xp65 writes "NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life. 'We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,' said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 'We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.'"
Wasn't that the secret ingredient that made Sucrets sooth sore throats 27% faster? Or Pampers 14% drier? Or Lucky Strikes the choice of five out of six doctors surveyed?
But seriously . . . cool.
If only because the Discovery Institute will have to scrap another set of creationist text books.
Uh, no. They pretty much deny a number of facts. What they deny will change over time, and often will change depending on the audience. I have had Creationists deny in one moment any evolution beyond species variation, then the next claim that some degree of macroevolution is possible, then in the next try to rearend Biblical "kinds" into genuses and families. In fact, the only thing that Creationists can be counted on to declare as "fact" is that no matter how much evolution is going on, men and apes are not related.
Fact's aren't facts when you're dealing with creationists. They actively avoid facts --- like evolution --- that disagree with their preconceived notions about how the world works.
You're making a very common error in understanding about what constitutes a scientific fact.
Evolution -is- a fact; evolution has been observed and tested and met the criteria of a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The number of scientific papers where evolution as fact has been observed number in the hundred thousand or millions.
In earler Slashdot times, creationsts were rife and the same tired rubbish that had been done to death on talk.origins was argued vehemently for kilometres of threads. I think they either did get educated or left for forums steeped in ignorance.
Why? God put that stuff there and then made it all come together to form life. You can't debunk a myth as powerful as this when you have a God that is omniscient and omnipotent it just can't be done, faith will rationalize any argument you present into the ground. Blind Faith by it's nature is unbeatable. You anti-creationists just need to sit back and wait for a creationist to die and then say "told you so" but um wait... that won't work either. I guess we're hosed no matter what we discover. Can't
God put that stuff there and then made it all come together to form life.
*blinks* I'm confused about this one. It seems that you are suggesting that all Creationists (and by extension, Christians) believe God used evolution to form life? While there are plenty of "Theistic Evolutionists," there are also those that believe evolution of species did not occur at all (and that God did not use evolution).
How is declaring anything all Creationists believe in any way related to what all Christians believe? Creationism, in Catholic theology, is a heresy (see St. Augustine).
Where's the "!urine" tag on this one? Please, somebody think of the drunken graduate students who might read this story and decide to reproduce the results.
I have a feeling that this will lead to the speculation that Earth was therefore seeded with fundamental biomolecules from space and this paved the way for life to begin on Earth. I hope people don't jump to this conclusion too quickly. Personally, I find it unlikely and think there is a more likely interpretation, which I will get to in a moment. The reason this is unlikely is that just having biomolecules is not enough to start life processes. Especially in the time frame when life is hypothesized to have originated (~3.8Gya), as the surface of the Earth was completely covered by ocean at that time, and any seeding of organic molecules from external sources runs into the concentration problem: the problem of getting enough of the right molecules in the right place with the right concentration and the right inputs of energy and raw materials for biochemistry to begin. Any such seeding from external sources would end up very dilute, and biomolecules would likely break down before they could be gathered in sufficient concentrations.
Personally, one possible interpretation which I prefer is that these findings (and similar ones of finding amino acids in comets and such) indicate that organic biomolecules are fairly common and will form anywhere you have C, O, H, N, S, etc and energy. Not only would this indicate that biomolecules could form fairly easily on Earth, but that they are common in the universe, and organic life may arise just about anywhere you have an input of energy and raw materials and a way of concentrating those molecules so they will react and form self-organizing and self-replicating biochemistry.
My current favorite hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth are those championed by Martin and Russell. They hypothesize that life on Earth began and alkaline hydrothermal vents in the ocean, around which porous rocks of iron and nickel sulfide would form semi-permeable cell-like compartments in which basic organic molecules formed by the geochemistry of the vent could concentrate and react with each other. Raw materials would be constantly input from the vent, and there would be a constant energy gradient in the form of heat, pH, and proton-motive force. This neatly solves several problems of many hypotheses of abiogenesis: the energy problems, the raw materials problem, and the concentration problem to name a few. They outline the overall picture of going from geochemistry to biochemistry to prokaryotes to eukaryotes in this 2003 paper:
A search for either of those followed by clicking on the "Cited By" link on Google Scholar will yield many papers, including some actual experiments supporting them, which expand and clarify these hypotheses. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the possible origins of life on Earth, as well as perhaps some ideas of what to look for when looking for life elsewhere.
Anyway, point being, this is fantastic work by NASA, and an excellent example of showing that these molecules can form naturally. Just be careful about drawing any definite conclusions from them other than the simple conclusion that Uracil can form in these natural conditions, and possibly or probably others.
I agree that we shouldn't jump to specific conclusions. However, one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
I like to think that what's being assembled is a catalog of compounds that were around prior to abiogenesis. This allows us to build more accurate models of both the environment and of potential pathways to the first primitive replicators.
one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
Most of the abiogenesis-is-impossible talks/discussions/arguments that I have heard chiefly deal with formation of life from the necessary molecules - e.g., the necessary protiens - not the formation of those molecules themselves. In other words, even if all the necessary components were there, those components don't magically create life. Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they? (open to reading somethi
Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they?
Not a full on living system, no. However, the components, such as evolving self-replicators (in the form of RNA) have been made in labs. Pretty amazing stuff. (linky [npr.org] linky [newscientist.com])
This is one of the things that annoys me about those kinds of creationist/ID arguments. It took nature on the order of 400(+/- 100) million years to go from inorganic geochemistry to free living chemoautotrophs, and yet, they somehow expect scientists to be able to replicate that in the lab in the half-century or so that we've been able t
It's heading towards understanding the origins of life on earth and anywhere else it may have arisen or came from.
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common, but uh it could help in our search for life on other planets, creating useful life-like things on earth, and hey why not some medical applications? Geeze who cares at this point? Not I. This is basic research of the most important kind. Who knows what could result?
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common...
Be kind. Most people need something tangible to inspire creative thought. To the OP, imagine, if you will, browsing the aisles of a toy store in your local mall. Next to the ant farm kits, and legos, you see
New from Ronco(TM). LifeBuilder(TM) 1.0. Disclaimer: Space-like conditions and meteorites not included.
It's heading towards understanding the origins of life on earth and anywhere else it may have arisen or came from.
There's a committed portion of the US population who don't need to "head..towards understanding the origins of life" because they are absolutely certain that they know exactly how life came about because some Bronze Age scroll tells them so. They're not going to take kindly to anything that could challenge their certainty.
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
This is basic research of the most important kind.
You think so, and I think so, but a very vocal and (seemingly) influential minority thinks it's heresy.
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
That's just stupid. Simply put, there has to be a lot more fundamentalist Christians than there are for such a thing to come about. My view is that the embryo ban came about because it was an icky, new technology like cloning or artificial insemination. After it's been around for a couple of decades, nobody but a few people will give it a second thought.
The example of artificial insemination is a good example. When artificial insemination was first introduced there was a lot of outcry over it. Now the only major objection is from the Catholic Church. Others who still object do so out of side-effects such as the destruction of embryos rather than objecting to the process as a whole (which the Catholic Church does). And in a few years even the Catholics will likely be fine with it.
But at the same time, this sort of example isn't so great. It involves a direct application: people are much more willing to change their ethical and moral attitudes when they see the actual benefits of a new technology.
The general worry of poor treatment of science is a valid one. Sarah Palin railed against research involving "fruit flies" and John McCain complained about research about bear DNA, and neither of those even had any moral or ethical component to them. There's a very strong anti-science attitude in certain groups in the United States. Worse, it appears on both sides of the political spectrum (the anti-vaccination movement and much of the fringier elements of alternative medicine are very much on the left end of the political spectrum). Moreover, strongly negative attitudes about evolution and abiogenesis research have already won out in some Islamic countries. Look at Turkey for example which is a nominally secular country (indeed with disturbingly enforced secularism) and yet evolution isn't taught in schools and universities have trouble doing any research connected to evolution or abiogenesis. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/11/islamic_creationism_in_the_new.php [scienceblogs.com] for a quick summary of the current situation in the Islamic world. Moreover, Islamic creationists in Turkey have succeeded partially due to support and cooperation with Christian creationists in the United States. So it is possible for religious fanatics to really restrict this sort of thing: It has happened in other countries. Is it likely? Probably not. But it isn't impossible.
I agree that research should be allowed on this stuff but some of the opposition isn't crazy Christians. People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human". This has nothing to do with souls and more to do with defining important things like what constitutes murder. When is the magic point where some living thing goes from being thrown away as abortion waste to being something so valuable that society could potentially put someone to death for killing it.
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons. Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I think this scientific research is way more important than a national health care plan, yet I still think boundaries should be respected if a valid reason is brought up. I know we now know how to obtain special cells easily without harm to anything, but in the past that wasn't exactly the case and I think that set off the panic that got the research criticized so much.
People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human".
What distinguishes a homo sapiens sapiens from another ambulatory pile of cells, like a bovine for instance?
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons.
You're opposed to research into abiogenesis because you're afraid it will take away our "humanity"?
If you can define what this valuelable "humanity" thing is without invoking religious concepts (like souls), then I'd think there would no longer be a worry about research like this taking it away. I'd suggest it's something to do with sentience/consciousness and the different levels of it possessed by different people (and other animals)
Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I don't think secular moral and ethical systems have much to worry about from scientific research.
Though he seems to be reviled in some quarters, perhaps reading Peter Singer [wikipedia.org] is a start?
Mods can have my karma if they want it, its still a purely religious assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There's no definitive reason why it couldn't have happened, we observe life on this planet, and there is no real competing hypothesis, so it seems a reasonable, though speculative, hypothesis to entertain. Not certainty like the "God did it" crowd seem to have, but a rational inference from the data:-)
It's unobserved and there's good reason to believe its impossible (e.g. the chirality problem).
I wasn't aware the chirality problem was evidence towards abiogenesis being impossible, more that it presents a very interesting and challenging question as to why one particular handedness become dominant.
its still a purely speculative assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There. Fixed that for you.
It is possible to speculate, and even to hold firm beliefs in the absence of evidence, which are not religious (ie. involving some supernatural intelligence) in nature. In fact they might even be scientific, albeit unsubstantiated, in nature. The attempt to equate any kind of unsubstantiated speculation with "religion," is in extremely bad faith. That 'believers' seem to be doing this, involving as
The bible belt is becoming more influential because it has more money. Northern liberals have been foolishly dismissing the bible belt as stupid now for 50 years and really at their own peril, for, while they have done so, the bible belt has utterly stacked the deck of American commercial policy to its advantage. The bible belt needs protectionist food, and free trade goods, so it can import cheap tools and labors to sell crops to a captive market, and lo, what is American trade policy? Gee... we write GM bailout size checks to American farmers every year and no one complains, because the bible belt has us convinced that this glaring exception to the free trade they advocate is not an exception at all.
Basically its showing that the basic parts of RNA can form in conditions that are likely in outer space. If they can be shown to do so, then the theory that "life" (in some sort of manner) either started "out there" (cue Patrick Macnee [wikipedia.org]), or that it's plausible that the parts came together on Earth in a natural fashion after being transported here by comets, meteorites, etc.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Sure. Picture this: you really need some uracil, but don't have a lot of scratch to buy it. You're out of luck, right? WRONG! Got some pyrimidine, ice, and a source of UV light? Guess what? THAT'S ALL YOU NEED!
With all the money you'll save with this, maybe you could treat yourself to some fancypants store-bought cytosine.
If we show panspermia is possible, then the notion that life began on earth is in question. The onus is then to prove that there is not (or was not) life elsewhere in the universe, instead of the reverse.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Much like how Star Trek has helped inspire technology, I believe Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick pioneered an application that could utilize this. That application would be the orbital baby. How the baby was made and the uses of said baby are left up to the opinion of the viewer. Of course that could be said for the rest of 2001: A Space Odyssey as well.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going.
That's how basic research works. You don't know where it's going to lead until suddenly you discover germs, or electricity, or proteins, or vitamins, or x-rays. Or just a better understanding of how the universe works--that's pretty valuable in its own right.
They're refining the variables in the Drake Equation
Apparently the building blocks of life are not so very difficult to synthesize as to make us, the V's, or little green men, LIFE impossible to exist anywhere else.
On the series Cosmos Carl Sagan threw all the ingredients for life (carbon, nitrogen, water, etc) into a vat, stirred it up, and got nothing. I wonder what we will be stirring up in 20-50 years.
Also another direct application of this technique could be them trying out OTHER substances and situati
Not necessarily. Just because it occurs naturally, doesn’t mean that a God didn’t use this technique to design life on earth.
Full disclosure: I don’t currently believe in such a God, due to lacking supporting evidence. However, as a scientist, I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
Do we hide the fact that we modify corn, from the corn plants? Do we go out of our way to ensure the corn plants, SHOULD they evolve intelligence, never find out they were created?
Um, you mean the ones that Monsanto gave Terminator genes to so they would never evolve into Skynet and kill us all?
This does not show that the basic building blocks of life were made by entirely natural processes. This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes. I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too. Not to mention the difficulty in getting "building blocks" or "components" to end up forming the actual thing that they are components/building-blocks of.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too.
We can't use induction as proof, because this is not mathematics.
We can use induction to say that we can reasonably expect to discover that other building blocks can form from natural processes as well, though. At the very least, this reduces -- again -- the number of things we know can be formed naturally. The trend is pretty obvious, and if you're holding out on something coming up that can't be formed naturally then you'll probably be disappointed.
This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes.
The Miller-Urey experiment [wikipedia.org] was also fruitful here. Over modest timescales in likely primordial Earth environments it appears that the building blocks formed are the ones commonest to all forms of life-as-we-know-it. The leap from "could have" to "did" is getting more manageable every few years.
The experiment in TFA goes further - finding methods for synthesis of the components not on a primordial Earth, but in space. This is a net positive for the panspermia theory. Oh, and BTW: you left off an important part of that quote.
Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.
We'll know more when we start dissecting comets, and even more when we dissect comets that orbit other stars. The tricky thing about life is that it takes darned little of it to make all of the life that we see.
No one is saying that this discovery somehow is some giant leap, but it sure makes the likelihood of the chemistry being more tenable. At any rate, at least us "evolutionists" come up with testable hypotheses. I mean, how do you falsify "God did it"? Or do you even bother as your movement spends more time trying to trick dimwitted school boards and judges into buying the pure crapola that is ID?
This is, however, one more piece of evidence to support evolution and one more bit of knowledge that we can use to understand where we came from.
There is no scientifically tenable theory for human origins except for evolution from a common ancestor. It's been that was for about a hundred years. Get over it.
It doesn't but since it is an Agency it can have more than a single mission? What you think the FBI or CIA should ONLY investigate a single case at a time?
Who ever moded you Offtopic is confused. NASA has basically repeated early 1950's science [wikipedia.org]; why? If this experiment had been done on the Moon, then I would have lead a 3 Cheer Salute. This repeated experiment only reaffirms what is common knowledge in Middle School. So NASA, how about it, how about putting NASA's administrative offices on the Moon? That way when some scientists does something, the focus of, "Why Are We Here" can be made more clear, and at a level even a child could appreciate.
Ah, Uracil! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasn't that the secret ingredient that made Sucrets sooth sore throats 27% faster? Or Pampers 14% drier? Or Lucky Strikes the choice of five out of six doctors surveyed?
But seriously . . . cool.
If only because the Discovery Institute will have to scrap another set of creationist text books.
Re:Ah, Uracil! (Score:4, Informative)
As if. Creationists don't care about facts. If they did, they wouldn't be creationists.
Parent
Re:Ah, Uracil! (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. They pretty much deny a number of facts. What they deny will change over time, and often will change depending on the audience. I have had Creationists deny in one moment any evolution beyond species variation, then the next claim that some degree of macroevolution is possible, then in the next try to rearend Biblical "kinds" into genuses and families. In fact, the only thing that Creationists can be counted on to declare as "fact" is that no matter how much evolution is going on, men and apes are not related.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evolution is a theory, and a fact. (Score:4, Informative)
Evolution -is- a fact; evolution has been observed and tested and met the criteria of a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The number of scientific papers where evolution as fact has been observed number in the hundred thousand or millions.
This extraordinary body of evidence consists of numerous tests of evolution, and easily fulfills any common definition of fact. [google.com]
Evolution is also a theory, in the scientific sense-- which means that it is a broadly applicable set of principles that help explain nature.
Much has been written regarding this; a little use of the 'ol google will provide much more to show you wrong.
Parent
Re:Ah, Uracil! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God put that stuff there and then made it all come together to form life.
*blinks* I'm confused about this one. It seems that you are suggesting that all Creationists (and by extension, Christians) believe God used evolution to form life? While there are plenty of "Theistic Evolutionists," there are also those that believe evolution of species did not occur at all (and that God did not use evolution).
Re: (Score:2)
How is declaring anything all Creationists believe in any way related to what all Christians believe? Creationism, in Catholic theology, is a heresy (see St. Augustine).
Holy tag time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possible Interpretations... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a feeling that this will lead to the speculation that Earth was therefore seeded with fundamental biomolecules from space and this paved the way for life to begin on Earth. I hope people don't jump to this conclusion too quickly. Personally, I find it unlikely and think there is a more likely interpretation, which I will get to in a moment. The reason this is unlikely is that just having biomolecules is not enough to start life processes. Especially in the time frame when life is hypothesized to have originated (~3.8Gya), as the surface of the Earth was completely covered by ocean at that time, and any seeding of organic molecules from external sources runs into the concentration problem: the problem of getting enough of the right molecules in the right place with the right concentration and the right inputs of energy and raw materials for biochemistry to begin. Any such seeding from external sources would end up very dilute, and biomolecules would likely break down before they could be gathered in sufficient concentrations.
Personally, one possible interpretation which I prefer is that these findings (and similar ones of finding amino acids in comets and such) indicate that organic biomolecules are fairly common and will form anywhere you have C, O, H, N, S, etc and energy. Not only would this indicate that biomolecules could form fairly easily on Earth, but that they are common in the universe, and organic life may arise just about anywhere you have an input of energy and raw materials and a way of concentrating those molecules so they will react and form self-organizing and self-replicating biochemistry.
My current favorite hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth are those championed by Martin and Russell. They hypothesize that life on Earth began and alkaline hydrothermal vents in the ocean, around which porous rocks of iron and nickel sulfide would form semi-permeable cell-like compartments in which basic organic molecules formed by the geochemistry of the vent could concentrate and react with each other. Raw materials would be constantly input from the vent, and there would be a constant energy gradient in the form of heat, pH, and proton-motive force. This neatly solves several problems of many hypotheses of abiogenesis: the energy problems, the raw materials problem, and the concentration problem to name a few. They outline the overall picture of going from geochemistry to biochemistry to prokaryotes to eukaryotes in this 2003 paper:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells [royalsocie...ishing.org] - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85
They further clarify the possible pathways for a shift from geochemistry to biochemistry in this 2006 paper:
On the origin of biochemistry at an alkaline hydrothermal vent [royalsocie...ishing.org] - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 29 October 2007 vol. 362 no. 1486 1887-1926
A search for either of those followed by clicking on the "Cited By" link on Google Scholar will yield many papers, including some actual experiments supporting them, which expand and clarify these hypotheses. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the possible origins of life on Earth, as well as perhaps some ideas of what to look for when looking for life elsewhere.
Anyway, point being, this is fantastic work by NASA, and an excellent example of showing that these molecules can form naturally. Just be careful about drawing any definite conclusions from them other than the simple conclusion that Uracil can form in these natural conditions, and possibly or probably others.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we shouldn't jump to specific conclusions. However, one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
I like to think that what's being assembled is a catalog of compounds that were around prior to abiogenesis. This allows us to build more accurate models of both the environment and of potential pathways to the first primitive replicators.
I'm also a fan of the hyd
Re: (Score:2)
one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
Most of the abiogenesis-is-impossible talks/discussions/arguments that I have heard chiefly deal with formation of life from the necessary molecules - e.g., the necessary protiens - not the formation of those molecules themselves. In other words, even if all the necessary components were there, those components don't magically create life. Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they? (open to reading somethi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they?
Not a full on living system, no. However, the components, such as evolving self-replicators (in the form of RNA) have been made in labs. Pretty amazing stuff. (linky [npr.org] linky [newscientist.com])
This is one of the things that annoys me about those kinds of creationist/ID arguments. It took nature on the order of 400(+/- 100) million years to go from inorganic geochemistry to free living chemoautotrophs, and yet, they somehow expect scientists to be able to replicate that in the lab in the half-century or so that we've been able t
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's heading towards understanding the origins of life on earth and anywhere else it may have arisen or came from.
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common, but uh it could help in our search for life on other planets, creating useful life-like things on earth, and hey why not some medical applications? Geeze who cares at this point? Not I. This is basic research of the most important kind. Who knows what could result?
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Funny)
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common ...
Be kind. Most people need something tangible to inspire creative thought. To the OP, imagine, if you will, browsing the aisles of a toy store in your local mall. Next to the ant farm kits, and legos, you see
New from Ronco(TM). LifeBuilder(TM) 1.0.
Disclaimer: Space-like conditions and meteorites not included.
Or something like that.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a committed portion of the US population who don't need to "head..towards understanding the origins of life" because they are absolutely certain that they know exactly how life came about because some Bronze Age scroll tells them so. They're not going to take kindly to anything that could challenge their certainty.
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
You think so, and I think so, but a very vocal and (seemingly) influential minority thinks it's heresy.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
That's just stupid. Simply put, there has to be a lot more fundamentalist Christians than there are for such a thing to come about. My view is that the embryo ban came about because it was an icky, new technology like cloning or artificial insemination. After it's been around for a couple of decades, nobody but a few people will give it a second thought.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Insightful)
The example of artificial insemination is a good example. When artificial insemination was first introduced there was a lot of outcry over it. Now the only major objection is from the Catholic Church. Others who still object do so out of side-effects such as the destruction of embryos rather than objecting to the process as a whole (which the Catholic Church does). And in a few years even the Catholics will likely be fine with it.
But at the same time, this sort of example isn't so great. It involves a direct application: people are much more willing to change their ethical and moral attitudes when they see the actual benefits of a new technology.
The general worry of poor treatment of science is a valid one. Sarah Palin railed against research involving "fruit flies" and John McCain complained about research about bear DNA, and neither of those even had any moral or ethical component to them. There's a very strong anti-science attitude in certain groups in the United States. Worse, it appears on both sides of the political spectrum (the anti-vaccination movement and much of the fringier elements of alternative medicine are very much on the left end of the political spectrum). Moreover, strongly negative attitudes about evolution and abiogenesis research have already won out in some Islamic countries. Look at Turkey for example which is a nominally secular country (indeed with disturbingly enforced secularism) and yet evolution isn't taught in schools and universities have trouble doing any research connected to evolution or abiogenesis. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/11/islamic_creationism_in_the_new.php [scienceblogs.com] for a quick summary of the current situation in the Islamic world. Moreover, Islamic creationists in Turkey have succeeded partially due to support and cooperation with Christian creationists in the United States. So it is possible for religious fanatics to really restrict this sort of thing: It has happened in other countries. Is it likely? Probably not. But it isn't impossible.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that research should be allowed on this stuff but some of the opposition isn't crazy Christians. People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human". This has nothing to do with souls and more to do with defining important things like what constitutes murder. When is the magic point where some living thing goes from being thrown away as abortion waste to being something so valuable that society could potentially put someone to death for killing it.
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons. Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I think this scientific research is way more important than a national health care plan, yet I still think boundaries should be respected if a valid reason is brought up. I know we now know how to obtain special cells easily without harm to anything, but in the past that wasn't exactly the case and I think that set off the panic that got the research criticized so much.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Insightful)
People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human".
What distinguishes a homo sapiens sapiens from another ambulatory pile of cells, like a bovine for instance?
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons.
You're opposed to research into abiogenesis because you're afraid it will take away our "humanity"?
If you can define what this valuelable "humanity" thing is without invoking religious concepts (like souls), then I'd think there would no longer be a worry about research like this taking it away. I'd suggest it's something to do with sentience/consciousness and the different levels of it possessed by different people (and other animals)
Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I don't think secular moral and ethical systems have much to worry about from scientific research.
Though he seems to be reviled in some quarters, perhaps reading Peter Singer [wikipedia.org] is a start?
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mods can have my karma if they want it, its still a purely religious assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There's no definitive reason why it couldn't have happened, we observe life on this planet, and there is no real competing hypothesis, so it seems a reasonable, though speculative, hypothesis to entertain. Not certainty like the "God did it" crowd seem to have, but a rational inference from the data :-)
It's unobserved and there's good reason to believe its impossible (e.g. the chirality problem).
I wasn't aware the chirality problem was evidence towards abiogenesis being impossible, more that it presents a very interesting and challenging question as to why one particular handedness become dominant.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
its still a purely speculative assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There. Fixed that for you.
It is possible to speculate, and even to hold firm beliefs in the absence of evidence, which are not religious (ie. involving some supernatural intelligence) in nature. In fact they might even be scientific, albeit unsubstantiated, in nature. The attempt to equate any kind of unsubstantiated speculation with "religion," is in extremely bad faith. That 'believers' seem to be doing this, involving as
Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
The bible belt is becoming more influential because it has more money. Northern liberals have been foolishly dismissing the bible belt as stupid now for 50 years and really at their own peril, for, while they have done so, the bible belt has utterly stacked the deck of American commercial policy to its advantage. The bible belt needs protectionist food, and free trade goods, so it can import cheap tools and labors to sell crops to a captive market, and lo, what is American trade policy? Gee... we write GM bailout size checks to American farmers every year and no one complains, because the bible belt has us convinced that this glaring exception to the free trade they advocate is not an exception at all.
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Sure. Picture this: you really need some uracil, but don't have a lot of scratch to buy it. You're out of luck, right? WRONG! Got some pyrimidine, ice, and a source of UV light? Guess what? THAT'S ALL YOU NEED!
With all the money you'll save with this, maybe you could treat yourself to some fancypants store-bought cytosine.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Funny)
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Much like how Star Trek has helped inspire technology, I believe Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick pioneered an application that could utilize this. That application would be the orbital baby. How the baby was made and the uses of said baby are left up to the opinion of the viewer. Of course that could be said for the rest of 2001: A Space Odyssey as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how basic research works. You don't know where it's going to lead until suddenly you discover germs, or electricity, or proteins, or vitamins, or x-rays. Or just a better understanding of how the universe works--that's pretty valuable in its own right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're refining the variables in the Drake Equation
Apparently the building blocks of life are not so very difficult to synthesize as to make us, the V's, or little green men, LIFE impossible to exist anywhere else.
On the series Cosmos Carl Sagan threw all the ingredients for life (carbon, nitrogen, water, etc) into a vat, stirred it up, and got nothing. I wonder what we will be stirring up in 20-50 years.
Also another direct application of this technique could be them trying out OTHER substances and situati
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Funny)
At this point the coffin is made entirely of nails.
It's almost like a crown of nails, or like nails through the wrists.
Ohhhhh... too soon?
Parent
Re:An Application? (Score:4, Insightful)
Full disclosure: I don’t currently believe in such a God, due to lacking supporting evidence. However, as a scientist, I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do we hide the fact that we modify corn, from the corn plants? Do we go out of our way to ensure the corn plants, SHOULD they evolve intelligence, never find out they were created?
Um, you mean the ones that Monsanto gave Terminator genes to so they would never evolve into Skynet and kill us all?
Re:Silly scientists.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They just happened by random chance.
Or, as the story shows, by entirely natural processes.
Parent
Re:Silly scientists.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This does not show that the basic building blocks of life were made by entirely natural processes. This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes. I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too. Not to mention the difficulty in getting "building blocks" or "components" to end up forming the actual thing that they are components/building-blocks of.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
I wish they had gone one better and stated that nobody understands IF life started on Earth.
So Say We ALL!
Re:Silly scientists.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too.
We can't use induction as proof, because this is not mathematics.
We can use induction to say that we can reasonably expect to discover that other building blocks can form from natural processes as well, though. At the very least, this reduces -- again -- the number of things we know can be formed naturally. The trend is pretty obvious, and if you're holding out on something coming up that can't be formed naturally then you'll probably be disappointed.
Parent
Re:Silly scientists.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes.
The Miller-Urey experiment [wikipedia.org] was also fruitful here. Over modest timescales in likely primordial Earth environments it appears that the building blocks formed are the ones commonest to all forms of life-as-we-know-it. The leap from "could have" to "did" is getting more manageable every few years.
The experiment in TFA goes further - finding methods for synthesis of the components not on a primordial Earth, but in space. This is a net positive for the panspermia theory. Oh, and BTW: you left off an important part of that quote.
Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.
We'll know more when we start dissecting comets, and even more when we dissect comets that orbit other stars. The tricky thing about life is that it takes darned little of it to make all of the life that we see.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And now the Creationists will come out of the woodwork with dishonesty and fallacies galore. The reality is that they are stark raving terrified.
Re:Silly scientists.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is saying that this discovery somehow is some giant leap, but it sure makes the likelihood of the chemistry being more tenable. At any rate, at least us "evolutionists" come up with testable hypotheses. I mean, how do you falsify "God did it"? Or do you even bother as your movement spends more time trying to trick dimwitted school boards and judges into buying the pure crapola that is ID?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is, however, one more piece of evidence to support evolution and one more bit of knowledge that we can use to understand where we came from.
There is no scientifically tenable theory for human origins except for evolution from a common ancestor. It's been that was for about a hundred years. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly, my first though: "Oh shiznit, Jesus is gonna be pissed at NASA".
Re:first post (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't but since it is an Agency it can have more than a single mission? What you think the FBI or CIA should ONLY investigate a single case at a time?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)