User Panel
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:01:00 PM EST
|
|
I, for one, welcome our new Meteorite overlords.
All joking aside, pretty cool. |
|
Quoted:
I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. |
|
Quoted:
I thought God made us Who do you think is throwin' those rocks at us? |
|
|
Quoted:
So asteroids are like spores. Further proof for my theory that the universe is a mushroom. http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/1/5/7/3/mushroom_cloud.jpg And we're all trippin? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us Who do you think is throwin' those rocks at us? The Daleks. EX-TER-MINATE!!!! |
|
Yeeeaahhh... and "building blocks" for computers are found in sand so obviously computers came from sand.
|
|
Quoted:
Yeeeaahhh... and "building blocks" for computers are found in sand so obviously computers came from sand. Awful analogy. Nucleobases are merely the single units of the polymer known as DNA. Sand bears no such relation to CPU's, as you implied. In other words, stringing together nucleobases end-to-end gives you single-stranded DNA, whereas stringing together grains of sand end-to-end gives you...nothing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. Just trying to have some fun |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. He does work in mysterious ways. Sending you to speak for him, for instance. Fucking crazy that fella is sometimes, but that's why we all love him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. On the first day................... |
|
Quoted:
Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.
Quoted:
Not really news. How so? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.
Quoted:
Not really news. How so? Finding amino acids is not the same as finding nucleobases. Similar, but not the same. Also, NASA claims that the nucleobases found were synthesized en route on the meteorite itself from cyanide, ammonia, etc., and not simply transported. This fact is probably the most important distinction. This might not be groundbreaking, but it is indeed a new and important discovery, if true. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So asteroids are like spores. Further proof for my theory that the universe is a mushroom. http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/1/5/7/3/mushroom_cloud.jpg And we're all trippin? Balls!!!!! |
|
So what is this telling me? Somewhere in space is at least part of what life needs to start?
|
|
Sorry folks. This is my fault.
It was part of my plan to protect the earth from asteroid impact by jerking off at the big ones .... |
|
Quoted: http://blog.mycology.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/blob-on-a-stick.jpg http://1c.img.v4.skyrock.net/1c7/marilynmansonshocking/pics/2989753221_1_3_1AbWEf5f.jpg Why? Now I'm not gonna sleep tonight. The Blob scares the ever living shit out of me... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.
Quoted:
Not really news. How so? They can also be nearly formed in a lab, the precursors. However, a lab cannot currently "make life", even though it is aware of all the chemicals needed and in what order, not even a single celled organism can be "created". I guess we should be happy about that, otherwise worse things than HIV would be engineered by somebody. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us He made the asteroid too. Lets see: "Ashes to Ashes" ...check! "Dust to Dust"...check! Yep! "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19), Cosmic material to cosmic material. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeeeaahhh... and "building blocks" for computers are found in sand so obviously computers came from sand. Awful analogy. Nucleobases are merely the single units of the polymer known as DNA. Sand bears no such relation to CPU's, as you implied. In other words, stringing together nucleobases end-to-end gives you single-stranded DNA, whereas stringing together grains of sand end-to-end gives you...nothing. Perhaps semiconductor products are derived from vegetables? No? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.Quoted: Not really news. How so? Finding amino acids is not the same as finding nucleobases. Similar, but not the same. Also, NASA claims that the nucleobases found were synthesized en route on the meteorite itself from cyanide, ammonia, etc., and not simply transported. This fact is probably the most important distinction. This might not be groundbreaking, but it is indeed a new and important discovery, if true. That's what I was thinking. There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. |
|
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. |
|
Quoted: whereas stringing together grains of sand end-to-end gives you...nothing. Not true if you string togther sand then you got yourself a string of sand |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully duly noted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. No religious text or no christian religious text? You've got to remember that there are thousands of other religions (but, I'm sure you're right ) But, your misspelling of duly is duly noted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought God made us I don't believe any religious text says explicitly HOW God made us - only that He did. Your trolling is dully noted. No religious text or no christian religious text? You've got to remember that there are thousands of other religions (but, I'm sure you're right ) But, your misspelling of duly is duly noted. Sorry about the misspelling. I'll wait for you to point out a religious text that explains, at the molecular and quantum level, how life came into being. |
|
I had also previously seen reports of amino acids from deep space. It's very interesting to see other biological monomers, though.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeeeaahhh... and "building blocks" for computers are found in sand so obviously computers came from sand. Awful analogy. Nucleobases are merely the single units of the polymer known as DNA. Sand bears no such relation to CPU's, as you implied. In other words, stringing together nucleobases end-to-end gives you single-stranded DNA, whereas stringing together grains of sand end-to-end gives you...nothing. uhh, stringing sand together gives you a *beach*. i would think someone named "sandman" would know that... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. What evidence do you have for the statement in red? Metabolism is, by definition, a series of energy-harvesting chemical reactions. The drives of hunger and sex are largely governed by hormones and enzymes. Reproduction, at it's core, is nothing more than recombination of a polymerized chemical called DNA. You sound like the chemists who believed in vitalism in the 19th century before urea was artificially produced in the lab, showing that indeed there is nothing special about the biochemicals from which we are composed, and that these molecules are all around us, and can come from non-biological processes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. What evidence do you have for the statement in red? Metabolism is, by definition, a series of energy-harvesting chemical reactions. The drives of hunger and sex are largely governed by hormones and enzymes. Reproduction, at it's core, is nothing more than recombination of a polymerized chemical called DNA. You sound like the chemists who believed in vitalism in the 19th century before urea was artificially produced in the lab, showing that indeed there is nothing special about the biochemicals from which we are composed, and that these molecules are all around us, and can come from non-biological processes. Evading the point with semantic bickering. There is no reproducible experiment that causes inanimate matter to become living matter. So any estimates in that direction are inherently baseless. Pronouncements that a find is significant to the genesis of life on earth are unsupportable ... because we have no freaking idea what it takes to make that happen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. What evidence do you have for the statement in red? Metabolism is, by definition, a series of energy-harvesting chemical reactions. The drives of hunger and sex are largely governed by hormones and enzymes. Reproduction, at it's core, is nothing more than recombination of a polymerized chemical called DNA. You sound like the chemists who believed in vitalism in the 19th century before urea was artificially produced in the lab, showing that indeed there is nothing special about the biochemicals from which we are composed, and that these molecules are all around us, and can come from non-biological processes. Evading the point with semantic bickering. There is no reproducible experiment that causes inanimate matter to become living matter. So any estimates in that direction are inherently baseless. Pronouncements that a find is significant to the genesis of life on earth are unsupportable ... because we have no freaking idea what it takes to make that happen. You made the claim that "life is more than a series of reactions", yet you offer no supporting evidence. I'm evading what point, exactly? You don't seem to have one, except for some vague, neo-vitalist ideology. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.Quoted: Not really news. How so? Finding amino acids is not the same as finding nucleobases. Similar, but not the same. Also, NASA claims that the nucleobases found were synthesized en route on the meteorite itself from cyanide, ammonia, etc., and not simply transported. This fact is probably the most important distinction. This might not be groundbreaking, but it is indeed a new and important discovery, if true. Wait, so the evolution occured en route on a meteor...... That is where Miller-Urey screwed up was not doing the experiment in the vacuum of space then putting it through atmospheric re-entry before checking for results. Silly guys. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Biological precursors have been found previously in meteorites. Also in the depths of interstellar space.
Quoted:
Not really news. How so? Finding amino acids is not the same as finding nucleobases. Similar, but not the same. Also, NASA claims that the nucleobases found were synthesized en route on the meteorite itself from cyanide, ammonia, etc., and not simply transported. This fact is probably the most important distinction. This might not be groundbreaking, but it is indeed a new and important discovery, if true. Wait, so the evolution occured en route on a meteor...... That is where Miller-Urey screwed up was not doing the experiment in the vacuum of space then putting it through atmospheric re-entry before checking for results. Silly guys. No "evolution" of any sort occurred here. This is non-biological synthesis of molecules like adenine and guanine from precursors like cyanide and ammonia. |
|
Quoted:
I thought God made us he did... the gays and muzy's too... lo frikin l... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. What evidence do you have for the statement in red? Metabolism is, by definition, a series of energy-harvesting chemical reactions. The drives of hunger and sex are largely governed by hormones and enzymes. Reproduction, at it's core, is nothing more than recombination of a polymerized chemical called DNA. You sound like the chemists who believed in vitalism in the 19th century before urea was artificially produced in the lab, showing that indeed there is nothing special about the biochemicals from which we are composed, and that these molecules are all around us, and can come from non-biological processes. Evading the point with semantic bickering. There is no reproducible experiment that causes inanimate matter to become living matter. So any estimates in that direction are inherently baseless. Pronouncements that a find is significant to the genesis of life on earth are unsupportable ... because we have no freaking idea what it takes to make that happen. You made the claim that "life is more than a series of reactions", yet you offer no supporting evidence. I'm evading what point, exactly? You don't seem to have one, except for some vague, neo-vitalist ideology. Sometimes people use language as a vehicle to exchange thought. I'll save my efforts for a person capable of participating. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's still the huge hurdle of left hand chiral amino acids exclusively used for life when natural process produce both types in equal numbers. That's not the half of it. Even if you grant all of the structure; life is more than a series of balanced chemical reactions. Even if one is able to construct an entire perfect organism all you have is a perishable model. Causing it to come alive is never addressed. The ability to cause something that resembles life to have metabolism, seek food, and reproduce is always assumed to come for free via bogus hand waving explanation. Lame conjurings of a lightning strike in the primordial ooze is usually enough for dullards to nod along and dismiss the question. We don't know what the difference is between a living organism and an inanimate facsimile. So, making any assumptions about the occurrence of a genesis is pure fairytale. The research is interesting and I'm glad it is being conducted, but folks get excited and have foolish urges to claim victory and take credit. What evidence do you have for the statement in red? Metabolism is, by definition, a series of energy-harvesting chemical reactions. The drives of hunger and sex are largely governed by hormones and enzymes. Reproduction, at it's core, is nothing more than recombination of a polymerized chemical called DNA. You sound like the chemists who believed in vitalism in the 19th century before urea was artificially produced in the lab, showing that indeed there is nothing special about the biochemicals from which we are composed, and that these molecules are all around us, and can come from non-biological processes. Evading the point with semantic bickering. There is no reproducible experiment that causes inanimate matter to become living matter. So any estimates in that direction are inherently baseless. Pronouncements that a find is significant to the genesis of life on earth are unsupportable ... because we have no freaking idea what it takes to make that happen. You made the claim that "life is more than a series of reactions", yet you offer no supporting evidence. I'm evading what point, exactly? You don't seem to have one, except for some vague, neo-vitalist ideology. Sometimes people use language as a vehicle to exchange thought. I'll save my efforts for a person capable of participating. You entered this referring to "dullards who nod along" when you yourself don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about and can't provide any examples or evidence for your ignorant assertions. Run along, now. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.