An unusual meteorite, more valuable than gold, may hold the building blocks of life (1 Viewer)

[JacksinPA]

An unusual meteorite, more valuable than gold, may hold the building blocks of life | Science | AAAS

As the fiery emissary streaked across the skies of Costa Rica, an unearthly mix of orange and green, Marcia Campos Muñoz was in her pajamas, watching TV on the couch. It was 23 April 2019, a bit past 9 p.m., when she heard a foreboding rumble. Heart racing, she tiptoed outside to calm her barking dog, Perry, and to check on the cow pastures ringing her small house in Aguas Zarcas, a village carved out of Costa Rica’s tropical rainforest. Nothing. She ducked back inside, just before a blast on the back terrace rattled the house to its bones.

She picked up the biggest fragment, still warm to the touch. Already, her phone was chiming with WhatsApp messages from friends telling of blazing fireballs and rocks raining down on farms and fields. The family added its own viral messages to the mix: photos of Campos Muñoz and her son holding the big stone that crashed through her roof. Within hours, a local journalist visited the house and streamed videos of the damage on Facebook Live. (more)

By this time as many as 30 collectors from Russia, Germany, Belgium, and the United States had set up their own bases under the path of the fireball, which had strewn fragments across 6 kilometers. Demand grew. Prices skyrocketed from the few dollars per gram Farmer had first offered to $50, even $100 per gram, passing the price of gold. (Gold Price Per Gram = $62.85).


====================================================================
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good.

 

[Rostocker]

An unusual meteorite, more valuable than gold, may hold the building blocks of life | Science | AAAS

As the fiery emissary streaked across the skies of Costa Rica, an unearthly mix of orange and green, Marcia Campos Muñoz was in her pajamas, watching TV on the couch. It was 23 April 2019, a bit past 9 p.m., when she heard a foreboding rumble. Heart racing, she tiptoed outside to calm her barking dog, Perry, and to check on the cow pastures ringing her small house in Aguas Zarcas, a village carved out of Costa Rica’s tropical rainforest. Nothing. She ducked back inside, just before a blast on the back terrace rattled the house to its bones.

She picked up the biggest fragment, still warm to the touch. Already, her phone was chiming with WhatsApp messages from friends telling of blazing fireballs and rocks raining down on farms and fields. The family added its own viral messages to the mix: photos of Campos Muñoz and her son holding the big stone that crashed through her roof. Within hours, a local journalist visited the house and streamed videos of the damage on Facebook Live. (more)

By this time as many as 30 collectors from Russia, Germany, Belgium, and the United States had set up their own bases under the path of the fireball, which had strewn fragments across 6 kilometers. Demand grew. Prices skyrocketed from the few dollars per gram Farmer had first offered to $50, even $100 per gram, passing the price of gold. (Gold Price Per Gram = $62.85).


====================================================================
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good.

I have 1.4g of the aguas zarcas meteorite in my collection

 

[JacksinPA]

I have 1.4g of the aguas zarcas meteorite in my collection

Congratulations. Have you had it analyzed?

 

[Waddy]

The "building blocks" of life are all around us, and always have been. Unfortunately, just having the raw materials around in the proper amounts and under ideal conditions has never resulted in life being created. Even the most basic life forms need a blueprint. We've never found one of those in with the raw materials.

 

[soylentgreen]

The "building blocks" of life are all around us, and always have been. Unfortunately, just having the raw materials around in the proper amounts and under ideal conditions has never resulted in life being created. Even the most basic life forms need a blueprint. We've never found one of those in with the raw materials.

Never? Not even once ? I would think earth which is teeming with life would be an example of one.

 

[Waddy]

Never? Not even once ? I would think earth which is teeming with life would be an example of one.

Life on earth is an example of the "building blocks" having a blueprint of some kind. Where that blueprint came from nobody knows. Neither can they replicate one out of the "building blocks". Quite the conundrum, ain't it?

 

[soylentgreen]

Life on earth is an example of the "building blocks" having a blueprint of some kind. Where that blueprint came from nobody knows. Neither can they replicate one out of the "building blocks". Quite the conundrum, ain't it?

The building blocks i am guessing you mean our genetic codes. And there is ample evidence by science in creating dna sequences from molecules that exist in nature.

 

[Waddy]

The building blocks i am guessing you mean our genetic codes. And there is ample evidence by science in creating dna sequences from molecules that exist in nature.

Never has any "code' arisen spontaneously from any building blocks. If scientists have "created" a code in the lab, which I doubt, then it is a a purposely created code. An act of creation.

And please keep in mind that I'm an atheist before you go on some anti-religious tangent; I'm just saying life isn't possible from "building blocks" alone. A code is necessary, and scientists have no idea how that happens.

 

[Threegoofs]

An unusual meteorite, more valuable than gold, may hold the building blocks of life | Science | AAAS

As the fiery emissary streaked across the skies of Costa Rica, an unearthly mix of orange and green, Marcia Campos Muñoz was in her pajamas, watching TV on the couch. It was 23 April 2019, a bit past 9 p.m., when she heard a foreboding rumble. Heart racing, she tiptoed outside to calm her barking dog, Perry, and to check on the cow pastures ringing her small house in Aguas Zarcas, a village carved out of Costa Rica’s tropical rainforest. Nothing. She ducked back inside, just before a blast on the back terrace rattled the house to its bones.

She picked up the biggest fragment, still warm to the touch. Already, her phone was chiming with WhatsApp messages from friends telling of blazing fireballs and rocks raining down on farms and fields. The family added its own viral messages to the mix: photos of Campos Muñoz and her son holding the big stone that crashed through her roof. Within hours, a local journalist visited the house and streamed videos of the damage on Facebook Live. (more)

By this time as many as 30 collectors from Russia, Germany, Belgium, and the United States had set up their own bases under the path of the fireball, which had strewn fragments across 6 kilometers. Demand grew. Prices skyrocketed from the few dollars per gram Farmer had first offered to $50, even $100 per gram, passing the price of gold. (Gold Price Per Gram =$62.85).


====================================================================
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good.

It has amino acids.

This has already been confirmed in meteorites- AA and ribose (a main component of DNA) have been known to be in meteorites for years, if not decades.

 

[soylentgreen]

Never has any "code' arisen spontaneously from any building blocks. If scientists have "created" a code in the lab, which I doubt, then it is a a purposely created code. An act of creation.

.

No, of course not. No scientist has ever said that a genetic sequence is created from inert matter. And again, I am guessing that by building blocks you are referring to matter. To form the helix of a gene you need molecules and scientists have created artificial molecules. And scientists have also created genes in labs from molecules.

And please keep in mind that I'm an atheist before you go on some anti-religious tangent; I'm just saying life isn't possible from "building blocks" alone. A code is necessary, and scientists have no idea how that happens

There are several theories that are all plausible because we have some evidence that indicates its possibility. And it is also possible that all of them may have played a part in creating sustainable life on this planet.

 

[Waddy]

No, of course not. No scientist has ever said that a genetic sequence is created from inert matter. And again, I am guessing that by building blocks you are referring to matter. To form the helix of a gene you need molecules and scientists have created artificial molecules. And scientists have also created genes in labs from molecules.


There are several theories that are all plausible because we have some evidence that indicates its possibility. And it is also possible that all of them may have played a part in creating sustainable life on this planet.

Creation being the key word there. Until that puzzle is solved, all else is mere conjecture.

 

[soylentgreen]

Creation being the key word there. Until that puzzle is solved, all else is mere conjecture.

I am not sure what puzzle you refer to. Scientist already have created dna from molecules.

 

[Waddy]

I am not sure what puzzle you refer to. Scientist already have created dna from molecules.

The puzzle is getting DNA to form from natural molecules without a "creator". Show me that DNA and I will be suitably impressed.

 

[soylentgreen]

The puzzle is getting DNA to form from natural molecules without a "creator". Show me that DNA and I will be suitably impressed.

So far nothing indicates that a creator is needed. The elements were there in numbers that allowed for the formation. That we do not see it happening in nature on this planet is because we are long past the ideal conditions for it.

 

[Waddy]

So far nothing indicates that a creator is needed. The elements were there in numbers that allowed for the formation. That we do not see it happening in nature on this planet is because we are long past the ideal conditions for it.

post a link. will you.

 

[soylentgreen]

post a link. will you.

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created | Science | The Guardian

 

[Waddy]

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created | Science | The Guardian

The key to that article is the DNA was "CREATED" in a lab. Or more precisely, natural DNA was modified in a lab. It doesn't even rise to the "creation" of DNA. In fact, it is simply a modified natural code that has basically been shortened. The article in no way suggests DNA without a creator of some kind. I have yet to see any evidence that DNA can spontaneously arise from the "building blocks".

The lab-made microbe, a strain of bacteria that is normally found in soil and the human gut, is similar to its natural cousins but survives on a smaller set of genetic instructions.

I'm not suggesting a "God" of some sort created DNA, but something did. There is just no evidence at all that DNA just "happens" in nature. Get back to me when you can prove otherwise.

 

[soylentgreen]

The key to that article is the DNA was "CREATED" in a lab. Or more precisely, natural DNA was modified in a lab. It doesn't even rise to the "creation" of DNA. In fact, it is simply a modified natural code that has basically been shortened. The article in no way suggests DNA without a creator of some kind. I have yet to see any evidence that DNA can spontaneously arise from the "building blocks".



I'm not suggesting a "God" of some sort created DNA, but something did. There is just no evidence at all that DNA just "happens" in nature. Get back to me when you can prove otherwise.

The article would not be suggesting there was no creator as the dna was created.

The fact that dna can be created from organic material tells us that natural conditions are all that is needed for life to begin. There is no need to bring in some imaginary friend to magically do it.

Ans of course you would not have seen such an event occur spontaneously as earth no longer has an environment that would sustain such creation.

However that does not mean that such environments do not still exist in some manner.

Did life begin in underwater volcanoes? Hot sea vents spontaneously produce building blocks needed for organisms to develop | Daily Mail Online

Chemists from University College London (UCL) discovered that the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, which are the biological molecules that control chemical reactions in living organisms.

They found that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved carbon dioxide in the water.

And these elements are necessary as the building blocks for organic life.

The discovery, published in the journal Chemical Communications, explains how some of the key building blocks for organic chemistry were already being formed in nature before life emerged - and may have played a role in the emergence of the first life forms.

‘There is a lot of speculation that hydrothermal vents could be the location where life on Earth began,’ said Nora de Leeuw, who heads the team

If you are only going to be satisfied with someone actually pointing to life being created in nature you are not only going to be **** out of luck but you will also be advertising the that you prefer to stay ignorant of the science so that you can express sceptism.

 

[Waddy]

The article would not be suggesting there was no creator as the dna was created.

The fact that dna can be created from organic material tells us that natural conditions are all that is needed for life to begin. There is no need to bring in some imaginary friend to magically do it.

Ans of course you would not have seen such an event occur spontaneously as earth no longer has an environment that would sustain such creation.

However that does not mean that such environments do not still exist in some manner.

Did life begin in underwater volcanoes? Hot sea vents spontaneously produce building blocks needed for organisms to develop | Daily Mail Online



If you are only going to be satisfied with someone actually pointing to life being created in nature you are not only going to be **** out of luck but you will also be advertising the that you prefer to stay ignorant of the science so that you can express sceptism.

I am always a skeptic regarding false claims and pseudo science. Manipulating DNA is far from creating DNA in nature. Even the scientists in the article limit their claims; YOU are the one claiming DNA without a creation, not the scientists. An intellectually honest person should be a skeptic when that kind of garbage comes up. When I see proof that DNA can spontaneously arise in nature I will re-think this problem. But you haven't shown anything new here. And I've tried to keep this discussion above board and honest, without disparaging you. But now it's down to you name calling. As Dostoevsky pointed out, resorting to disparaging name calling is the hallmark of losing the debate. I accept your surrender.

 

[soylentgreen]

I am always a skeptic regarding false claims and pseudo science. Manipulating DNA is far from creating DNA in nature.

To manipulate they must learn how a dna is created.

Even the scientists in the article limit their claims; YOU are the one claiming DNA without a creation, not the scientists.

I made no such claim. What i did say is that dna is created by molecules that are created from nothing more than nature.We do not need to create a designer to understand how life first began.

An intellectually honest person should be a skeptic when that kind of garbage comes up. When I see proof that DNA can spontaneously arise in nature I will re-think this problem.

But you are not being a sceptic. A sceptic first learns about something before deciding to be sceptical. That you still maintain that dna must arise spontaneously from nature demonstrates that you cling to misinformation in order to discredit any real information. That is not being a sceptic that is being a denier.

But you haven't shown anything new here. And I've tried to keep this discussion above board and honest, without disparaging you. But now it's down to you name calling. As Dostoevsky pointed out, resorting to disparaging name calling is the hallmark of losing the debate. I accept your surrender.

Please do not bull**** me that you are being honest. You are being deliberately dishonest by refusing to follow the science and instead keep insisting that dna must arise spontaneously from nature.

Can you point to where and what name i have called you? The answer of course is either no or you will just ignore the question and hope it goes away. Making false claims as you have done is a better sign that you really have nothing to offer here.

I have given you the information that you ignore it and cling to your misconception is a sign of closed mind. Of course you accept my surrender. if you dragged this on it would only make you look foolish.

 

[Waddy]

To manipulate they must learn how a dna is created.



I made no such claim. What i did say is that dna is created by molecules that are created from nothing more than nature.We do not need to create a designer to understand how life first began.




But you are not being a sceptic. A sceptic first learns about something before deciding to be sceptical. That you still maintain that dna must arise spontaneously from nature demonstrates that you cling to misinformation in order to discredit any real information. That is not being a sceptic that is being a denier.




Please do not bull**** me that you are being honest. You are being deliberately dishonest by refusing to follow the science and instead keep insisting that dna must arise spontaneously from nature.

Can you point to where and what name i have called you? The answer of course is either no or you will just ignore the question and hope it goes away. Making false claims as you have done is a better sign that you really have nothing to offer here.

I have given you the information that you ignore it and cling to your misconception is a sign of closed mind. Of course you accept my surrender. if you dragged this on it would only make you look foolish.

Claiming to actually create DNA is what makes you look foolish. Pretending you can do it is dishonest. Why not just admit no one knows how it's done. That would be intellectual honesty.

 

[soylentgreen]

Claiming to actually create DNA is what makes you look foolish. Pretending you can do it is dishonest. Why not just admit no one knows how it's done. That would be intellectual honesty.

If you do want to follow the links then that is your problem. Again let me repeat, yours is not sceptism it is deliberate ignorance of a denier.

 

[Waddy]

If you do want to follow the links then that is your problem. Again let me repeat, yours is not sceptism it is deliberate ignorance of a denier.

And yours is an ignorant layman's exaggeration of what scientists actually claim. NONE of those scientists in your links claims they actually created DNA from raw building blocks. Yet you claim DNA is spontaneous. I've seen this before; often yellow journalists make wild claims that go far beyond what scientists are actually saying. That's the trap you've fallen into. If you do have a link where a reputable scientist has actually created a new living DNA chain from raw amino acids post it. Starting with natural e Coli DNA and slowly replacing it with synthetic DNA is manipulating DNA, not creating DNA. It's as simple as that.

 

[soylentgreen]

And yours is an ignorant layman's exaggeration of what scientists actually claim. NONE of those scientists in your links claims they actually created DNA from raw building blocks. Yet you claim DNA is spontaneous. I've seen this before; often yellow journalists make wild claims that go far beyond what scientists are actually saying. That's the trap you've fallen into. If you do have a link where a reputable scientist has actually created a new living DNA chain from raw amino acids post it. Starting with natural e Coli DNA and slowly replacing it with synthetic DNA is manipulating DNA, not creating DNA. It's as simple as that.

You are still being dishonest.

I have stated and the links i have given will all tell you that dna is not created from raw material. But molecules are and from molecules dna can be created. Scientists can create the molecules and from that they can create dna. If you cannot follow the research that is your problem. I am done with your dishonesty

 

[Waddy]

You are still being dishonest.

I have stated and the links i have given will all tell you that dna is not created from raw material. But molecules are and from molecules dna can be created. Scientists can create the molecules and from that they can create dna. If you cannot follow the research that is your problem. I am done with your dishonesty

Even in this post you're being dishonest. Yes, molecules are built from raw material and then into DNA. So it is accurate to say DNA comes from a raw material. Everything in nature comes from a raw material. And scientists then manipulate natural DNA. Read your own eColi article closely and you wikll see that is exactly what they did. Eventually they replaced all the NATURAL DNA in the chain with synthetic DNA. They did not "create" a DNA chain from scratch.