Scientific Evidence for DNA spontanously forming from only sand and water in sterile environment

reply to post by Copernicus


DNA needs elements other than Silicon and Oxygen. Ochoa either made a mistake and contaminated his sample or the things you see are silica, like, as was noted, diatomaceous earth.

No life from a test tube, yet.

Originally posted by Copernicus
reply to post by 35Foxtrot

 

I dont think this professor would make such a basic mistake, but lets find out. Im not a scientist, but shouldnt this experiment be very easily to replicate if you have access to some basic stuff?

Would be awesome if someone on ATS could do it.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Yeah. That's why I read it twice... It seems like a basic error that would not happen. But, he is so clear on the procedure of sterilizing and autoclaving, etc... with everything else. It made his omission of that one part just jump out at me. I'd test it myself if I had the equipment but, alas, I do not have the tools on hand. I would have thought that in the 10 years since this came out, someone would have replicated the tests with similar results...

edit: ahhh. Wait, I see you linked to the original paper. Let me look it over to see if he goes into any other details about the test tube.

another edit: OK. Hold on.

www.orgone.org...

I stopped reading his original paper when I saw this link on that page. "Sexual/Sensual rights of children?!" Wha? I'm all for giving the guy a chance but sorry, I gotta think they've got some common sense before I waste my time reading that whole thing. I stopped reading after the link starts talking about how kids should be allowed to be "touched gently." No. Sorry.



[edit on 7/8/10 by 35Foxtrot]

[edit on 7/8/10 by 35Foxtrot]

Originally posted by zzombie
While I do believe life was created by a higher power, there is one possible flaw in this experiment. The silica skeletons of diatoms would survive the white hot heat.

Diatomaceous earth
en.wikipedia.org...


This would not explain the DNA being found though.

And it is widely know that the prions that cause "mad cow" disease are not killed via autoclaving.

Off the top of my head, I would think that if such is the case, all sand beaches (with water!) would be teeming with life such that we couldn't see the sand for all of the wiggling and flagellation. --Or is that a grave misconception of the theory? Maybe so, huh?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Aliensun]

The bible says we were made from dirt, and from dirt we will return.


eminem

"I've been treated notting like dirt"

Originally posted by Copernicus

I'm no molecular biologist but even I can pick out the immediate flaws in the claim that DNA is spontaneously created.

... that loose inorganic materials can spontaneously and intelligently spiral together to form DNA ...

DNA is essentially created from the specific combination of 4 amino acid bases, namely Adenosine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine. Therefore for a DNA strand to self-assemble would require the presence of sufficient quantities of these amino acids.

However, the experiment states

Heat beach sand to white-hot luminescence...

which would involve extremely high temperatures. Such temperatures would be more than sufficient to breakdown or decompose all 4 required amino acids into much simpler products.

Here are the decomposition temperatures:

Adenosine 234c
Guanine 360c
Cytosine 320c
Thymine 316c

Admittedly, G,C and T have signigicantly higher decomposition temps than Adenosine and could potentially remain intact after heating, However, Adenosine decomposes into simpler substances at just a little more than twice the boiling point of water and it would be expected that any original Adenosine in the sand sample would have very quickly broken down when heated to white-hot luminescence.

So, NO Adenosine ... therefore NO self-assembling DNA.

I'm therefore inclined to call BS on this one !

[edit on 7/8/10 by tauristercus]

This is not scientific evidence of anything.

It is a claim made in a pseudoscientific paper, non-peer-reviewed and published on a website dedicated to the pseudoscientific, long-discredited theories of Wilhelm Reich, a man who was never a scientist, merely a follower of Sigmund Freud who quarrelled with Freud and set of on a long career of self-deluded quackery.

Obviously the samples were contaminated. Contamination is a constant problem when working with biological samples because life on Earth is ubiquitous and sterilization is harder than lay people think.

The claims made are nothing but a load of nonsense. Indeed, they are so nonsensical they do not even require detailed debunking. It is obvious from first principles that they are false.

reply to post by tauristercus


Are you saying that the organisms that were created from the sand was because they heated up the sand? But that is exactly what the article is about. They are creating life from something that is not alive, i.e. sand.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

The other people on this page who have commented have basically only said things along the lines that "obviously the sample was contaminated because this is not possible". I would have hoped for something more than your assumptions considering the importance of this.

Let me quote something from the Times article:

An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.

A similar rethinking of prospective alien life is being undertaken by the National Research Council, an advisory body to the US government. It says Nasa should start a search for what it describes as “weird life” - organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life on Earth.

The new research, to be published this week in the New Journal of Physics, found nonorganic dust, when held in the form of plasma in zero gravity, formed the helical structures found in DNA. The particles are held together by electromagnetic forces that the scientists say could contain a code comparable to the genetic information held in organic matter. It appeared that this code could be transferred to the next generation.

The findings have provoked speculation that the helix could be a common structure that underpins all life, organic and nonorganic.

"Speculation that the helix could be a common structure that underpins all life, organic and non organic". I think you have to be careful to not disregard this information based on your own preconceptions.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Are you saying that the organisms that were created from the sand was because they heated up the sand? But that is exactly what the article is about. They are creating life from something that is not alive, i.e. sand.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Unfortunately it appears I wasn't clear in my post.
I was essentially disputing the claim that DNA spontaneously assembled in the sealed test-tube from nothing more than "sterilized' sand and water.

As I pointed out, the claim that the sand was heated to white hot luminescence implies that the sand was subjected to extremely high temperatures for it to luminesce. Sand is primarily silica (silicon dioxide) and has a melting point around 1600c. This luminescent behaviour would not occur at temps below 300c.

And as I pointed out in my earlier post, temps around 300c would have resulted in the decomposition of any A,G, T & C contaminants originally in the sand into simpler compounds and therefore eliminated the basic and essential amino acids required to create DNA.

So if he's claiming that organisms, and therefore DNA, were spontaneously created ... then I have to ask how were the A,G,T & C amino acids created/produced/obtained from in order to assemble the DNA required to eventually create the so-called organisms ?

Also, an organism is orders more complex/complicated then just the DNA strands themselves ... so how was the DNA read to produce the proteins, etc to construct the organisms ? This implies that mRNA, tRNA, etc, etc must also have been created as well. Then a nucleus to contain the DNA ... then a cell to contain the nucleus ... then mitochondria to power the cell ... the list just goes on and on.

And all the above from just sand and water inside a sealed glass tube.

I think not !

[edit on 8/8/10 by tauristercus]

Originally posted by tauristercus
So if he's claiming that organisms, and therefore DNA, were spontaneously created ... then I have to ask how were the A,G,T & C amino acids created/produced/obtained from in order to assemble the DNA required to eventually create the so-called organisms ?

I dont think they know yet. This is what is new and contradictory to the science that is already known. Something is creating DNA from "nothing".

Originally posted by tauristercus
Also, an organism is orders more complex/complicated then just the DNA strands themselves ... so how was the DNA read to produce the proteins, etc to construct the organisms ? This implies that mRNA, tRNA, etc, etc must also have been created as well. Then a nucleus to contain the DNA ... then a cell to contain the nucleus ... then mitochondria to power the cell ... the list just goes on and on.

And all the above from just sand and water inside a sealed glass tube.

I think not !

Same answer as above, meaning there is no information yet how this is possible.

That doesnt mean that it is impossible. Only that we lack the knowledge to understand it at this point.

Originally posted by Copernicus




Hermetically seal the test-tube shut with a Bakelite cover, and let the mixture cool down for an hour. Then pop it in an autoclave and sterilize it. The autoclave uses temperatures and pressures scientifically proven to kill all forms of life we now know to exist. Nothing can possibly live through that treatment. This is how surgical instruments are sterilized so they don't introduce bacteria into the body of the patient


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ffb3528fb1d6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6af3402a1c6b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51904c6cd306.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bafb7e6280ee.jpg[/atsimg]

I see nothing but crystal growth mostly silica and the shells of dead diatoms.

As for the statement that a autoclave kills every living thing that is wrong to.

There are living bacteria that survive in hot springs and black smokers on the sea floor that would not be killed by a autoclave.

Autoclaves are used to kill harmful pathogens and just because all harmful pathogens happen to be killed. does not and has been proven that not all life form are killed by a autoclave.

A autoclave need not kill all life forms as its only needs to kill harmful ones.

reply to post by ANNED


I think the Times article is more helpful in shedding light on this. The things that was created from this experiment was alive, with memory, and the ability to reproduce themselves.

An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Several posters have commented that amino acids would have been destroyed by the heating, which is true, but they could have reformed after cooling. After all they are comprised mainly of H N O and C. Amino acids are known to spontaneously form in the depths of space.

I dont think there are any solid reasons why life could not appear under these conditions as long as the required elements were present but i suspect that the results show how difficult it is to achieve true sterility.

At some point the universe was sterile and life appeared where conditions allowed. We know of at least one place where this must have happened.

If this experiment can be improved and replicated then it demonstrates that life is an intrinsic property of this universe either naturally or supernaturally.

Okay, so they heat normal beach sand to white hot luminescence...

And then they put the glass that is formed in the test tube? Or do they crush
the glass back into sand first. The article doesn't say. It just says they
put the sand back in the test tube...is it still liquid glass when they pour
it in?.....I'm not understanding.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by rival]

Originally posted by LightFantastic
I suspect that the results show how difficult it is to achieve true sterility.

This is absolutely a possibility, yes.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
If this experiment can be improved and replicated then it demonstrates that life is an intrinsic property of this universe either naturally or supernaturally.

Thats what they are doing.

Life is probably extremely common in the universe.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

I`m no expert, but my gut is tellin me there`s something not quite right here. As I said before, life doesnt just pop up out of nowhere... But if it were true then I guess that answers our questions about life in the universe. If I am to understand this correctly, he is saying that this process is happening naturally in space? So then life would have landed on every planet by now, every moon. And in the space in between, too. But I really don`t know about this one. I think its more a testament to existing life`s ability to survive extreme conditions, if anything. But again I`m no expert but it doesn`t have the ring of truth for me, you`re all welcome to think what you want and I recommend you decide for yourself. But remember this has been known for almost 10 years supposedly...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Copernicus


The study The Times of London described is this one, full text freely accessible, as it's an open access journal.

Journal is by IOP, Institute of Physics.

From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter

But never should new experiments and testing be discouraged.

One member already implied discouragement and to not do this type of studies again...

reply to post by jjjtir


Ah I was looking for that one but didnt find it....

Thank you, Im adding it to the original post.

Im quoting the Institute of Physics summary here for readers who dont check it out:

Our analysis shows that if helical dust structures are formed in space, they can have bifurcations as memory marks and duplicate each other, and they would reveal a faster evolution rate by competing for `food' (surrounding plasma fluxes). These structures can have all necessary features to form `inorganic life'. This should be taken into account for formulation of a new SETI-like program based not only on astrophysical observations but also on planned new laboratory experiments, including those on the ISS. In the case of the success of such a program one should be faced with the possibility of resolving the low rate of evolution of organic life by investigating the possibility that the inorganic life `invents' the organic life.

Very interesting.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by doctor j and inmate c5779


If life doesn't 'pop out of nowhere', where did you come from?

reply to post by rival


That thought did cross my mind but sand can be white hot (1200C) below its melting point (1500C+)

I blame the water.

Arrest that water!