Life: not that rare

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion ????????
  • Date de début Date de début

????????

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Hauke Trinks spent 13 months in the Far North studying ice and its potential as an incubator for life.

One morning in late 1997, Stanley Miller lifted a glass vial from a cold, bubbling vat. For 25 years he had tended the vial as though it were an exotic orchid, checking it daily, adding a few pellets of dry ice as needed to keep it at –108 degrees Fahrenheit. He had told hardly a soul about it. Now he set the frozen time capsule out to thaw, ending the experiment that had lasted more than one-third of his 68 years.

Miller had filled the vial in 1972 with a mixture of ammonia and cyanide, chemicals that scientists believe existed on early Earth and may have contributed to the rise of life. He had then cooled the mix to the temperature of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa—too cold, most scientists had assumed, for much of anything to happen. Miller disagreed. Examining the vial in his laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, he was about to see who was right.

As Miller and his former student Jeffrey Bada brushed the frost from the vial that morning, they could see that something had happened. The mixture of ammonia and cyanide, normally colorless, had deepened to amber, highlighting a web of cracks in the ice. Miller nodded calmly, but Bada exclaimed in shock. It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules. Tests later confirmed Miller's and Bada’s hunch. Over a quarter-century, the frozen ammonia-cyanide blend had coalesced into the molecules of life: nucleobases, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The vial’s contents would support a new account of how life began on Earth and would arouse both surprise and skepticism around the world.

Although one of Miller’s final experiments, it certainly wasn’t the final word. The last several years have seen a steady stream of corroborating evidence, including one experiment—so new it has not yet been published—that Miller’s colleague, the late Leslie Orgel, called “astonishing.
 
Ahhhh Miller Miller Miller.....i remember the first days in highschool studying Bio...he was my idol back then and oh how many times did i try to emulate his experiments, with little to no success at all, too bad the man died just last year.

lol
god is a cold blooded man
lol

thanks for the article mate
 
hey i find that quite interesting... if you think about it... i mean the composing of such complex things like DNA which is so small maybe is easier when not so many things are moving at once like at warmer temperatures when the vibration is higher thus the higher temperature. :P
 
Hehe yeah you said it more clearly than the article! :)

I like how these kind of advancements by science have demystified life to the point that it's not considered that super rare "strange" thing that happened on this lucky planet a long time ago, rather, I guess we can see it as a property of the universe waiting to happen :)
 
hm you mean life as property of the universe like if we watch it from the beginning to the end it must happen? well also i suppose not doing so would be "kind of" denying the facts... first of all oneself :P

yeah the views of science sometimes are very strange. it's like they make their rules and then want to fit everything in the rules and make new theories out of em and then out of desperation don't know what to believe and think the theories must be true. well i guess until no one has better ideas science is comdemned to stay on older ideas labeled as good or fitting or intelligent.

peace! :)
 
that's the idea, science has theories that are true until proven otherwise; the thing is sometimes, some people get used to those theories and don't accept they don't work anymore, like even good old Einstein!
 
yeah i guess it's too hard for many to mentally "grasp" that. like transitoriness, it's hard for the mind to understand it. understand that one is so small and subject to the great laws ... in the end subject to oneness. anyway i have great respect for some of the scientists which could and if it was only a short time open their mind and fill their mind with a greater understanding than the one created by gossip, false dogmas, lies and stupidness of people and moreover open the minds of other people!!!!!!!!

PEACE! :)
 
one thing that really bothers me with scientists is the fact that they speak of planets like this: "planet X is not suitable for living", and when they find something that remotely looks like earth, it is suitable for living. my personal opinion is that life is capable of thriving in almost any climate and place. i am wrong ? does life only thrives where there is water, or are we being hardheads that think that ET's have to be green with little antennae ?
 
no
as a matter of fact scientists have found life thriving on geisers where temperatures are simply impossible either really cold to really hot in a matter of seconds. besides i saw on a National geographic a report of a space experiment that reported something like a batch of bacteria was sent into space in a sealed container and when they retreived it the bacteria were alive and dandy. but i was 10 when i saw it i dont think i wil be able to find the sourc to verify what i'm saying.
 
Hauke Trinks seems to be a realy cool guy , he is the Professor for Experimentalphysics at the Technical University in Hamburg-Harburg and president of the Northern Institute of Technology also in Hamburg. There have been two documentrys about him and his work on Spitsbergen on TV here lately wich were very interesting . If you want to know more about his theorys google his name and you will find several hundred entrys about him and his work . Hes also in wikipedea .

"a report of a space experiment that reported something like a batch of bacteria was sent into space"

I remember reading that as well ages ago , and again a few days ago i read that its part of the space mission thats going on now as well . They are experimenting with bacteria , virii and spores and say that space doesnt seem to hurt them .
 
perhaps the mckenna theory of the mushroom coming and going to space by brownian movement is possible ?
that, my friends, would be amazing.
teophagy would have another meaning to us, huh ? 8)
 
McKenna space's spores always sounded so plausible to me, I mean why not? and not only mushrooms, there could be other thingies coming here through space and influencing organisms here.
 
McKenna didnt start the idea about life coming to earth from space . I read about it in the works of Lyal Watson years before that . Reading his books was one of the things that opened my mind to the world . Hes another one to google . I recomend reading his books allthough they might be a bit old now .

The books that i read were called Supernature , Lifetide and The Romeo Error .
 
The primary assertion that irritates me when reading one scientific article after another is that somehow life is separate from the universe, and that ‘life’ needs certain criteria, (certain human criteria) to suddenly appear out of ‘nowhere’.
Its as if science cant wrap their heads around the idea that the universe itself is alive, and that we and organisms that we consider living under some obscure mannerism, are only manifestations of this life force, that are simply closer in proximity to our own, and thus easier to study and identify as sharing life with us.
Its sandbox science; basing every theory on only that which you can classify or describe inside ones minute sanctuary of arbitrary measure, whilst ignoring the foundation of existence inherent within that miniscule space itself as an integral element of the macro and microcosm that is eternal life.

Again, sciences tenets cloud their judgment.
 
now don't generalize ok
not all scientists are like that
think about Einstein...alright he was a genious but still he started as scientist
i'm a soon to be chemist (in three years) Fire and Earth from erowid are pretty much scientists...so let's specify that is the mainstream scientist that comes from a Judeo-Christian tradition that tends to be a bit closedminded...(excluding exceptions such as Einstein and Hawking)
sorry but this blarbing about scientists really irritates me, it makes you sound like the average joe calling us druggies, when we are clearly not
 
dantediv86, just because you are studying to be a scientist does not mean that you are like what buffachino described, although i completely agree with him. science has become a religion, in the way that we try to recruit all our young children into it, and when something is "scientifically proved", it suddendly gets magical powers and no one can say it isn't so, because scientists looked at it and said it is so.
i once had this girlfriend, the first love of my life, and we all know how the first love is overwhelming and is never repeated again. the time we started dating, she was this gentle and sensible person, who enjoyed gershwin, dali and good psy trance. had very good taste and knew how to maintain a conversation with me. she said to me one day that she wanted to be a doctor, and totally changed. i remember one day i said to her: "i only belive what i feel", and she said to me "i only belive what i see". science totally sucked her soul out.
i am not generalizing, and if this doesn't happen to you, better yet! but the majority of persons i knew that headed in science-related jobs, completely lost that little spark that made them human and enjoyable. all the other persons, like me, that continued on artistic and human related jobs, continued to be like we were (not all of us, but many more). enjoying things, with much less money, but much more happier and with different views of the world.
perhaps you will find this last paragraph not important, but for me it is very important. it taught me that science is a religion, and that most people do not see that. and that they ignore everything that is not scientifical. they still belive, like buffachino said, that the human is separate from the universe, and that we are not born from it. that life is a body that moves, and that we have a more higher degree of life than animals, because we have logical thought. doesn't this remind you of inquisition ? for me, it does. and go tell them it is not so, and they will answer like the inquisition replied to galilleo: "we know how the universe is, and if your telescope shows us something different than we know, it is an instrument of the devil". science does not speak of instruments of the devil, but it speaks of proofs and theories. what kind of proof is needed to know that the human is born from the universe ? we ARE the universe, and it is a miracle we are born, as it is a miracle taking a shit and making lunch.
please don't take this personally, dante, as i enjoy your posts very much, but i think buffachino is right, and i share my views with him.
 
hey thats some nice replies :)
i agree with you daytripper. science has indeed become a religion...but well i'd consider it more a sect... but then most religions are sects for me, too...

i also agree that many people lose their spark of humanness...but it hasn't got to be connected with science... but if you are into science this is more likely to happen i guess, because you are more and more unsure of what to believe and this can make you mad. well it's like dying too in a way... it's sad when you see how people "die" and let their enjoyable times behind to start a new "successful?" life filled with pain and suffering.

Peace.
 
daytripper, inshallah you'll live a long and happy life because you are gifted with wisdom and the ability to deliver it through words. as much as i enjoy reading your posts i must say that i share your views. and never will i dare even immagine to say that anything you say is unimportant, because you put thought and soul into it. and god knows how sorry i am for your loss, of friendship with a nother being (your girlfriend) and the mistrust you now pose to science. science is a way of knowing and like all ways of knowing that comes in contact with man it lends itself to become dogmatic, such is religion (anithe way of knowing). i met many religious people and many hardcore scientist and no difference was between them. but this only helped me see that we can actually use these ways of knowing in moderation, just like drugs, because in the end everything is a product of our minds and a reaction of aminoacids behid our eyes and every drug causes thoughts and any adiction is caused by these reactions therefore even a thought and a way of thinking can become and addiction. people who are religious, scientific, phylosophical, logical are all addicted to their way of thinking because it reassures them like a junkie injectim himself with heroine, they find peace. i say that if we manage to use them all these "drugs" and drugs in moderation and avoid to become reassured by anything we can manage to keep a clear mind and actually find continuous knowledge instead of just entering a vicious circle and become stuck with things we consider known. scientists follow a dogma indeed, but you can't demonize science. as a matter of fact scientist who actually discover something new are considered genii. Einstein whent over the edge of science and he is the kind of person that defies the science dogma like Hoffman and many others. the people you are talking about are like the Christian fanatics they believe they believe (this repetition is not a mistake) in Christ when the truth is they believe in what the priest tell them of Christ, we are more Christian than them because we ignore the person and follow his message more than any other person around us (we love and respect and that's what he said) therefore we are also better scientists than any other labfreak around us. science is not the devil, scientists are (at least the majority of them).
i rest my case
 
Daytripper . i understand what you mean......BUT....... i think a realy good scientist and/or feeling person is one who unifys both ways of thinking and being . The cold scientific proof side of things and the warm feeling side . If we go to far in one direction and deny the other direction we loose , we become blind . Instead of comitting ourselves to absolutes in either direction and loosing ourselves in and identifying ourselves with one side of the argument , we should learn to take a step backwards and see both sides before we make our decissions . Children see the world in an egoistic way , through their eyes , for themselves , they live in their own private world . Adults see their lives as a part of a group , they get lost in the group and then often divide the group into absolute parts , for or against . What i mean is taking a mental step back , getting out of the situation and seeing it from a third perspective , the personal ego part , the being part of a group part and then getting a neutral over view of all the parts and then deciding .

Sorry it wasnt a very good explanation of what i`m trying to say , please use your brains and try to translate it so it makes sense to you .
 
i perfectly understood what you meand and think we are standing on the same line, approximately ;)
 
Retour
Haut