Partial Ingredients For DNA And Protein Found Around Star

NASA via ScienceDaily.com ^ | 2005-12-30 | NA

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Spectroscopy

Molecular spectrosity from how many years ago?

The star is in the Ophiuchus (pronounced OFF-ee-YOO-kuss), or "snake carrier," constellation about 375 light-years from Earth.

Images of distant stars being most often many centuries and millenniums old, are no things corporeal. The actual objects have ceased to exist as perceived and are phantasms, mere ghosts of what once was.

...Dr. Geoffrey Blake of Caltech, a co-author of the paper. "And now, we can detect these same molecules in the planet zone of a star hundreds of light-years away."

He should logically say we can only detect evidence of their past. He should know better, a lot of these guys should.

I know, it is a petty point, but it is those petty points that screw up complex research and gives the critics of your findings an avenue of attack...

[narby]

"Yeah, and iron ore is a precursor to a car. And a car is a lot less complex than DNA."

Actually, a car is much more complex than DNA. Study the methods used in computer image rendering and you'll discover that to define the precise curves of every component of a car would require a nearly infinite amount of information.

Plus, DNA is made up of only 4 components. While a car is made of steel, rubber, glass, plastic of many different forms, leather (if it's a BMW), cloth, carpet, paint, lead, acid. New cars have silicon, doped with various chemicals in various patterns making semiconductors that are quite complex all by themselves, which are then attached via solder to complex multi layered boards we call "circuits".

Should I go on?

The minimum DNA required to start life I suspect would be quite simple. And once life starts, evolution begins, which as demonstrated by Caltech's Digital Life Lab would then add complexity continually.

[manwiththehands]

"This infant system might look a lot like ours did billions of years ago, before life arose on Earth," said Fred Lahuis of Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands ...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And He said: "ARISE! EVOLVE!"

Oops. Wrong religion. Sorry.

:-)

[narby]

I know, it is a petty point, but it is those petty points that screw up complex research and gives the critics of your findings an avenue of attack...

Your petty point is meaningless. The research demonstrates that star systems can generate the chemicals. Whether it did so 375 years ago, or last week, is meaningless to the question of whether they do this.

[grey_whiskers]

Sigh.

Let's not get our panties in a wad.

What concentrations? And are they racemic mixtures?

Cheers!

[narby]

And He said: "ARISE! EVOLVE!" Oops. Wrong religion. Sorry.

Are you trying to say that any faith is as believable as science? Or that science is as untrustworthy as faith?

[js1138]

connectthedots, I believe, is the one who stated on another thread that evolution would require simultaneous identical mutations in a mating pair.

[Dustbunny]

Wow, how in the world were they able to collect the samples and bring them back to earth for analysis?

[ConsentofGoverned]

"The minimum DNA required to start life I suspect would be quite simple. And once life starts, evolution begins, which as demonstrated by Caltech's Digital Life Lab would then add complexity continually."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...............
last I checked we have never produced life from inanimate chemicals so what is "quite simple" here?? DNA- mRNA convey information, what was the source of that information - do precursors found in "space" contain information on how to grow a simple organism?? show me the data to support that..cal tech digital life is mental masturbation.

[narby]

LOL, at least you now admit that ID is possible and is a science even if done by humans..

Sure "ID" is possible by humans. What's amazing is that the fact that humans weren't around 4 billion years ago just skipped right off your brain.

You really don't get it, do you?

[narby]

cal tech digital life is mental masturbation.

Actually it's software. Software that mimics the workings of DNA random mutation and environmental selection quite well. And demolishes the contentions that evolution processes can't accumulate information.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" ID is a science in bio tech and it is IMO not an unreasonable explanation for life and the Universe."

ID in that case has nothing to do with how the universe was created, or how life started, how life evolved. ID'ers/creationists are intellectually dishonest when they attempt to equate the design that humans make with the designer they believe created the universe. There is simply no way to logically connect the two. The only intelligent designer we have any evidence for is humans. That's it. That's why the ID movement is no different than the astrology movement, or the Scientology movement.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Actually it's software. Software that mimics the workings of DNA random mutation and environmental selection quite well. And demolishes the contentions that evolution processes can't accumulate information."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>................
Yes and we have weather software models that can predict global warming in the next 100 yrs but can't tell if it will rain on Tuesday in NYC! the classic GIGO.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Wow, how in the world were they able to collect the samples and bring them back to earth for analysis?"

Spectroscopy. It's not a new technology.

[narby]

classic GIGO

Do you trust your bank statement?

[Dustbunny]

Spectroscopy. It's not a new technology.

LOL, sorry, I knew that. I forgot my /sarcasm tag.

[atlaw]

What passes for science today is group think . . . they are the league of small minds who sprue this hyped trash.

Yeah! Scientists are just stoopid! What has science ever given us? Huh? Huh? Bunch of hyped trash, that's what! Right on!

[clyde asbury]

Here's some background reading for you. Although this link discusses visible light, the same principle applies to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Be sure to come back and share your expert opinion.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"The only intelligent designer we have any evidence for is humans. That's it. That's why the ID movement is no different than the astrology movement, or the Scientology movement."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.........
I do not discount allegory as a method to put information in form Humans can understand. Science is another way but which has shaped the evolution of society most? IMO both have power. ID is a science..so now we argue about it's roots..It's OK with many ID supporters to have Evolution taught in schools but the reverse is an anathema to you and your group. If ID is discredited with new evidence showing the creation of life by random actions or the creation of a new species by random effects so be it..but why have we no proof of either?

[narby]

ID is a science..

ID is a hypothesis. With nothing whatsoever to back it up, and no way to falsify it, thus it can never be scientific.