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

There is one EXTREMELY BAD MISTAKE in the experiment:


AUTOCLAVE DOES NOT REMOVE DNA.

It can pop cells and degrade proteins.

IT DOES NOT DESTROY DNA. It doesn't even completely destroy viruses.

Sure it'll deform it, but I have seen DNA in perfect shape after autoclaving, scraping, hydrochloric acid, and all sorts of things I've been trying to do to "clean off" DNA. Hell, dinosaur DNA can be reconstructed by using pieces of 300 million year old DNA.

In my lab experience DNA contamination hinders experiments involving exposed nucleotides. That's why disposable containers are always used.



The beach and ocean are obviously places where decomposition occurs which leaves DNA on pretty much most of the sand.






This is what should be done. Elemental Fe + Si + Na + ... and see if you can get life out of that.

Also sand has pieces of shells and other biotic material which WILL leave traces of DNA.





[edit on 8/8/2010 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by die_another_day

Also sand has pieces of shells and other biotic material which WILL leave traces of DNA.





[edit on 8/8/2010 by die_another_day]

Quite right. Sand is a determination of grainsize only, and can be preceded by 'fine' or 'coarse' etc. Sand does not denote the actual physical makeup based on mineralogy.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by aorAki]

I want to say thank you to everybody in this thread.

Its quite interesting that a mainstream paper picked this story up however. If people on ATS could see the flaws in this experiment, why couldnt they?

Thank you all.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
Its quite interesting that a mainstream paper picked this story up however. If people on ATS could see the flaws in this experiment, why couldnt they?

What?

The Times artcle you posted has nothing to do with Pacheo's 'experiments'; it's about something else entirely.

The two have connexion whatsoever. It's a mystery to me why you even linked to that article, or to the paper that inspired it.

reply to post by Astyanax


Its about something different? No connection to his work? How do you mean?

Some quotes from it:

SCIENTISTS have discovered that inorganic material can take on the characteristics of living organisms in space, a development that could transform views of alien life.

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

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Copernicus]

I find your thread really "off" but I really don't feel like writing so much this early.

I don't see the proof anywhere that DNA existed throughout the test. And if it did, not all DNA is going to create something that is alive. The GATC molecules have a natural affinity to their respective pair, so having them drift towards each other would not be that unusual.

Protein gets denatured as well as such high temps so living material not so.

Your first source is about orgone energy? Really?

[edit on 9-8-2010 by ghaleon12]

reply to post by Copernicus


Basic biology:

DNA is composed of "organic" elements. AKA C H N O P S.

It's physically impossible to create CHNOPS out of sand.

Even if there is air, where is the energy and organization capability to make A G C T and U nucleotides?

reply to post by Copernicus

The Times article is not reporting on the Latino Orgone Quack's 'research'; it's about some entirely different research. There is no connection, whatever you might think. They are two compeletely different subjects.

Originally posted by die_another_day
reply to post by Copernicus

 

Basic biology:

DNA is composed of "organic" elements. AKA C H N O P S.

It's physically impossible to create CHNOPS out of sand.

Even if there is air, where is the energy and organization capability to make A G C T and U nucleotides?

I think what you're seeing with this is an agenda/opinion driven "embellishment" of the actual paper's findings.

They see that someone was able to view complex structures out of seemingly "lifeless" materials spontaneously and suddenly "life".

I've learned that I've really gotta "consider the source" when reading articles about scientific discoveries/experiments.

--------------------------

I really think that if this experiment (done some 9 years ago) would have "proved" anything considering the creation of life we'd have heard just a little more about it than a random article that loosely alludes to it's implications.

Excellent find! I don't think this proves either argument between creationism and evolution, but great fodder for both!

reply to post by Quaght


It's not real. You can't make DNA from sand and water.

Silicon is not in DNA for our world, and it requires a lot to pump life into it.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Copernicus
Its quite interesting that a mainstream paper picked this story up however. If people on ATS could see the flaws in this experiment, why couldnt they?

Because they are journalists who in my experience know very little about anything else other than journalism. Practising journalism seems to remove common sense and any other knowledge gained. It is like some sort of pact with the devil

ATS has a wide range of people from many disciplines so there is always someone who knows what they are talking about in virtually any subject.