Origin of organic molecule in space?

[thaumaturgy]

That diagram is missing a very key word there, scientist.

Can you find it?

Hint: One little four-letter word found down there where the new diagram says: Amino acids found here.

-sigh-

I'm guessing you consider this a big "insight" or some devestating critique of all this? Really?

So unless no scientists are around you won't accept that some organic chemicals can form abiotically?

What's the point of your post?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the point of your post?

QV please:

The Miller–Urey experiment also had strategically designed traps to remove the products from the radiation before they could be destroyed. On a primitive earth, any amino acids formed in the atmosphere would be destroyed long before they could be removed. Even the ocean would not protect them, because UV penetrates several metres of liquid water—you can even sunburn under water. This indicates that the conditions on the early earth could never have been favourable for abiogenesis.

SOURCE

 

[thaumaturgy]

QV please:

SOURCE

Ahhh, now I see your point (you could be somewhat less opaque in your posts, but I know that takes the "fun" out of science for you).

Indeed, I even mentioned that in one of the points I added that additional UV could help degrade some of the early formed material.

This is where we invoke the rather likely possibility that some material can be sequestered away from conditions of degradation.

Now there are two ways of looking at this:

We find complex organic molecules in space. We know that these can be made abiotically from observed experiment but they must further be sequestered from attack by UV or oxidants.

1. That means that they were possibly sequestered away from further UV or oxidants (sometimes things get trapped in other things, a feature we see in nature all the time, for instance it is how coal forms in that the organic material is "sequestered" away from oxidation, etc.)

or

2. Nothing that we know about "common sense" can be applied ergo ONLY GOD could have made these molecules and put them in space.

Of course #1 makes sense but #2 helps bolster a belief in an unevidenced supernatural being. So I guess that #2 wins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course #1 makes sense but #2 helps bolster a belief in an unevidenced supernatural being. So I guess that #2 wins.

Let's get back to Thaumaturgy's misleading diagram, shall we?

You have this NIV of a diagram, where some key word(s) are missing from the original KJV diagram.

Just like Rocky tried to slip some artist's conception of Archeopteryx past us, and I had to call him out on it too, eh?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let's get back to Thaumaturgy's misleading diagram, shall we?

"misleading"? Bear false witness much?

You have this NIV of a diagram, where some key word(s) are missing from the original KJV diagram.

-sigh- you don't even know the beginning of this alphabet, AV. Don't try to play this game.

 

[AV1611VET]

"misleading"?

Yes -- misleading.

Your diagram can take a hike.

Although it probably won't; it's probably the 'new improved' diagram used in higher aceldama to mislead educatees.

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't need to be preserved, it just needs to form often enough that it is detectable.

As I said, the game is the competition between the rate of formation and the rate of destruction. As far as I can reason, the former could be many orders smaller than the latter. Even though the rate of formation is already pretty small.

So, the answer I really like to see is: how fast (or slow) organic substance could be disintegrated in a space (e.g. nebulous) environment.? Also like I said, the answer could already be there somewhere. (heck, with all the time I spent on this thread, I might have already found the answer.)

 

[juvenissun]

Ahhh, now I see your point (you could be somewhat less opaque in your posts, but I know that takes the "fun" out of science for you).

Indeed, I even mentioned that in one of the points I added that additional UV could help degrade some of the early formed material.

This is where we invoke the rather likely possibility that some material can be sequestered away from conditions of degradation.

Now there are two ways of looking at this:

We find complex organic molecules in space. We know that these can be made abiotically from observed experiment but they must further be sequestered from attack by UV or oxidants.

1. That means that they were possibly sequestered away from further UV or oxidants (sometimes things get trapped in other things, a feature we see in nature all the time, for instance it is how coal forms in that the organic material is "sequestered" away from oxidation, etc.)

or

2. Nothing that we know about "common sense" can be applied ergo ONLY GOD could have made these molecules and put them in space.

Of course #1 makes sense but #2 helps bolster a belief in an unevidenced supernatural being. So I guess that #2 wins.

As a scientist, don't give up so easily.

God makes you a scientist with a good reason. He wants you to explore more on His creation so you would learn more about science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As a scientist, don't give up so easily.

God makes you a scientist with a good reason. He wants you to explore more on His creation so you would learn more about science.

Ummm, yeah.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes -- misleading.

Your diagram can take a hike.

Although it probably won't; it's probably the 'new improved' diagram used in higher aceldama to mislead educatees.

Ahhh, playing the part of "The Accuser"?

Seems you have accidentally aligned yourself with the wrong team there, AV.

 

[CabVet]

As far as I can reason, the former could be many orders smaller than the latter.

What everybody here is saying is that "as far as I can reason" is not enough support for your assumption. You should either abandon your criticism or provide evidence to support your assumption.

 

[juvenissun]

What everybody here is saying is that "as far as I can reason" is not enough support for your assumption. You should either abandon your criticism or provide evidence to support your assumption.

I don't have any criticism. I only have question and some ideas. The problem is, nobody gives me even a possibility. Where is yours?

If an organic molecule is made in a "dense" cloud of a nebula such as what the solar system was. Then what would happen after that? Once the sun started to radiate, the molecule is more likely to finish its journey. Comets are supposed to be made by "residual" material in a solar system (right?). If that were the case, it would be very unlikely that any organic molecule could be made for the comets because the "gas" was too dilute, too cold, and too far away from the sun.

The fact is: we found large amino acid molecules near the surface of a comet.
Why? Any speculation?

 

[Orogeny]

If that were the case, it would be very unlikely that any organic molecule could be made for the comets because the "gas" was too dilute, too cold, and too far away from the sun.

Once again, do you have any evidence for this assertion, or is it just one of your 'ideas'?

The fact is: we found large amino acid molecules near the surface of a comet.
Why? Any speculation?

This has already been explained to you in this very thread!

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't have any criticism. I only have question and some ideas. The problem is, nobody gives me even a possibility. Where is yours?

The fact is: we found large amino acid molecules near the surface of a comet.
Why? Any speculation?

First off: Yes there are nitrogen rich molecules found in the tails of comets (NASA LINK)

Secondly this appears to be the exact reference you are in need of to provide a discussion of where they may come from, how they go there, etc.:

​

Organic molecules in the interstellar medium, comets and meteorites: A voyage from dark clouds to the early earth

Ehrenfreund, P., Charnley, S.B., 2000,
Annu. Rev Astron. Astrophys, v 38 pp427-83​

​

(LINKY)​

 

[juvenissun]

First off: Yes there are nitrogen rich molecules found in the tails of comets (NASA LINK)

Secondly this appears to be the exact reference you are in need of to provide a discussion of where they may come from, how they go there, etc.:

​

Organic molecules in the interstellar medium, comets and meteorites: A voyage from dark clouds to the early earth

Ehrenfreund, P., Charnley, S.B., 2000,
Annu. Rev Astron. Astrophys, v 38 pp427-83​

​

(LINKY)​

​

Seems to be one I like to read. Thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

​

Organic molecules in the interstellar medium, comets and meteorites: A voyage from dark clouds to the early earth

Ehrenfreund, P., Charnley, S.B., 2000,
Annu. Rev Astron. Astrophys, v 38 pp427-83​

​

(LINKY)​

This article tells me one thing at the least: amino acid molecules are found on meteorite (chondrite), but not on comet. Is this significant?

Now, a little shift on the goalpost: what is the origin of meteorite? Two possibilities: Puffy dust (or rocky) ball, or pieces of exploded(?) planet. Are all pieces of meteorite native in the solar system?