Origin-of-life puzzle cracked?

Posted 23 March 2015 by Matt Young

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/03/origin-of-life.html

A pair of recent articles on the Science website seems to think so. Staff writer Robert Service says Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum and writes,

Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds [HCN and H₂S], which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

Well, yes, but that is a far cry from saying the puzzle is solved. Indeed, a comment to an "in-depth" article, Origin-of-life puzzle cracked, in Science magazine notes,

The title is certainly misleading, since the origin of life puzzle is still very far from "cracked." Showing that biomolecules, even complex biomolecules, can be synthesized under plausible primordial conditions is very different from showing how those molecules could have assembled to produce the first cell. Only then can one claim to have cracked the puzzle.

That seems to me to be essentially correct, but then the author, Walter Steiner, adds, somewhat mysteriously, "Solving that puzzle will require the discovery of some currently unknown natural phenomenon." Another commenter suggests some kind of broken symmetry. The creationists, intelligent-design and otherwise, have moved in on the "conundrum" article, which is now about 1 week old and boasts almost 1000 comments, some of which actually make sense.

43 Comments

Mike Elzinga · 23 March 2015

One of the reasons that this article should be of interest to anyone trying to understand the scientific approaches to finding the origin-of-life recipe(s) is that it actually describes the thinking going into parts of the search. It also describes the need for energy cascades from energies that are extremely high compared to the binding energies of condensed matter; i.e., higher than a few tenths of an electron volt. Some chemistry on the order of an electron volt also has to be triggered, and there are lots of catalytic possibilities and reaction chains yet to be explored.

Having looked recently at the "second law of thermodynamics" arguments going on over at UD - as well as having observed ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations of basic physics and chemistry concepts for something like 50 years now - I understand pretty clearly why ID/creationists don't get it. They just can't get the concepts right. In fact, they have bastardized and bollixed up the basic science so thoroughly in their own minds that they have been "arguing" on the wrong track - while believing they are right - for decades; which means their comments on origin-of-life research are totally ignorant and irrelevant.

DS · 23 March 2015

So science has made a new discovery. That obviously means that they didn't know everything before. Therefore, jesus. Is that about it?

Seriously, it's one small step for man, not a giant leap for mankind. We already knew that biological molecules could form spontaneously under conditions found on the primitive earth. This new finding just seems to conform that. It hasn't solved the mystery of the origin of life. It hasn't answered all of the questions about abiogenesis. It is just another small step forward.

harold · 23 March 2015

If evolution denial was not bullshit some people would have sincere "questions" about evolution yet not freak out over abiogenesis.

The fact that they equate the two different problems
and insist that magic must be the answer in both cases tells you everything you need to know.

TomS · 23 March 2015

The creationists can't even get magic right.

If the supernatural agency had resource to magic, then that means that they didn't fine-tune the parameters of the universe.

If the supernatural agency got the first version of life right, then there would be no point to design of newer versions.

Design means conforming to the laws of nature. Magic doesn't care about the fine-tuning of nature.

mail.andrew.kelman · 23 March 2015

Why do comets have to be invoked again? HCN is also produced by lightning and volcanoes which are going to far more numerous events on the ancient earth than cometary impacts. Comets are unnecessary for 'bringing the building blocks of life'. The early Earth is effectively a huge, wet, warm, geologically active comet with a thick dynamic atmosphere; any synthesis that can occur on a comet can occur here in far vaster volumes.

gdavidson418 · 23 March 2015

The creationists, intelligent-design and otherwise, have moved in on the âconundrumâ article

Always in order to prove that the Designer clearly didn't Design for the purpose that all humans should think reasonably and carefully from the evidence. Well, if the Designer didn't mean for us to jump to conclusions based on the flimsiest of analogies, why didn't it make humans differently? That must be the proper way to do origins research. Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 23 March 2015

mail.andrew.kelman said: Why do comets have to be invoked again?

The point is that any energy cascade has the potential for generating the building blocks of life. It's not that comets are not necessary, it's that they are among the thousands of other things we can think of that are in the mix of possibilities needing to be explored. Contrary to what origin-of-life "skeptics" want the public to believe, scientists are confronted by a huge array of possibilities and questions that need to be explored. The approaches to these many questions involve not only questions of chemistry and catalysis, but issues about the presence of various elements and compounds, temperature and temperature fluctuations; hence the chemistry experiments in various energy cascades. But planetary exploration is also part of the mix of experiments that are being used to determine the environmental boundaries of the origins of life. If living organisms can be found elsewhere, we will have made enormous progress. Those explorations are difficult and expensive. Instrumentation on current probes is not really up to the job of detecting life itself; but it can look for the precursors and/or products of the kind of life we know on Planet Earth. It's not clear that we could recognize other forms of life based on other replicating molecules and chemistry. There has been considerable progress in getting guidance from computer simulations of the formation of the complex molecules of life. However, there is still a long way yet to go before computing capacity can deal with the complexities of these molecules existing within an energy window of only a few hundredths of an electron volt while being "tickled" into a myriad of configurations and behaviors by the heat and water bath in which they are immersed. And all of this work has to compete for money and resources in a political and economic environment that has become ideologically hostile to science. To the scientists who understand the physics and chemistry, finding the recipe is like looking for a particular needle in a mountain of needles. We know the needle(s) exist from our knowledge of chemistry and physics and from the fact that the results are all around us. All of knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology that we have points in that direction.

Henry J · 23 March 2015

Itâs not clear that we could recognize other forms of life based on other replicating molecules and chemistry.

At least not ones that are sedentary (or nearly so), microscopic, embedded well inside something we can't see through, or some other obstacle I haven't thought of yet.

TomS · 24 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said: It's not clear that we could recognize other forms of life based on other replicating molecules and chemistry.

I wonder whether there could be a different form of chemistry, as different from life on Earth as to make it difficult to decide whether to call it "life", only that is complicated enough as to deserve its own domain of study.

eric · 24 March 2015

mail.andrew.kelman said: Why do comets have to be invoked again? HCN is also produced by lightning and volcanoes which are going to far more numerous events on the ancient earth than cometary impacts. Comets are unnecessary for 'bringing the building blocks of life'. The early Earth is effectively a huge, wet, warm, geologically active comet with a thick dynamic atmosphere; any synthesis that can occur on a comet can occur here in far vaster volumes.

I could be totally off-base with this, but IIRC during the formation of the earth we were blasted with a lot of space material...and some of it was comets containing a lot/mostly ice. This is one possible explanation for why the Earth has so much liquid water. So, the cometary bombardment idea has two things going for it over the lightning idea: (1) it could've produced these chemicals before the earth was 'hot and wet,' and (2) because the source of heat and organics "brings its own water with it," these reactions will occur wherever they hit rather than just where lightning happens to strike a pre-existing source of water. I do note, however, that figure 2d has the reactions occurring where there are pre-existing streams, so I may be wrong in that second part. I've only scanned the paper so far, not read it in depth.

KlausH · 24 March 2015

eric said:
mail.andrew.kelman said: Why do comets have to be invoked again? HCN is also produced by lightning and volcanoes which are going to far more numerous events on the ancient earth than cometary impacts. Comets are unnecessary for 'bringing the building blocks of life'. The early Earth is effectively a huge, wet, warm, geologically active comet with a thick dynamic atmosphere; any synthesis that can occur on a comet can occur here in far vaster volumes.
I could be totally off-base with this, but IIRC during the formation of the earth we were blasted with a lot of space material...and some of it was comets containing a lot/mostly ice. This is one possible explanation for why the Earth has so much liquid water. So, the cometary bombardment idea has two things going for it over the lightning idea: (1) it could've produced these chemicals before the earth was 'hot and wet,' and (2) because the source of heat and organics "brings its own water with it," these reactions will occur wherever they hit rather than just where lightning happens to strike a pre-existing source of water. I do note, however, that figure 2d has the reactions occurring where there are pre-existing streams, so I may be wrong in that second part. I've only scanned the paper so far, not read it in depth.

I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?

eric · 24 March 2015

KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?

Klaus, I believe NASA is looking for exactly that. They are only expected to have 'survived' underground or in deep craters where sunlight etc. doesn't reach. AFAIK we haven't found any, but my understanding is that this result is somewhat preliminary because we have yet to get the instrument package up there for which a negative result would be a definitive "no such deposits exist."

KlausH · 24 March 2015

eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
Klaus, I believe NASA is looking for exactly that. They are only expected to have 'survived' underground or in deep craters where sunlight etc. doesn't reach. AFAIK we haven't found any, but my understanding is that this result is somewhat preliminary because we have yet to get the instrument package up there for which a negative result would be a definitive "no such deposits exist."

Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.

harold · 24 March 2015

Itâs not clear that we could recognize other forms of life based on other replicating molecules and chemistry.

That borders on being a semantic issue. By what criteria would something be "life", yet so different from all life we are familiar with that we could not recognize it? What operational definition of life would one who could recognize it be working from?

eric · 24 March 2015

KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.

So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).

KlausH · 24 March 2015

eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.
So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).

I was pointing out that there is extraterrestrial ice near the Earth, and we should either do a sample return mission or send some sort of lander or rover to analyze it. RADAR images from orbit don't cut it. And, if we send a lab to the moon for onsite analysis, it would be good rehearsal for missions further out.

gdavidson418 · 24 March 2015

KlausH said:
eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.
So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).
I was pointing out that there is extraterrestrial ice near the Earth, and we should either do a sample return mission or send some sort of lander or rover to analyze it. RADAR images from orbit don't cut it. And, if we send a lab to the moon for onsite analysis, it would be good rehearsal for missions further out.

The point of ice on Europa, etc., is that it covers liquid water. It is very unlikely that ice on our moon covers liquid water. Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 24 March 2015

TomS said:
Mike Elzinga said: It's not clear that we could recognize other forms of life based on other replicating molecules and chemistry.
I wonder whether there could be a different form of chemistry, as different from life on Earth as to make it difficult to decide whether to call it "life", only that is complicated enough as to deserve its own domain of study.

It's an intriguing question that is not just about other chemical bases for living organisms. It's not even clear that replication would be necessary if a complicated collection of molecules became a self-sustaining structure - essentially "immortal" - that continuously renewed itself by cycling elements from its environment. I don't know what kind of a "nervous system" such a structure would need in order to "communicate" among its "parts." If such a system included "memory" - and especially memories of memories - it might even be "sentient" in some sense. But could it communicate externally to itself? What would it "know" of an external world? Life as we know it is comprised of soft matter - i.e., complex assemblies of atoms and molecules that are on the verge of coming apart within the energy window of the heat bath in which they are immersed. Such structures have many more degrees of freedom to build on. But is soft matter really necessary if mobility and flexibility are not necessary? Could large, complex superconducting or superfluid structures become "sentient?" I think the implicit assumption behind most of the current research into the origins of life is that we are looking for evidence of carbon based life that is somewhat like what we find on Earth; soft matter in a heat bath that allows sufficient degrees of freedom to achieve the complexity necessary to sustain itself in the way Earth life does. That is already a pretty big research plate to get through without adding all the other complex possibilities; but it is difficult at this stage of the game to determine if we might be focusing too narrowly and overlooking something.

Just Bob · 24 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said: I donât know what kind of a ânervous systemâ such a structure would need in order to âcommunicateâ among its âparts.â If such a system included âmemoryâ - and especially memories of memories - it might even be âsentientâ in some sense. But could it communicate externally to itself? What would it âknowâ of an external world?... Could large, complex superconducting or superfluid structures become "sentient?"

Could sentience arise in the absence of competition or some sort of 'struggle for survival' that rewards increasing intelligence?

harold · 25 March 2015

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: I donât know what kind of a ânervous systemâ such a structure would need in order to âcommunicateâ among its âparts.â If such a system included âmemoryâ - and especially memories of memories - it might even be âsentientâ in some sense. But could it communicate externally to itself? What would it âknowâ of an external world?... Could large, complex superconducting or superfluid structures become "sentient?"
Could sentience arise in the absence of competition or some sort of 'struggle for survival' that rewards increasing intelligence?

Not in a meaningful sense. Because SETI and other such things focus on "intelligent life", people tend to get the concepts of "life" and "intelligence" mixed up. Human behavior is sometimes guided by intelligence, but our fundamental motivations are instinctive and emotional. Whatever "consciousness" or "awareness" is, it concerns us because we are aware of emotional reactions. Even a human writing a computer program to solve a purely academic problem in higher mathematics is intensely motivated by emotional motivations that arise from instincts. So to debate whether the computer the program will run on has "intelligence" is of minimal interest, and to debate whether the computer will suddenly develop human emotional urges is nonsensical. Of course it won't. Of course "androids" won't fall in love or plot to take over the world, unless we decide to build machines that, although motiveless themselves, are driven to mimic those behaviors by motivated humans. Consciousness may be an emergent property, but it emerged from billions of years of "unintelligent" instinctive and emotional animal behavior, not from "higher" intellectual functions. Computers can play chess far better than cats can, but cats show every sign of having emotions and consciousness, computers have neither. It is now necessary to head off in advance a certain type of "contradiction". Someone is probably planning to say that 'if near-deity like future or alien scientists could construct an artificial nervous system that included instincts and emotions it might have consciousness'. Sure, that's true, but that's true exactly in the sense of contradicting someone who says 'You'll fall if you step off a ten story building' with 'Not if I have a super-duper futuristic jetpack!'. Once you invoke imaginary or hypothetical technology, of course anything is 'possible'. For now, though, although we sometimes seek 'intelligent life', and also often work to create machines that show 'intelligence' in some pragmatic way to solve problems that would take us a long time to solve using a pencil and paper, the concepts should not be confused. However, they are in some popular science fiction, and therefore my rather obvious point will likely generate a lot of dispute.

eric · 25 March 2015

Just Bob said: Could sentience arise in the absence of competition or some sort of 'struggle for survival' that rewards increasing intelligence?

I'll play devil's advocate and say that it's not clear sentience is a strong positive adaptation in terms of survival of the fittest. We don't see any other sentient species on this planet, either today or in the past. This is not a trait (like eyes or flight) that arises multiple times, whenever there's an ecological niche available where it could help; it has only arisen once despite the fact that there are many many other species that share the basic hominid ecological niche (social omnivorous temperate/tropical foragers) and who would seem to benefit from it. It hasn't made us the most numerous species on the planet, or the longest-dwelling, and it arguably won't because we seem to be in the process of destroying our own environment past recovery. And despite the many nerd-jock stereotypes, there is probably some truth to claim that a super big brain doesn't help one survive in a hostile environment as much as a fit body and some basic skills (that don't take an IQ of 150 to pick up). I think the jury may still be out on whether sentience arose from Darwinian natural selection (i.e., it was a big help in the "not being eaten by predators" department) vs. social selection or sexual selection. The fact of the matter is that we do see lots cases where behavioral or physical adaptations can be taken to unique extremes. But they typically occur in runaway sexual selectivity, not adaptations for survival. IMO its still arguable that our big brains are more analogous to a peacock's tail than a lion's mane. I think this also relates to the missing alien problem because we may be drastically overestimating f(i) and f(c) in the Drake equation. 'Sentience as product of social or sexual selection' will be orders of magnitude rarer than 'sentience as product of natural selection.' And if sentience is a runaway social or sexual selection adaptation, its not clear to me that other species who develop it would have much interest in extensive tool use, development of technology, or ultimately in space contact or exploration. They just may not care about such things.

harold · 25 March 2015

I'm inclined to agree with what Eric has said, with the caveat that whatever sentience is, it may be a spectrum; wolves may have some of it, just less ability to express it than humans. But what we can recognize as sentience seems to be associated with large brains.

Even if we try to ascribe sentience to intelligent birds and then try to say some early birds or bird-like dinosaurs may have had it, it's still clear that it took billions of years of life evolving before anything remotely resembling the sort of trait that SETI looks for emerged.

Therefore, in addition to the points that Eric makes, we should probably multiply the denominator of any "probability of intelligent life" equation with "number of some type of planet" as the numerator by at least fifty.

Because even if a clone Earth were out there, and we observed it for a year, the probability of intelligent life being there at the time that we observed it would be low. Even if we say that there has been sentient life on Earth for a billion years, that's only on the order of 1/4500 of the years of the Earth's history. Even if we're really aggressive and say that it has been here for 100 million years, that's still only 2% or so of Earth's history.

harold · 25 March 2015

"Even if we say that there has been sentient life on Earth for a billion years"

Typo, that should read "a million years".

Just Bob · 25 March 2015

harold said: Because even if a clone Earth were out there, and we observed it for a year, the probability of intelligent life being there at the time that we observed it would be low. Even if we say that there has been sentient life on Earth for a billion years, that's only on the order of 1/4500 of the years of the Earth's history. Even if we're really aggressive and say that it has been here for 100 million years, that's still only 2% or so of Earth's history.

And for only a minuscule fraction of that time has there been a technological civilization capable of detecting or broadcasting detectable signals over interstellar distances -- or with any interest in doing so. I'm with Eric's devilish advocacy: the jury is still out on whether human-level intelligence will prove to be a successful survival strategy in the long run.

harold · 25 March 2015

Just Bob said:
harold said: Because even if a clone Earth were out there, and we observed it for a year, the probability of intelligent life being there at the time that we observed it would be low. Even if we say that there has been sentient life on Earth for a billion years, that's only on the order of 1/4500 of the years of the Earth's history. Even if we're really aggressive and say that it has been here for 100 million years, that's still only 2% or so of Earth's history.
And for only a minuscule fraction of that time has there been a technological civilization capable of detecting or broadcasting detectable signals over interstellar distances -- or with any interest in doing so. I'm with Eric's devilish advocacy: the jury is still out on whether human-level intelligence will prove to be a successful survival strategy in the long run.

The technology to build nuclear bombs did emerge within a few decades of radio broadcast technology. I'm cautiously optimistic but it's certainly not a sure thing.

Mike Elzinga · 25 March 2015

I tend to agree with eric also.

And, if we look at the way our political processes work, one has to be pretty skeptical that intelligence is a product of natural selection. The ability to push, grab, whine raucously, and snatch things from others seems to be the traits that get primarily selected.

eric · 25 March 2015

harold said: I'm inclined to agree with what Eric has said, with the caveat that whatever sentience is, it may be a spectrum; wolves may have some of it, just less ability to express it than humans. But what we can recognize as sentience seems to be associated with large brains.

Oh I absolutely agree its probably more of a spectrum than a binary or digital trait. I think this probably supports my last point, in fact: if sentience is a spectrum, and we accept that many earth species have some of it, then we can use the percent of "earth species who have some of it and care about building stuff like machines and doing stuff like exploring for its own sake" as a rough guide to the percent of alien species who might be intelligent and care about that stuff too. That is very small percent. :) Which is a long way around to saying intelligent /= having human-like priorities and values.

mail.andrew.kelman · 25 March 2015

Stromatolites ruled the earth for at least 3 billion years without too many of those traits, presumeably natural selection was at work all that time.

jon.r.fleming · 25 March 2015

KlausH said:
eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.
So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).
I was pointing out that there is extraterrestrial ice near the Earth, and we should either do a sample return mission or send some sort of lander or rover to analyze it. RADAR images from orbit don't cut it. And, if we send a lab to the moon for onsite analysis, it would be good rehearsal for missions further out.

NASA intends to grab a boulder (about the size of the shuttle's cargo bay), bring it back to lunar orbit, and send two astronauts up on an Orion. Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?

Mike Elzinga · 25 March 2015

jon.r.fleming said: Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?

It sure was. Brilliant minds wandering off the cliff. It works in principle; but oh the hell to pay in trying to actually engineer the damned thing to work with real nuclear bombs. Not good for the environment either.

Just Bob · 25 March 2015

jon.r.fleming said: Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?

Once upon a time. Now it's just a bigger Apollo capsule.

stevaroni · 25 March 2015

jon.r.fleming said: Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?

Ah, the 60's. Moonshots. The Concorde. Atom bomb pooping rocketships. Back in the days when you engineered it like you meant it.

Yardbird · 25 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
jon.r.fleming said: Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?
It sure was. Brilliant minds wandering off the cliff. It works in principle; but oh the hell to pay in trying to actually engineer the damned thing to work with real nuclear bombs. Not good for the environment either.

The timing was a bitch. Like most things.

eric · 26 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said: It sure was. Brilliant minds wandering off the cliff. It works in principle; but oh the hell to pay in trying to actually engineer the damned thing to work with real nuclear bombs. Not good for the environment either.

I don't think they were wandering off a cliff so much as driving straight for it. Edward Teller tended to basically ignore the problem of fallout altogether and advocated for the use of nukes for all sorts of civilian/non-weapon projects. Not just rocket propulsion but even stuff like road construction (blasting through rocks and such). Crazy, yes, but not unintentionally so; he meant it.

KlausH · 26 March 2015

jon.r.fleming said:
KlausH said:
eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.
So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).
I was pointing out that there is extraterrestrial ice near the Earth, and we should either do a sample return mission or send some sort of lander or rover to analyze it. RADAR images from orbit don't cut it. And, if we send a lab to the moon for onsite analysis, it would be good rehearsal for missions further out.
NASA intends to grab a boulder (about the size of the shuttle's cargo bay), bring it back to lunar orbit, and send two astronauts up on an Orion. Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?

That sounds like the proposed asteroid capture mission and has nothing to do with getting ice from the moon or anywhere else.

Jon Fleming · 26 March 2015

KlausH said:
jon.r.fleming said:
KlausH said:
eric said:
KlausH said: I would be very interested in a thorough analysis of ice deposits on the moon. With all the hoopla about Enceladus, Europa, and Ceres, why don't we try investigating ice closer to home, first?
[snipped my erroneous reply] Eric, you are 6 years behind the times. NASA confirmed and mapped out several ice deposits on the moon back in 2009.
So, um, why did you ask then? You're complaining they're not doing enough of what they're already doing? *** In any event, I can see how this research can help. Jason Rosenhouse discusses how the UD crowd is again talking 2nd Law. It seems to me a lot of smart creationists still fall for this. However, if/when we have the actual chemical reactions we can 'put up on the board,' we can calculate out an enthalpy, entropy, gibbs free energy, etc.. Then there's essentially no ambiguity in which to hide; no way to claim some nebulous or unknown reaction couldn't occur, because the reaction is right there on paper, and almost certainly reproducible in the lab. Maybe this is also true for other creationist arguments but its at least true for the 2LOT one: its rhetorical strength is related to its ability to remain vague and nonspecific. As long as you're talking about some unknown process, it sounds good. Once the process is known, once the chemical reaction(s) can be written down, there's no more hiding from the fact that the only thing you need to make such reactions go is the proper sort of reactants and environment (to include ambient heat and other sources of energy).
I was pointing out that there is extraterrestrial ice near the Earth, and we should either do a sample return mission or send some sort of lander or rover to analyze it. RADAR images from orbit don't cut it. And, if we send a lab to the moon for onsite analysis, it would be good rehearsal for missions further out.
NASA intends to grab a boulder (about the size of the shuttle's cargo bay), bring it back to lunar orbit, and send two astronauts up on an Orion. Wasn't Orion the nuclear-bomb-powered thingy? Poop out bombs and surf on the blast?
That sounds like the proposed asteroid capture mission and has nothing to do with getting ice from the moon or anywhere else.

Correct. But it is intended to be the rehearsal for missions further out.

anagrammatt2.wordpress.com · 9 April 2015

In pure logic, when from small basic elements to the end big product or thing or being, you find that there are things that are theories merely, like "consciousness", cognitive Science, etc., you declare that basic chemical elements self formation to origins of life are also merely theories at best!

To declare the above does not tie us down in ancient Religions or with the Bible! Rather it shows Evolution Science to be rather of very little intelligence and logic!

Bobsie · 16 April 2015

anagrammatt2.wordpress.com said:Rather it shows Evolution Science to be rather of very little intelligence and logic!

To the contrary. It shows that evolution science theory is "rather" based on empirical evidence and describes several layers of natural emergence of chemical complexity. Quite the opposite of your "little intelligence and logic", isn't it? It's back to the books for you, Sir.

Rolf · 4 May 2015

To paraphrase: "Empirical evidence, and layers of emergent complexity." I often wonder if some things in the world in which we are spending our lives might be somewhat differnt if the implications of that would sink in on a sufficient number of people who presently seem to prefer to think that supernatual explanations are better.

I see supernature as useless precicely because it "explains" everything.

DS · 4 May 2015

anagrammatt2.wordpress.com said: In pure logic, when from small basic elements to the end big product or thing or being, you find that there are things that are theories merely, like "consciousness", cognitive Science, etc., you declare that basic chemical elements self formation to origins of life are also merely theories at best! To declare the above does not tie us down in ancient Religions or with the Bible! Rather it shows Evolution Science to be rather of very little intelligence and logic!

In pure logic, referring to something as "merely a theory at best" is idiotic. To declare such a thing reveals very little intelligence and logic. Perhaps you should be tied down and spanked with a bible.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g9HQBdI3rPzFoeUfY4uElZVqi0cQGzda#71cb4 · 4 May 2015

In the context of science, saying that something is "only a theory"is pretty much like saying that Bill Gates is "only a multibillionaire". "only an X" is a rhetorical flourish that casts doubt on the specific instance of X, without the necessity of putting in any of the hard work that would otherwise be needed to actually, you know, demonstrate that whatever-it-is is Teh Suxxors.

DS · 4 May 2015

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g9HQBdI3rPzFoeUfY4uElZVqi0cQGzda#71cb4 said: In the context of science, saying that something is "only a theory"is pretty much like saying that Bill Gates is "only a multibillionaire". "only an X" is a rhetorical flourish that casts doubt on the specific instance of X, without the necessity of putting in any of the hard work that would otherwise be needed to actually, you know, demonstrate that whatever-it-is is Teh Suxxors.

Yea like: "They only won the World Series"; "They only won the Stanley Cup"; " They only won the Super Bowl": "He only won an Olympic gold medal" etc. If that is by definition the best you can do in that field, there is no "only" about it.

Henry J · 4 May 2015

Yeah, it's not so much what label is used, as it is what support is behind it getting that label.