based simulations of deep space, which show that ices containing simple organic matter could form. When researchers bathe those ices in ultraviolet light, amino acids are created.

"Glycine is the holy grail," says Jill Tarter, director of the Centre for SETI Research at the SETI Institute in Mountain View. "Let's hope they've got it this time."

Rachel Nowak


For more exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist print edition.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; godsgravesglyphs; space; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last
[What's the federal enviromental regulation for amino acids in space? < /sarcasm> ]

Seriously though, this is incredible if it withstands scrutiny.

What mechanisms must lead to the formation of amino acids?

1 posted on 07/18/2002 10:17:50 AM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
What? Alien litterbugs dumping their Port-A-Potties in deep space?


2 posted on 07/18/2002 10:31:20 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
Not too surprising. It was all here in a big mass, then God separated the earth and water from the skies and stars and then created life. Not surprising that the raw materials to the universe are still in the universe. But let the scientists create a galaxy, life, planets,etc. First, let them make their own dirt from scratch!
3 posted on 07/18/2002 10:37:58 AM PDT by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
What mechanisms must lead to the formation of amino acids?

From what I've read, quantum tunnelling in the large clouds of formaldehydes that exist between star systems. Despite the extreme cold of such regions, which would not allow the energy levels required for such chemical reactions to occur, quantum effects at the atomic/subatomic distance scale enables more complex compounds to form.

4 posted on 07/18/2002 10:41:39 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
There is need for you to be defensive. Scientists cannot discover what God has not created.
5 posted on 07/18/2002 10:42:17 AM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
I've no doubt that amino acids will combine together by the same mechanism. Unfortunately, such combinations would be more difficult to detect.
6 posted on 07/18/2002 10:58:00 AM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
I've no doubt that amino acids will combine together by the same mechanism. Unfortunately, such combinations would be more difficult to detect.

Just until they learn to talk.

7 posted on 07/18/2002 11:15:05 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *Space; *crevo_list
Index Bump
8 posted on 07/18/2002 11:32:13 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Just until they learn to talk.

A much larger molecular weight than I had in mind.

9 posted on 07/18/2002 11:33:28 AM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
This is hardly news. I was a TA for Stanley Miller at UCSD in 1975. His graduate students were identifying a wide variety of amino acids by spectra and noting the same spectra from astronomical studies.

Miller performed an experiment as a graduate student of Harold Urey. The experiment involved confining ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, UV light and electrical discharges in a laboratory flask. He had simple amino acids within 3 days of the start of the experiment. Basic nucleotides necessary for DNA/RNA were also found in the organic mix. At the end of week, there were simple multi amino acid peptides.

I'm amazed at what passes for headline news in this very basic area of scientific endeavor.

10 posted on 07/18/2002 11:38:00 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
I also thought this was old news, perhaps even an historical thread. It seems some lab researchers are overeager to get their results out to the public and may be too narrowly focused as a result.
11 posted on 07/18/2002 11:48:03 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Most likely under pressure to "publish or perish". Some academic institutions insist on regular publication to keep them in the limelight. I had a very fine biochemistry professor at UCSD who eventually lost his job for inadequate frequency of publication.
12 posted on 07/18/2002 11:58:36 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Yes, I am familiar with his experiment. We repeated it in 1978 in my old grammar school chemistry class.

What may be new is confirmation of the presences of glycine. Not simply the constituent molecules.

13 posted on 07/18/2002 12:05:56 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
An amino acid, one of the building blocks of life, has been spotted in deep space.

What this article fails to point out is that the amino acid found in deep space looks a lot like Tom Daschle. Actually, they think it IS Tom Daschle!

14 posted on 07/18/2002 12:10:54 PM PDT by Gunner9mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
a very fine biochemistry professor at UCSD who eventually lost his job for inadequate frequency of publication

Someone who was hired to contribute to human knowledge might be expected to contribute to human knowledge at some point. Whether it needs to be every year or more is another question. Most people would be satisfied with their life if they made one contribution to human knowledge, and could happily spend the rest of their life explaining to properly prepared and motivated students their philosophy that made their contribution to human knowledge possible. In the proper spirit, a monograph would be written for the author himself, and maybe someone else would take that as a starting point for another step, but it wouldn't matter if nothing results.

15 posted on 07/18/2002 12:12:06 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
           

16 posted on 07/18/2002 12:28:36 PM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
I came up with a way to explain faith to scientific types.

Definitions of Entropy:

Cambridge International Dictionary of English: the amount of order or lack of order in a system

Online Plain Text English Dictionary: A certain property of a body, expressed as a measurable quantity, such that when there is no communication of heat the quantity remains constant, but when heat enters or leaves the body the quantity increases or diminishes.

WordNet Vocabulary Helper (NotreDame): 1. (3) entropy -- ((thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity)
2. information, selective information, entropy -- ((communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; ``the signal contained thousands of bits of information'' )

AllWords.com: 1. A certain property of a body, expressed as a measurable quantity, such that when there is no communication of heat the quantity remains constant, but when heat enters or leaves the body the quantity increases or diminishes.

Dictionary.com: 1. For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

LookWAYup: A measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: 1. A measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2. a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

American Heritage® Dictionary: 1. For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

WordSmyth.net: 1. in thermodynamics, a mathematical expression of the state of randomness or energy loss in any system.
2. the natural and irreversible tendency toward randomness and disorder in any system without an external source of energy.
3. loosely, decline or degeneration.

Ultra Lingua: A measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.
2. Entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone.

Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition : A certain property of a body, expressed as a measurable quantity, such that when there is no communication of heat the quantity remains constant, but when heat enters or leaves the body the quantity increases or diminishes.

Encyclopedia.com: quantity specifying the amount of disorder or randomness in a system bearing energyor information.

Rhymezone: A measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

ArtLex Lexicon of Visual Art Terminology: The tendency of all matter and energy in the universe-- including all systems, societies, etc.-- to change toward a state of disorder or randomness.

WORDS OF ART: In certain sociological circles, for example, the original definition of entropy as the degree to which energy in a system is available to do work becomes a description of how social progress slows and finally stops because social change uses up energy which cannot then be retrieved for reuse in further change.

Extragalactic Astronomy: 1. a thermodynamic property of a macroscopic body which corresponds intuitively to the degree of disorder.
2. A measure of the amount of unavailable heat in a system; or a measure of the amount of disorder in a system.
3. A quantitative measure of the degree of disorder of a physical system. Highly disordered systems have a large entropy; highly ordered systems have low entropy. One of the laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, says that the entropy of any isolated physical system can only increase in time.
4. A thermodynamic measure of the degree of order in a system. Also used as a measure of information content.
5. A measure of the amount of disorder in a system.

Definitions of God:

Cambridge International Dictionary of English: A spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or a representation of the being

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe.

WordNet Vocabulary Helper (NotreDame): 1. God, Supreme Being -- (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
2. Deity, divinity, god, immortal -- (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: Applied to all those superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies who exercise power over nature and man and are often identified with some particular sphere of activity; and also to the visible material objects, whether an image of the supernatural being or a tree, pillar, &c. used as a symbol, an idol.

AllWords.com: 1. In religions othr than in the Christian and other monotheistic religions: a superhuman male being with power over nature and humanity; a male object of worship.
2. In the Christian and other monotheistic religions: the unique supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe.

Dictionary.com: 1a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

Webster: 1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
b. Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2. A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

American Heritage® Dictionary: 1. a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Encyclopedia.com: The general conception of God may be said to be that of an infinite being (often a personality but not necessarily anthropomorphic) who is supremely good, who created the world, who knows all and can do all, who is transcendent over and immanent in the world, and who loves humanity.
There are several famous arguments for the existence of God. The argument from the First Cause maintains that since in the world every effect has its cause behind it (and every actuality its potentiality), the first effect (and first actuality) in the world must have had its cause (and potentiality), which was in itself both cause and effect (and potentiality and actuality), i.e., God. The cosmological argument maintains that since the world, and all that is in it, seems to have no necessary or absolute (nonrelative) existence, an independent existence (God) must be implied for the world as the explanation of its relations.
The teleological argument maintains that, since from a comprehensive view of nature and the world everything seems to exist according to a certain great plan, a planner (God) must be postulated. The ontological argument maintains that since the human conception of God is the highest conception humanly possible and since the highest conception humanly possible must have existence as one attribute, God must exist. Immanuel Kant believed that he refuted these arguments by showing that existence is no part of the content of an idea. This principle has become very important in contemporary philosophy, particularly in existentialism. The consensus among theologians is that the existence of God must in some way be accepted on faith.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Plato viewed as the highest of all things the good that was above all being and all knowledge, identified it with the divine nous, and attempted to raise the human spirit into the realm of ideas, into a likeness with the Godhead; which taught men to rise to the highest by a process of abstraction disregarding particulars and grasping at universals, and conceived the good of which it spoke not in a strictly ethical sense, but as, after all, the most utterly abstract and indefinable, entirely eluding all attempts at positive description.

Easton Bible: The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
(1.) The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
(2.) The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are,
(a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
(b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
(c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Nature and Attributes of God - In this article, we proceed by deductive analysis to examine the nature and attributes of God to the extent required by our limited philosophical scope. We will treat accordingly of the infinity, unity, and simplicity of God, adding some remarks on Divine personality.
Relation of God to the Universe - The world is essentially dependent on God, and this dependence implies (1) that God is the Creator of the world -- the producer of its whole substance; and (2) that its continuance in being at every moment is due to His sustaining power.

Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion: Traditionally, the Abramic religions understood God as the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE and everything that exists.
CHINESE and JAPANESE religions recognized an impersonal force behind the universe but never developed a concept of God similar to the Abramic one.
BUDDHISM is unique in recognizing the existence of Gods in the affairs of daily life but in declaring in no uncertain terms that as a religion or practice, Buddhism has nothing to do with God.

New Age Terminology: A being who has "many faces." He (it) is considered a radically immanent being who is often referred to as a "universal consciousness," "universal life," or "universal energy." The New Age god is more or less an impersonal force that pervades the universe.

Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy: Omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and perfectly benevolent creator of the universe. Conceived of as transcending the created universe (as in the Christian tradition) God is thought to exist prior to and beyond the universe which he created from nothing or ex nihilo. Conceived of as immanent (as on pantheistic and Stoic conceptions) God is in the universe (as its guiding spirit or logos) and coextensive with it, not beyond it or prior to it.

The antithesis of Entropy must therefore be God. Without order as a frame of reference, there cannot be chaos.

And by corollary the physical and metaphysical interact in a continuum of interdependency. Since the decay of order into chaos is a trend, not an absolute, there must therefore be an unknown influence causing this aboration of order in a world of decay.

There are witnessed (al beit non-repeatable) evidence of this unknown influence causing order in the face of chaos (i.e. miracles) as well as well known exceptions to fundamental physical laws, that are easily explainable in the realm of faith.

But since faith (God) can't by definition be proved, it is prudent to just lay out the evidence and the hypothesis and let them go nuts trying to disprove it. ;)

17 posted on 07/18/2002 1:24:37 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard
LOL. So that's the Naked Truth!

(how do they translate? What is the reference?)

18 posted on 07/18/2002 1:29:09 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
What may be new is confirmation of the presences of glycine

Glycine is the simplest amino acid that can qualify as an amino acid. The rest have more complex side groups.

19 posted on 07/18/2002 1:39:19 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Gap-closing ping.
20 posted on 07/18/2002 1:50:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
"Without order as a frame of reference, there cannot be chaos. "

There is no such thing as chaos or order in God's world. Only processes that are observable and predictable ("order") and processes that are non-observable and/or non-predictable ("chaos").

Both ideas are constructs of the human mind, not of the universe. The human mind needs a comprehensible framework, not the universe.

All truths discovered by science are products of God. So why should people of faith fear any truths that scientists discover?

Should we fear to "touch the face of God"?

Even the Pope has come around to my way of thinking? ;^)

BTW: Dictionary definitions are mere semantics and does not represent any real objective truth. Define "liberal" for instance. (that's why there are so many different dictionaries etc.) That is also why mathematics tends to be the language of science. Even though mathematics is rapidly reaching its limits as a modelling tool for complex systems.

21 posted on 07/18/2002 1:54:29 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RightWingNilla
amino acid ping
22 posted on 07/18/2002 2:01:15 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
BTW: To argue faith in God by using dictionary definitions is about as reasonable as proving God exists by using a classified syntaxis of cro-magnon grunts.
23 posted on 07/18/2002 2:05:37 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
Are those pictures of relatives, or are you ageing before our eyes?
24 posted on 07/18/2002 2:06:26 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Gap-closing ping.

<creationist>

Ho! That's what YOU say. Well, you atheistic science-types have slipped up BIG TIME. The odds against even ONE amino acid assembling itself were already 200 jillion to one. But now somebody let the cat-feline-BENGAL TIGER out of the BAG. Space is full of the gosh-darned stuff! The odds against THAT happening are...well, MORE than 200 jillion to one--big--HUGE. OMG, I am laughing so hard...there's no way Richard Dawkins is going to be able to shriek this away, and Gould...well, he's burning in HELL! OH, HA, HA, HA! My sides hurt. Lord, please take me.

</creationist>

25 posted on 07/18/2002 2:07:20 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
And by corollary the physical and metaphysical interact in a continuum of interdependency. Since the decay of order into chaos is a trend, not an absolute, there must therefore be an unknown influence causing this aboration of order in a world of decay.

Yes there is, it is called an entropic sink, and it occurs whenever you consider an isolated part of the universe for which entropy need not hold. Entropy is only an ironclad law when taking a closed system as a whole. When you consider, for example, a planet circling a star, for a finite amount of time, entropy conservation does not enter the picture. The sun is free to erect anti-entropic entities on the earth--the piper does not need to be paid until the earth and the sun dissolve into one.

26 posted on 07/18/2002 2:10:20 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You realize, of course, that this is just a trick by the godless evolutionists to drag all of our souls down to hell.
27 posted on 07/18/2002 2:10:39 PM PDT by Dementon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Hey, I actually remember watching that show!
28 posted on 07/18/2002 2:26:27 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dementon
You realize, of course, that this is just a trick by the godless evolutionists to drag all of our souls down to hell.

Yes, and all the time scarfing up those juicy research grants. What we need to clean up this mess is a good ol' fashioned jihad!

29 posted on 07/18/2002 2:29:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
WOO HOO!! I haven't been on a jihad in a long time.

I'll need to find something suitable to wear...

30 posted on 07/18/2002 2:37:42 PM PDT by Dementon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
God is Thermodynamics. Got it! Thanks.
31 posted on 07/18/2002 2:40:29 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
verifying one of astrobiology's cherished theories.

Hmmmm, I wonder why it is cherished?

Could it be because they have so much at stake?
Many people cherish this theory because they want something to validate their belief in spontaneous generation. They continue to push their faith in spontaneous generation because that is what they have been teaching and putting into the text books all along and it supports their teleology.

It should not surprise anyone that this is a theory cherished by enough people to be noted in this article. Afterall there is a lot more at stake than science. When you peel off the veneer, there is an eternity of accountability at stake.....and when they pillow their head at night, they know it.

32 posted on 07/18/2002 2:41:47 PM PDT by Old Landmarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
Those dirty rotten Republicans must be behind this rape of the cosmos!
33 posted on 07/18/2002 2:44:25 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
WELL--a few Lightening Strikes, a few Billion Years, & You've got TOM DASCHLE!!

Ain't Evolution Wonderful??

Doc

34 posted on 07/18/2002 2:48:32 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Amino acids in space. Another Clinton and Monica story.

35 posted on 07/18/2002 3:04:30 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Doc On The Bay
Apparently Daschle is still a few amino acids short.

hehehe...I'm sure Barney Frank would loan him a few though...

36 posted on 07/18/2002 3:07:47 PM PDT by nuda_veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
Could it be because they have so much at stake?

Yes, but not their eternal souls. What we have here is a new professional field of employment. Credentials, university appointments, academic degrees, refereed journals with peer-reviewed articles. All the great stuff that self-motivated highly-competitive doctoral candidates live for. This time it's Astrobiology. They'll get their own department, then their own building, it's just a matter of time.

37 posted on 07/18/2002 3:13:51 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
What mechanisms must lead to the formation of amino acids?

Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and energy. The four elements are all present in space in one degree or another, and the energy is plentiful as any number of forms of radiation. Though the likelihood of amino acid formation is far higher on earth, where oxygen is more abundant, it is not impossible to conceive of it happening in space.

38 posted on 07/18/2002 4:09:31 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I once ate some brown amino acid, and ... boom!

Deep space.



39 posted on 07/18/2002 4:59:31 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
They'll get their own department...

department of exobiology

40 posted on 07/18/2002 5:11:28 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
That's pretty close to astrobiology. There is also xenobiology. What the differences are, I don't know.
41 posted on 07/18/2002 5:15:00 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas; SlickWillard
The sounds of Nuda Veritas.
42 posted on 07/18/2002 5:25:15 PM PDT by jumpstartme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
...astropaleontology, exobiology, gravitational biology, astropaleobiology... they are probably all interdisciplinary departments.
43 posted on 07/18/2002 5:32:23 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
... here(#17)!
44 posted on 07/18/2002 5:41:06 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Thanks for the notes on the Miller-Urey experiment, (it's in every college astronomy book).

OK...
Amino acids in nebulae, comets, meteorites.
A portion of Earth's water may have come from comets.
Primitive life may be somewhat common.

Intelligent life?...Who knows...
45 posted on 07/18/2002 5:55:41 PM PDT by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping, Patrick.

Yep,...Amino acids in nebulae, comets, meteorites.


By the way, that "Astronomers Hope to Find E.T. in Next 25 Years" (SETI, Drake-equation - crop circles) thread the other night 7/17/02 was one of the most entertaining threads I have ever followed.
46 posted on 07/18/2002 6:13:14 PM PDT by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble
Yeah. In nearly three years here, I thought I had run into -- and been attacked by -- every kind of anti-reason idiot imaginable; but until last night I'd never encountered a crop circle freak before. But no form of un-reason is benign, so all are worthy of vigorous scorn.
47 posted on 07/18/2002 7:34:48 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nuda_veritas
Back in 1994, a team led by astronomer Lewis Snyder of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced preliminary evidence of the simplest type of amino acid, glycine, but the finding did not stand up to closer examination (New Scientist magazine, 11 June 1994, p 4).

Sounds like the guy had to publish something to justify his pay and just republished the same rejected stuff with some additional information. This is the problem with the press, they publish the announcements, but they do not publish the verification or the rejection of the fantastic findings claimed.

48 posted on 07/18/2002 7:49:57 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
At the end of week, there were simple multi amino acid peptides.

The Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly discredited by now. More important than that it could not have happened in real life though is that it is completely wrong. DNA makes amino acids (or rather the RNA which DNA codes for), not the other way around. These folk were the scientific equivalent of wrong-way Goldfarb.

49 posted on 07/18/2002 7:54:37 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble
Amino acids in nebulae, comets, meteorites.

Not proven. Every few years we hear of proof of biological substances from space, and after a year or two they are disproven quietly. This guy already made a false claim, a reasonable person would wait for it to be examined and verified. However, evolutionists (or should we say atheists in this case) are real desperate, so they latch on to anything reed, no matter how flimsy.

50 posted on 07/18/2002 8:05:58 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson