Lucaspa turns down Nobel Prize!

DNAunion · Jan 15, 2003

DNAunion: It's amazing, but true: Lucaspa has turned down his one, or two, awaiting Nobel Prizes.

You might be wondering, why should Lucaspa get a Nobel Prize?

First, Lucaspa has done something that no one in the history of science has ever been able to do: create honest-to-goodness life - living cells - from non-living matter. That accomplishment alone is surely enough to win him a Nobel Prize. But there's more.

Second, Lucaspa has refuted the modern scientific views on spontaneous generation: Lucaspa has shown that life - actual living cells - can and do pop into existence spontaneously! It just takes a volcano, some amino acids, and rain. What an absolutely amazing discovery!

But for some odd reason, Lucaspa continues to turn down his awaiting Nobel Prizes in favor of trying to convince a handful of lay people here of his accomplishments. Can we figure out why?

Well, Lucaspa says he is and has been for a while a working chemist or biochemist, and that he has some connection to the NIH. So surely it's not a matter of credentials: Lucaspa could easily get something published in a journal like Nature or Science, which the Nobel Prize committee would then take note of. So lack of credentials isn't an issue for him.

Gee, I am at a loss: why would anyone not present his fantastic, and easily deserving of a Nobel Prizes, findings to the scientific community? Why instead present them to a small group of people that for the most part don't know the difference between a proteinoid and a protein?

Could it be because Lucaspa knows that his findings aren't actual findings, but mere exaggerated claims? Could it be that Lucaspa knows that his "findings" wouldn't last one minute against scientific critique? Does Lucaspa fear peer review?

Hmmmmmmm......

Lucaspa: Remember, you asked [for the magic formula for life]. Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 5 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain). (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24745-4.html)

Lucaspa: Not speculation. Observed fact. Living cells have been generated from non-living amino acids by straight chemical reactions. See the work of Sidney Fox or do the experiment yourself in your own kitchen. (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/25469-23.html)

Lucaspa: Of course abiogenesis is a theory. It is substantiated by facts, including the fact that you can make protocells in your kitchen that have all the properties of life. (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/25452-9.html)

chickenman · Jan 15, 2003

DNAUnion vs Lucaspa again

I thought it was jerry you were antagonising now

lucaspa · Jan 16, 2003

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: It's amazing, but true: Lucaspa has turned down his one, or two, awaiting Nobel Prizes.

You might be wondering, why should Lucaspa get a Nobel Prize?

First, Lucaspa has done something that no one in the history of science has ever been able to do: create honest-to-goodness life - living cells - from non-living matter. That accomplishment alone is surely enough to win him a Nobel Prize. But there's more.

Second, Lucaspa has refuted the modern scientific views on spontaneous generation: Lucaspa has shown that life - actual living cells - can and do pop into existence spontaneously! It just takes a volcano, some amino acids, and rain. What an absolutely amazing discovery!

But for some odd reason, Lucaspa continues to turn down his awaiting Nobel Prizes in favor of trying to convince a handful of lay people here of his accomplishments. Can we figure out why?

When you can't discuss the data, try sarcasm.  Isn't that your "strategy", DNAUnion? 

1. The work is not my own.  Therefore I am not entitled to the Nobel Prize.
2. Sidney Fox's chairman nominated him 20 years in a row for the Nobel Prize.  There are many reasons other than lack of scientific merit for failure to get the Prize.  The Prize is heavily influenced by politics within the Academy.

So it's not just me that thinks the protocells solved the problem.

Now, for those interested, DNAUnion has misstated spontaneous generation.  That theory stated that macroscopic life forms came from decaying organic matter.  It was not the generalized "life - actual living cells - can and do pop into existence spontaneously".  When Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation, creationists interpreted that falsification as a major blow against the theory.

Now, in other threads, DNAUnion has stated his acceptance of abiogenesis -- life from non-life. So he too accepts that spontaneous generation happened at least once. So, by this logic. DNAunion should also be in line for the Nobel.

DNAUnion adamantly refuses to accept the protocells as living.  However, he has never produced any data to show any of the data by Fox and others is wrong, or even discussed the actual data in the papers.  He also knows that the data is published in peer-reviewed journals, so it has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review. 

BTW, Fox's early work featured volcanoes, but later work concentrated on evaporating tidal pools and undersea hydrothermal vents (OK, they are also volcanoes.)

I expect DNAUnion is just jealous because he thinks my claim to the Prize is better than his own!  (sarcasm, DNA, sarcasm)  

lucaspa · Jan 16, 2003

Originally posted by chickenman
DNAUnion vs Lucaspa again

I thought it was jerry you were antagonising now

  He's not antagonizing me.  He's just showing how weak his argument is.  For instance,
"Lucaspa: Of course abiogenesis is a theory. It is substantiated by facts, including the fact that you can make protocells in your kitchen that have all the properties of life. (target=_blank>http://www.christianforums.com/threads/25452-9.html)"

The issue is not whether I said this, but whether 1) the protocells have the properties of life and 2) whether you can make them in your kitchen.  Now, as to the second, in the 1960s and 1970s it appears that making protocells was a very popular science fair project, and Fox states that dozens of high school students did make them in their kitchens. As to the first, DNAUnion and I have been around this bush several times.  The protocells metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Therefore, by the standard definition, they are alive.

But when DNAUnion insisted I discuss the details of the papers and I posted them, suddenly he disappeared. 

So, instead of discussing the issues, what does DNAUnnion do? Try to incite a flame war.  I've got better things to do.

DNAunion · Jan 21, 2003

Lucaspa: 1. The work is not my own. Therefore I am not entitled to the Nobel Prize.

DNAunion: You do know that Noble Prizes can be SHARED by multiple individuals, right? If Fox wasnt able to convince the scientific community, but you can, then you two could SHARE the Nobel Prize. Oh, its there waiting for you alright.

Lucaspa: 2. Sidney Fox's chairman nominated him 20 years in a row for the Nobel Prize.

DNAunion: Always the brides maid, never the bride!

His 20-years-in-a-row rejections for a Nobel Prize is a good indicator of how much his exaggerated claims were rejected by the scientific community at large.

Heres something I just ran across again that paints a pretty pathetic picture of Fox after years of trying to over promote himself.

Although Fox continued to champion his ideas through numerous papers, popular articles, books, and talks until he died in the summer of 1998, his work is now almost universally dismissed. Over time, he became more and more a maverick in the field. Sadly, at the Eleventh International Conference on the Origin of Life, held in Orleans, France, in 1996, he was reduced to having placards of proteinoid microspheres paraded around in the manner of a cartoon sandwich man predicting the Second Coming. (Christopher Wills & Jeffery Bada, The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup, Perseus Publishing, 2000, p55)

Lucaspa: There are many reasons other than lack of scientific merit for failure to get the Prize. The Prize is heavily influenced by politics within the Academy.

DNAunion: Yeah yeah yea, weve all heard your its a worldwide conspiracy against Fox because all scientists are jealous of him offering before: didnt buy it then, not buying it now.

Lucaspa: So it's not just me that thinks the protocells solved the problem.

DNAunion: And there is at least one scientist who still believes that the ether pervades all of space! But his position is largely dismissed by the scientific community at large too.

There are also many scientists who dont believe that evolution occurs. Does that mean they are right? Do you accept their claims because there is more than one of them?

There is also a group of several scientists who believe that irreducibly complex biochemical systems "can't" evolve? Do you accept their claims because there is more than one of them?

DNAunion · Jan 21, 2003

Lucaspa: Now, for those interested, DNAUnion has misstated spontaneous generation.

DNAunion: Nope.

Lucaspa: That theory stated that macroscopic life forms came from decaying organic matter.

DNAunion: Nope.

First, it was not restricted to just macroscopic life forms: even those organisms invisible to the naked eye, like bacteria, were thought to pop into existence spontaneously.

Second, it was not restricted to life arising from decaying organic matter.

Frogs appeared to arise from damp earth, mice from putrefied matter, insects from dew, maggots from decaying meat, and so on. Warmth, moisture, sunlight, and even starlight were often mentioned as beneficial factors that encouraged spontaneous generation. (Cleveland P. Hickman Jr., Larry S. Roberts, & Allan Larson, Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition, WCB McGraw-Hill, 1997, p31)

DNAunion: Both of your counters are rejected.

Lucaspa: It was not the generalized "life - actual living cells - can and do pop into existence spontaneously".

DNAunion: Oh really? That what are these authors talking about?

From ancient times it was commonly believed that life could arise by spontaneous generation from nonliving matter, in addition to arising from parental organisms by reproduction (biogenesis). Frogs appeared to arise from damp earth, . . . (Cleveland P. Hickman Jr., Larry S. Roberts, & Allan Larson, Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition, WCB McGraw-Hill, 1997, p31)

DNAunion: The only difference is that they do not use the term ACTUAL LIVING CELLS - but you did, and that is a more demanding phrase than simply life.

DNAunion · Jan 21, 2003

Lucaspa: DNAUnion adamantly refuses to accept the protocells as living.

DNAunion: Not accurate.

I adamantly deny that what you cooked up on your stove using the recipe you quoted is alive. It is not.

You try to confuse the issue by equivocating on the word protocell and then discussing literature on them. Whats the difference? Ill give you one: your recipe didnt include any nucleic acids. But at least one quote you used to try to convince us that protocells are alive relied upon nucleic acids (in conjunction with proteinoids) to join a few amino acids together (I cant remember if the correct linkages were formed or not). Where did your nucleic acids come from? Nowhere you didnt have any.

Whether protocells are alive or not is a different question, and one to which the answer is not as obviously, NO!; but "NO!" is the correct answer to your fry-em-up-on-the-stove assertion.

Lucaspa: However, he has never produced any data to show any of the data by Fox and others is wrong, or even discussed the actual data in the papers.

DNAunion: You havent produced any data to show that Foxs claims OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR CLAIMS OF FRYING UP LIVING CELLS IN THE KITCHEN are true. Fox exaggerated his claims he was not an unbiased, trustworthy source: he was interested in self-promotion. You follow in his footsteps.

Lucaspa: He also knows that the data is published in peer-reviewed journals, so it has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review.

DNAunion: Nope.

Some was published in the peer-reviewed papers DECADES AGO. It isnt being published anymore. That could mean that is has NOT withstood the scrutiny of peer-review.

Add to that the fact that Fox was turned down 20 years in a row for a Nobel Prize, that his proposal for a fourth domain of life to include his proteinoid microspheres has been rejected, that numerous more-recent books state that Foxs work has been dismissed or largely rejected by the scientific community, and then there IS good reason to suspect that his claims did not stand up.

Finally, Lucaspa, why dont you publish your fry-up-actual-living-cells-on-the-stove-from-amino-acids work in Science or Nature?

sulphur · Jan 22, 2003

DNAunion have you had any of your work published in science on nature. I find your vitriolic attacks quite bizarre

Outspoken · Jan 22, 2003

"I find your vitriolic attacks quite bizarre"

*chuckles* ahh..one man's peer review, another man's "vitriolic attack".

sulphur · Jan 22, 2003

would you explain your scietinfic argue ment then explain the amount of personal attacks above. who started the thead.

Outspoken · Jan 22, 2003

He reviewed the findings, so what? He used sarcasum, but that happens all the time, grow some thicker skin.

sulphur · Jan 22, 2003

I should have realised that outspoken couldn't understand the big words and was reduced to using ridicule[as I'm doing at the moment]

Outspoken · Jan 22, 2003

"I should have realised that outspoken couldn't understand the big words and was reduced to using ridicule[as I'm doing at the moment]"

*sigh* no, I was not ridiculing anyone. If you had read the posts you would see he was commenting on the works listed with sarcasum, but I'm willing to bet you didn't, but that's okay, maybe you just missed it?

sulphur · Jan 22, 2003

"sarcasm" is the lowest form of wit.

chickenman · Jan 22, 2003

DNAUnion is the man with the vendetta, he has to start several threads to goad the person he disagrees with, he has to prove his point - he's like a dog with a bone.

Outspoken is louis booth, the man with nothing interesting to say on the subject of evolution rather than a few snide comments and lots of evasive side-arguments of little or no relevence

sulphur · Jan 22, 2003

Thank you for your comments, nothing better than being forewarned.

lucaspa · Jan 22, 2003

DNAUnion: His 20-years-in-a-row rejections for a Nobel Prize is a good indicator of how much his exaggerated claims were rejected by the scientific community at large.

Not necessarily.  Again, that is your favored hypothesis. But it is not the only hypothesis to explain the data.

Heres something I just ran across again that paints a pretty pathetic picture of Fox after years of trying to over promote himself.

You always quote people who are critical of Fox, but you never discuss any of the data in the papers.  If the data is so flawed, then please post to us where the experimental data is wrong. Science is data, DNAunion, not opinions.  In the Behe thread, you get worked up because you think Miller misrepresented Behe.  But here you accept criticism of Fox, even though there is no evidence that any of his work is wrong.  Double standard?

DNAunion: Yeah yeah yea, weve all heard your its a worldwide conspiracy against Fox because all scientists are jealous of him offering before: didnt buy it then, not buying it now.

That isn't what I said.  I said that scientific merit is not the only criteria for getting a Nobel Prize.  Do you dispute this?  Do you dispute that some areas of medicine attract more prizes than others?  There are lots of scientists out there without Nobel Prizes.  Do we reject their work as well?  Do you think Behe has ever been nominated once for a Nobel?  Is he likely to get the Prize?  Do we reject Behe's work only on that basis?

DNA, you have been searching from the beginning for some reason to reject the protocells as living.  You have tried all sorts of artifical criteria -- time of publication, number of authors -- and now you try to use the Nobel Prize.  You do everything but discuss the data!

There are also many scientists who dont believe that evolution occurs. Does that mean they are right? Do you accept their claims because there is more than one of them?

I look at the data.  Apparently you don't.

There is also a group of several scientists who believe that irreducibly complex biochemical systems "can't" evolve? Do you accept their claims because there is more than one of them?

Again, I look at the data.  You've been involved with me on those discussions.  I don't trot out people making scurrilous attacks on Behe.  I look at Behe, his claims, and the data.  I did the same here.  When you can discuss the data, DNAUnion, then we can continue. 

lucaspa · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by DNAunion I adamantly deny that what you cooked up on your stove using the recipe you quoted is alive. It is not.

What I "cooked up" were protocells.  And they are alive by all the data.

But at least one quote you used to try to convince us that protocells are alive relied upon nucleic acids (in conjunction with proteinoids) to join a few amino acids together (I cant remember if the correct linkages were formed or not). Where did your nucleic acids come from? Nowhere you didnt have any.

The paper showed that protocells could make DNA/RNA in the presence of nucleic acids.  Not that nucleic acids were present when the protocells were made.  The protocells were made first. As a test whether they were alive, they were tested to see if they could make DNA/RNA if nucleic acids were present.

Now, there is another paper showing that the protocells will make new proteins.  Make the protocells first, then test them in the presence of free amino acids to see if the protocells will make new proteins.  They do.

Whether protocells are alive or not is a different question, and one to which the answer is not as obviously, NO!; but "NO!" is the correct answer to your fry-em-up-on-the-stove assertion.

Why? The procedure everyone uses to make protocells is essentially heat them dry at 200 degrees C and then add water. That is what frying them on a stove does.  You could use the oven so that the temperature setting was more precise, but the stove top works just as well.  What's the problem? Not enough fancy lab equipment for you?

DNAunion: You havent produced any data to show that Foxs claims OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR CLAIMS OF FRYING UP LIVING CELLS IN THE KITCHEN are true.

DNA, the procedure in the kitchen is the same, sans lab, of what Fox did in his lab. 

Fox exaggerated his claims he was not an unbiased, trustworthy source: he was interested in self-promotion.

You haven't shown where any of his data is wrong.  Behe is interested in self-promotion, is biased, and doesn't even publish in the peer-reviewed literature, yet you accept him.  So the criteria of bias, self-promotion, and trustworthiness are obviously not used by you as a universal criteria. When you think Miller is attacking Behe's character, you fight like a wildcat adn insist we have to look at the data.  Yet you turn right around and attack Fox's character instead of talking about the data.  Why should we accept your double standard? 

Some was published in the peer-reviewed papers DECADES AGO. It isnt being published anymore. That could mean that is has NOT withstood the scrutiny of peer-review.

So it was decades ago.  So what? Tycho Brahe's observations of planetary positions from earth was published over 400 years ago, and it is still valid.  Isn't it? 

Fox is dead. So it's a little hard for him to continue publishing.  I posted some work by others up until 2002 on the protocells.  Again in peer-reviewed journals. So it is still withstanding scrutiny.

Finally, Lucaspa, why dont you publish your fry-up-actual-living-cells-on-the-stove-from-amino-acids work in Science or Nature?

Because the work has already been published.  DNAUnion, you just don't get it, do you?  The stovetop procedure is Fox's published procedure. All I did was put it in a kitchen instead of a lab. 

lucaspa · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by DNAunion First, it was not restricted to just macroscopic life forms: even those organisms invisible to the naked eye, like bacteria, were thought to pop into existence spontaneously.

Second, it was not restricted to life arising from decaying organic matter.

I stand corrected.

DNAunion: The only difference is that they do not use the term ACTUAL LIVING CELLS - but you did, and that is a more demanding phrase than simply life. 

All the examples you gave were of cellular life arising by spontaneous generation.  So what are the authors discussing spontaneous generation discussing?

Now, I also said "Now, in other threads, DNAUnion has stated his acceptance of abiogenesis -- life from non-life. So he too accepts that spontaneous generation happened at least once. "

Care to address that?  Don't you think that spontaneous generation happened at least once?   

lucaspa · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by Outspoken
He reviewed the findings, so what? He used sarcasum, but that happens all the time, grow some thicker skin.

You missed the point.  If DNAUnion is going to dispute the protocells as living, then sarcasm is insufficient to do so.  Ridicule and sarcasm doesn't make data go away.  Neither do DNAUnion's other tactics -- the age of the data, the critical comments of others, etc.  You have to shown that the data is wrong.

DNAUnion is free to use sarcasm as much as he wants.  It doesn't affect the issue or change how the data. And I will point that out.

Lucaspa turns down Nobel Prize!

Well-Known Member

evil unamerican

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

thylacine

Standing in the Gap

thylacine

Standing in the Gap

thylacine

Standing in the Gap

thylacine

evil unamerican

thylacine

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency