Evidence! Amino Acids (building blocks of life) Formed by Collision of Comet

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


Here you go


'Shock synthesis of amino acids from impacting cometary and icy planet surface analogues' published 15 September 2013, 2013 Nature Geoscience




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Wow, So your saying they created the DNA molecule from colliding objects in a simulator??

The molecule they created, was able to replicate itself too...right?

and contained the string of a billion encoded atoms in the double helix structure like photographed in this thread?


DNA is directly photographed for the first time
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread903890/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com...


If not, what was the most complex molecule it formed??
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: double link, removed the http so ppl can see the thread url



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Unfortunately, I would say this adds to the atheist's viewpoint. If the universe is truly random, then either: no life should exist, or if it exists, then it should be simple to form and abundant. If Earth was the only planet with life, then that adds to the Creationist's viewpoint, since the probability would be too small for random chance.

However, this is assuming that the UFOs don't show, so it's sort of a double-edged sword. In order for this argument to hold, we have to assume that there is life elsewhere, but that life will never reach the capability to traverse space, because if they do, then that means God exists, because aliens believe in God(and are in fact, lower-level gods themselves).

On the other hand, consciousness and the fact that this universe is a simulation is almost all but proven, so I'm not sure if this argument is even relevant anymore.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Who created God? If life is simple to form, then there's your answer. I would imagine God must have started as some combination of heat and water, or whatever primary substance is there in his dimension.

The atheist will argue, well, then that means that we don't need God to evolve then. While that's true, they still have to answer about the laws of the universe, and they will have to live with the possibility that we can eventually evolve into gods ourselves, which would be impossible only if the UFOs don't show indefinitely, or we stopped evolving.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


Finding the Ark of the Covenant or a Saucer would settle it once and for all!

Cuz, finding their bodies sure isn't cutting it..

1. Peruvian Alien Mummy - History channel testing and silencing this guys results....
2. Ata Sirius small 6 inch humanoid - DNA results, not human
3. Atta boy, Ripleys 7 inch humanoid - unknown
4. Star Child Hybrid Skull - DNA Results, not human or strangely 1/2 human

So we can find bodies all day long, they are just gonna keep sweeping them under the rug!
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added: or strangely 1/2 human



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
They have actually gotten better results by applying electrical currents into the same mixtures.

Its just salts, oils or fats, water etc in a sterile glass beaker with a rubber stopper cap. the rubber stopper has 2 wires that come through, u can change the wires or electrodes for different metals. Then add an electric current with batteries or other higher end devices. The lower the currents the better i think.

Some beakers you shake, another set you don't shake, some you might put in the sun, some not, etc.


It is still a long way from a protein!

A fun way to understand Proteins is this game Fold it.

I can't see a comet doing what we are simulating in Fold it @ home.

Its just about building proteins, some are a lot better than others!

folding.stanford.edu

Its distributed computing and a game that actually helps protein research!
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: typos



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
If the believers viewpoint is the acceptance of the idea that the universe was created by "god", and that this (or these) "god(s)" always existed (no one created him/her/them), then I have the following point to make.

Since believers are already open to the idea that something (god) can exist without being "created", then why is it so hard to imagine that the universe itself has always existed, in one form or another, without being created.

Prior to the big bang, maybe the universe existed, in another form. Maybe the universe just is, was, and always will be.

My viewpoint anyway.

edit on 20-9-2013 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


Its like the cartoon questioning the Cartoonist.

Our Universe = Operating System, DNA/RNA = Application



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

AbleEndangered
They have actually gotten better results by applying electrical currents into the same mixtures.

Its just salts, oils or fats, water etc in a sterile glass beaker with a rubber stopper cap. the rubber stopper has 2 wires that come through, u can change the wires or electrodes for different metals. Then add an electric current with batteries or other higher end devices. The lower the currents the better i think.

Some beakers you shake, another set you don't shake, some you might put in the sun, some not, etc.


It is still a long way from a protein!

A fun way to understand Proteins is this game Fold it.

I can't see a comet doing what we are simulating in Fold it @ home.

Its just about building proteins, some are a lot better than others!

folding.stanford.edu

Its distributed computing and a game that actually helps protein research!
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: typos


Sure amino acids are a long way from a full protein BUT..

It has been examined in research that amino acids bind to form nucleotides naturally. Nucleotides then combine to create RNA which later evolves to DNA.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I have seen an experiment similar to this done before, a couple of years ago... they put the relevant organic material in to a projectile, fired it through what looked like a laboratory version of a rail gun to produce the relevant velocities involved and then fired it in to a thick steel block, and recognisable protein strands where the result.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

scojak
With more planets in the universe than grains of sand on Earth, it's basically a guarantee that this has occurred naturally somewhere. And with proof of evolution all around us, I feel comfortable saying that this is a very plausible explanation for how intelligent beings came to be.


Can you explain to me then how conciseness occurs what is the bases of the little thing we call thoughts, and what is your definition of a intelligent life? And since evolution is all around us please point out some of this evolution on a macro scale. thanks



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

guitarplayer

scojak
With more planets in the universe than grains of sand on Earth, it's basically a guarantee that this has occurred naturally somewhere. And with proof of evolution all around us, I feel comfortable saying that this is a very plausible explanation for how intelligent beings came to be.


Can you explain to me then how conciseness occurs what is the bases of the little thing we call thoughts, and what is your definition of a intelligent life? And since evolution is all around us please point out some of this evolution on a macro scale. thanks


Yawn . . . 20yrs and still creationist bring the same tired arguments . . . over and over.

Micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing . . . the only difference is the time scale it's measured on. Why is that so hard to understand? Or did you just think you had some sort of "gotcha" information that hasn't been refuted long ago?

Consciousness

Deep thoughts . . .



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
These guys need some clarity:

It never formed a molecule as complex as a protein in either experiment. Electric or impact...

Only a minute 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a protein, I can go on with zero's for a while!!

This was enough to satisfy the majority, so they can go on misbehaving.

It is no where near a protein!



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Are you serious? Peanut butter has more amino acids and proteins than a thousand rocks and ice can create.. Even with a "specialized gun".. Peanut butter would be a more ideal situation for life than what they are proposing.. Mr Misslers comments is to show how utterly absurd the whole theory is..



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HooHaa
 


Good sticking up for the Man, and Very well said!!

Peanut Butter could work as agar agar!

I was upset with OP when I seen he already insulted the guy, before the thread started!



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

ZiggyMojo

JohnPhoenix
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


If comets and such breed life therefore a space rock is playing god. Therefore those Russian folks who are worshiping the meteorite that came down in February may not be so crazy after all. LOL

Really this means Nothing for us Humans. So what a collision makes this chemical exchange, this new creation of acids take place - thats all it means. There is nothing here that suggests we humans got our present life's start by the help of a comet.


I think you're grossly misinterpreting my post. Amino's are proteins.. The same exact ones that make up RNA which later becomes DNA. That's pretty substantial evidence that a simple interaction of heat and h20 can create the initial building blocks needed to start life. Prior to this it was only speculated that this could happen and there was no evidence. We know that under the right conditions, amino acids combine to create nucleotides. The Nucleotides band together to create RNA. In labs, setup with RNA replicators, scientists have witness RNA evolving into DNA. DNA is THE "building block" of life.

I never said anything about humans coming from a comet.. I said that scientific theories like panspermia are being supported by the evidence provided by these experiments. If Panspermia proves to be real, then it blows a huge hole in creationist belief.

This answer the question of "where" does it start for life.. Or how could it have started here?

Now the transition from DNA to complex organism is the next step in the process. We've witnessed species evolve in experiments and even seen speciation through geographic separation, but we haven't been studying "evolution" long enough to witness dramatic differences that would explain something as different or complex as human origin. The pieces are coming together and this part was essential for making the rest even a remote possibility.


According to Moore's law it has been estimated that it would take 9.7 billion years for life to evolve from its simplest form a bacteria to become what we have today.
www.dailygalaxy.com...
The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. So this life form would of had to of been evolving for 5 billion years on this comet. The numbers do not add up.
edit on 20-9-2013 by guitarplayer because: added website for reference



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

guitarplayer

ZiggyMojo

JohnPhoenix
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


If comets and such breed life therefore a space rock is playing god. Therefore those Russian folks who are worshiping the meteorite that came down in February may not be so crazy after all. LOL

Really this means Nothing for us Humans. So what a collision makes this chemical exchange, this new creation of acids take place - thats all it means. There is nothing here that suggests we humans got our present life's start by the help of a comet.


I think you're grossly misinterpreting my post. Amino's are proteins.. The same exact ones that make up RNA which later becomes DNA. That's pretty substantial evidence that a simple interaction of heat and h20 can create the initial building blocks needed to start life. Prior to this it was only speculated that this could happen and there was no evidence. We know that under the right conditions, amino acids combine to create nucleotides. The Nucleotides band together to create RNA. In labs, setup with RNA replicators, scientists have witness RNA evolving into DNA. DNA is THE "building block" of life.

I never said anything about humans coming from a comet.. I said that scientific theories like panspermia are being supported by the evidence provided by these experiments. If Panspermia proves to be real, then it blows a huge hole in creationist belief.

This answer the question of "where" does it start for life.. Or how could it have started here?

Now the transition from DNA to complex organism is the next step in the process. We've witnessed species evolve in experiments and even seen speciation through geographic separation, but we haven't been studying "evolution" long enough to witness dramatic differences that would explain something as different or complex as human origin. The pieces are coming together and this part was essential for making the rest even a remote possibility.


According to Moore's law it has been estimated that it would take 9.7 billion years for life to evolve from its simplest form a bacteria to become what we have today.
www.dailygalaxy.com...
The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. So this life form would of had to of been evolving for 5 billion years on this comet. The numbers do not add up.
edit on 20-9-2013 by guitarplayer because: added website for reference


Again, you've misinterpreted my post as well. Never did I say that all life on this planet originated from the conception of some amino acids.. Rather Panspermia is being validated by this research..

From the very same article you're quoting.. It also says this:


Sharov and Gordon also point out that astronomers believe that our Solar Nebula formed from the remnants of an earlier star, suggesting that life from this period might be preserved in the original gas, dust and ice clouds. In a form of Cosmic pansermia, life on Earth may be a continuation of a process that began many billions of years before the formation of our Solar System.


Not once does it say Moore's law PROVES. It repeatedly says "suggests". The article also talks about how we've managed to shorten the doubling of complexity via technology..


Additionally they suggest that the evolution of advanced organisms has accelerated via development of additional information-processing systems: epigenetic memory, primitive mind, multicellular brain, language, books, computers, and Internet. As a result the doubling time of complexity has reached about every 20 years.


So they go from:


The result is an exponential increase identical to that behind Moore’s Law with the doubling time, however, expanding to 376 million years rather than two years.


Down to 20 years for complexity multipliers..

What's to say that we're the only organisms that can speed up the process?

Beyond the fact that I never said the article from my OP explain life on earth, the information you are presenting appears to be a bit different than you've presented. You've taken a few liberties presenting the information.

Your reference still doesn't rule out Panspermia either, in fact it enforces it by saying some proteins, dna or already developed organisms could have been preserved and then finished evolving on Earth.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


"The world wide conspiracy to silence scientists who have alternate theories to mainstream ones doesn't exist."

BS-There are more things simply ignored or hidden that do not line up with the accepted history of this earth that would fill a book. As a matter of fact books have been written that go against the published facts of the history of this planet because those facts that do not line up with the published history of this planet have been supressed by the accepted peer review of this world. So saying that there is not a conspericy to bury facts by scientist is pure BS.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


Let's see what Mary says!

Video of Mary on 60 minutes
Video Title: scientific community attack and deny dinosaur soft tissue and bloo
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2cvuJ1mYg


They fired Mark Armitage over the same thing, cuz he didn't carefully word how scientists need to re-think the fossilization process like Mary did.

He just straight up said they are wrong!

Here is his paper you can glance through the clip notes and pics.

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


At this point it is all theory but still even if we are the remains of an older system the total system is on 13.7 billion years old. There is not enough time and not enough chances for it to be valid anyway. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. So in their theory of it taking 9.5 billion years from bacteria to us it is still not enough time to produce what we have today. Take into consideration what the chances of a comet having life on it and it hitting the earth at the right time (not to hot not to cold) is astronomical to say the least. Calculated at 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.





top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join