Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 44 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
NASA Discovers Life's Building Blocks Are Common In Space

After A team of NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common in space.

Our work shows a class of compounds that is critical to biochemistry is prevalent throughout the universe," said Douglas Hudgins, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. He is principal author of a study detailing the team's findings that appears in the Oct. 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

"NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has shown complex organic molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in every nook and cranny of our galaxy. While this is important to astronomers, it has been of little interest to astrobiologists, scientists who search for life beyond Earth. Normal PAHs aren't really important to biology," Hudgins said. "However, our work shows the lion's share of the PAHs in space also carry nitrogen in their structures. That changes everything."

"Much of the chemistry of life, including DNA, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen," said team member Louis Allamandola, an astrochemist at Ames. "Chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis in plants, is a good example of this class of compounds, called polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles, or PANHs. Ironically, PANHs are formed in abundance around dying stars. So even in death, the seeds of life are sewn," Allamandola said.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084725.htm


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Another nail in the coffin of life by design
nail \

Mysterious 'half-animal, half-plant' marine microbe discovered by Japanese researchers
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20051014p2a00m0na010000c.html

nail /

Mysterious microbe retrofits itself with plant
One-celled organisms capture algae, perhaps taking evolutionary leap
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9686843/

Peace \/

Garry 'Jesus Freak' Denke
http://www.garrydenke.com

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi DA:

I do not agree with the creation concept but I fail to see how finding the building blocks of life in space are inconsistent with a creation theory. If some super thing wanted to create life would not that thing plant the seeds of life everywhere? It is science that is searching for life in other systems and there is every reason to believe they will find it; will that also be another coffin nail?
jw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 asks:
"If some super thing wanted to create life would not that thing plant the seeds of life everywhere?"

If there was a shred of evidence that that something existed I'd agree with you ... partially. Here's why.

If something of infinite intelligence existed and made a decision to create life it wouldn't seed the universe with building blocks, per se. It would create physical constants such as pi, c, alpha, etc. that by their very nature would endow physics and chemistry with the ability to create those chemicals and thus to create life. No question about it.

But look at the topic I wrote: "Another nail in the coffin of life by design." That isn't life by design ... that is physics by design. That is string theory by design. Quantum mechanics by design. Life just becomes an inevitable consequence.

But here's where the idea of an infinitely intelligent deity breaks down.

If you can, through physics and chemistry create a universe as we see it today ... then there is no need for the designer. Occam's Razor cuts far sharper than the dull axe Rose wields around here. If I can create the entire universe without a designer ... then the designer is not necessary to explain anything ... and by extension does not exist except as it intentionally imposes its will upon its human subjects. And the examples of that, so far recorded in human history, have been bloody: A mixture of genocide, torture, rape and property destruction. If that's all that the deity is able to do ... I'd cut its throat in a second.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
I got a great laugh at this:

What's New by Bob Parks of UMD:

1. SUPREME QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE NOMINEE'S VIEWS ON SCIENCE?
Our request for questions that should be asked of Supreme Court
nominees to elicit their views on science drew a huge response.
Traditionally, nominees are not questioned about their religious
views on the assumption that an oath to uphold the constitution
makes the nominee's religious views irrelevant. Science, which
bases judgements solely on the evidence, is the antithesis of
religion and is clearly relevant. The WN staff felt the question
that best captured the consensus of our readers' views in the
fewest number of words was from Abi Soffer at SLAC:

"How does being descended from a monkey affect your
judicial philosophy?"

WN will include more suggested questions each week until the
confirmation process in the Senate is over


Erich J. Knight
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Well spoken Daniel,
All those people who kid themselves that there is an intelligent designer up there, should rethink and start looking for 'bad-design'.
Theres plenty of it about. The greatest thing about evolution is that it is a complete mess, totally unpredictable, and a complete shambles.
Anybody who designed a living world like this would have been sacked long ago.
DNA is quite clever, but not very clever, since it has been constantly re-inventing itself ever since it began.
Its the total chaos and mess of 'bad-design everywhere' that long term evolution randomly modifies to produce something that eventually fits in better with its surroundings.
Hurrah for Evolution.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA Morgan and others argue a point:

I will commence by noting I could not conveniently save all of the offers made by our members.

With that discrepancy in mind I think I can still offer a viable view.

As to our DA there is a little laxity in the reasoning when jumping to conclusions. The prospect of life compounds everywhere proves nothing except that those substances are where they are. I suppose that a Big Bang is the best means of distributing this special stuff. Some measly special thing could not do it? How do we reason this way? Nothing can be a start for some thing. But no thing can be a start for every thing. I admit that I grow tired of the clan jumping on the bandwagon of illogical conclusions. This, to me, has nothing whatever to do with superior beings or special exotic forms of Mass. I would like to respond to each post in this collection but I did not print them out so I shall just ?fade away?.
jw

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Nothing can be a start for some thing.
REP: Thats why I offered in one of my topics to discuss the Infinity and Zero.
========================================
Join me in my discussion and we will reach a common ground.I promise.It will not be an illogical conclusion.
You can start by replyin to m-theroy ...
Assuming that what I say is correct ,try to come up with your most bothering questions and I will answer.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA says:

"If I can create the entire universe without a designer ... then the designer is not necessary to explain anything ... and by extension does not exist except as it intentionally imposes its will upon its human subjects."

"(And the examples of that, so far recorded in human history, have been bloody: A mixture of genocide, torture, rape and property destruction. If that's all that the deity is able to do ... I'd cut its throat in a second."

Rep:
Of the points you argue I will not get into the second paragraoh. That is not "scientific" as you are prone to present. The first part is fabulous because going back a little to your seeming suggestion of physics being invented by humans I must smile a little at your use of Pi as one of the feathers in our cap. As far as physics in general are concerned there are many that could discuss the details better than I.

Are you suggesting that Pi is an invention of mankind? Did we somehow invent the sphers of the Universe. Can any aboriginal look to the moon and not see a circle at full moon. Since when has physics been more than a discovery of inherent facts of nature. DA, you do denounce too much.

I admit I do not know the origin of the Universe or our own Sooar System and that I can not logically conceive of a "being" creating it all. BUT I must reserve judgement until, if ever, I get a basis upon which to conclude. I find your work stimulating and, at time educational, but on the subject of your commitment to foster an jdea as controlling here I disagree. I be wrong too.
jw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Are you hard of reading? Here's exactly what I wrote:
"If something of infinite intelligence existed and made a decision to create life it wouldn't seed the universe with building blocks, per se. It would create physical constants such as pi, c, alpha, etc. that by their very nature would endow physics and chemistry with the ability to create those chemicals and thus to create life."

Nowhere did I indicate that any entity created Pi. Note that the paragraph starts with the word 'IF'.

Please read for comprension.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Morgan responds to jw:

Are you hard of reading? Here's exactly what I wrote:
"If something of infinite intelligence existed and made a decision to create life it wouldn't seed the universe with building blocks, per se. It would create physical constants such as pi, c, alpha, etc. that by their very nature would endow physics and chemistry with the ability to create those chemicals and thus to create life."

Nowhere did I indicate that any entity created Pi. Note that the paragraph starts with the word 'IF'.

Please read for comprension.
DA Morgan

jw Rep:

Possibly I read too closely? You deny an entity, a superior entity, created life and by implication argue that if there was such "It would create physical constants such as pi, c, alpha, etc...." that imply the entity did not create these constants. If not created by the disputed entity then by whom? Man? Us? Nature as a part of the entities creation effort.

I try to be specific but I recognise I am not always up to the task.
jw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I don't believe in creating angels and fairies to explain what can, and is, easily explained through the laws of physics.

My point was that if one wished to, for sake of argument only, posit an invisible purple rhinoceros, then it is more likely the rhino would have engineered alpha, pi, and the square root of -1, then that that same rhino would have been hand-coding DNA base-pairs.


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5