Posted on 12/31/2005 1:32:58 AM PST by neverdem
Wow!
God the creator of all that is is great.
To evolutionists: my grandad was no monkey.
Classic example of linguistic "bait & switch" (changing definitions in mid-stream).
ID, as promoted by the charlatans at the Discovery Institute, is supposed to be an "explanation" for things that they claim can't occur by natural means. What humans do in the lab, however, is done by natural means. Clearly, whatever we do in the lab is not the same "ID" as is being promoted by the Discovery Institute. One isn't the other, and isn't evidence of the other.
If someone can't handle relatively simple concepts like that, then he's not prepared for debates like this one.
AMEN!!! Socrates wrote, "The true wiseman is the one who realizes he knows nothing."
Among many spiritual scientists, some not even pushing ID, there is a notion challeging just what is real and not real. Particle theory has put that all in to question. It is majestic and fascinating even for a layman like me.
I recommend a movie called What The Bleep Do We Know which weaves commentary on the subject into a storyline. Available at Blockbuster.
I was just thinking of the similarity between DI and the environmental groups out there.
DI and enviro groups are non-profits with agendas.
Both DI and enviros use junk science of questionable nature. Of the two, the enviros at least do SOME real research. Although much of it is disputed, and the subjects they emphasize (global warming) can't be conclusively demonstrated, so the argument over it can go on forever.
DI and enviro groups use the popular media first, rather than the scientific media.
Both embroil themselves in lawsuits. Although DI didn't get involved in Dover because it was such a bad case, that didn't prevent them from undertaking a media blitz right afterward, taking advantage of the case.
DI and enviro groups make their living from donations from rich people with agendas. That's probably the most significant correlation between the two. It's just a (non-profit) business.
Yeah, and War is Peace.
Socrates was full of it. A true wiseman has knowledge, but knows it's limits.
You obviously don't know your limits.
THe key word in the article is 'unambiguously.' The gas is in a disk around the central star. In order to get a good, strong spectrum of the gas, it needs to be between a light source (the central star) and the observer (the telescope used). Since the material in question is in a disk, the spectrum with the lowest signal to noise ratio will be obtained when the disk is aligned edge-on to us. 100 stars may have been studied, but the combination of an edge-on alignment, teh presence of a disk, and a high concentration of the chemicals in question would likely lead to unambiguous detection around only 1% of observed stars. The other stars may have similar disks and gases, but we may not have the technology to detect them at this time.
As usual, science reporters have to distill the article for the general public.
And Martha Stewart Transgressions...
Spectroscopy is a very powerful tool and is a well established technology. I do this sort of thing for a living. Every chemical has a unique spectrum that acts as a finger print. In this case, the star is a light source, the gas absorbs light at its signature wavelengths, a telescope is used to collect the light and a spectrometer spreads the light into its spectrum. Hydrogen cyanide and acetylene have very, very distinct spectral features. Any organic chemist could look at a spectrum and tell you immediately if these materials are present ot not. Spectroscopy is the tool all chemist use in substance identification. That being said, the known reactivity of these materials, in the presence of water, will produce amino acids. Again, any chemist will immediately know this. It's all freshman organic chemistry.
Anyone who believes otherwise either does not knows nothing about chemistry, or is so hopelessly deluded by creationism that they have to believe that organic chemistry is as invalid as they think evolution is.
It certainly is relevant if you want to extrapolate those past conditions as present events, or being related to present or more distantly past conditions that are not currently observable.
(Get out the time machine and jump 375 years into the future to prove it is not a super nova by then or a gas giant, then go back billions of years to see where the earth came from - - and those comets...)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The research demonstrates that star systems can generate the chemicals.
No it does not, the article clearly states only what is believed...
“Here on Earth, the molecules are believed to have arrived billions of years ago, possibly via comets or comet dust that rained down from the sky.”
These measurements are most likely qualitative in nature. But of course, you would know this based on the nature of the questions you asked.
And are they racemic mixtures?
This question is meaningless. Any chemist will tell you that hydrogen cyanide and acetylene are not chiral, but symmetrical. Check their point groups.
These measurements are most likely qualitative in nature. But of course, you would know this based on the nature of the questions you asked.
Well, temperature and reactant concentrations seem to have an influence on kinetics of reactions; so when people state that precursors of organic compounds are found in interstellar space, I tend to wonder 'bout these things.
And are they racemic mixtures?
This question is meaningless. Any chemist will tell you that hydrogen cyanide and acetylene are not chiral, but symmetrical. Check their point groups.
Not really. I just misread the article, and thought it said that adenine and several amino acids had been found as well. 'Twas asking about them.
Cheers!
"If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine," said 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."
The ambiguous phrasing here was the source of my misunderstanding...
Cheers!
You obviusly are extremely self-important.
NASA needs money.
Hmmm...all I wrote was, "The article explained how these gases are precursors to DNA:". My comment was non-aggressive.
Thanks for the reply and sorry for setting my sarcastic tone so high. I thought your comments were regarding the chemstry of the gas disk, not the in vitro reaction and were creationist talking point based. My bad. With regards to concentration, that would be a very difficult thing to quantify since it would depend on the size of the disk and where in the disk you are looking. I seriously doubt the ditribution of these materials is homogeneous throughout the disk. Temperature should be estimatible based on the spectra. If the microwave region can be observed, then the rotational spectrum can be used to calculate the temperature of the materials. I the mid-infrared, band width may also be used, but Doppler shifts, based on the radial velocity of the material, may also contribute to band broadening. I think the point of the article, as it relates to biology, is that these materials would condense out during potential planetary formation. Then, assuming the presence of water (which is likely because water is a relatively common molecule in space), these reactions can take place. Enatiometric selectivity is another issue and there is evidence that suggests circularly polarized ultraviolet light can selectively decompose one diasteriomer over the other. Even though the reactions may not have a high yield, these amino acids will form. There are industrial processes that have only a fraction of a percent yield of some chemicals.
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.