Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's why I said it is a refinement. Miller used hydrogen, ammonia, and methane as a proto atmosphere. The compounds he created are more impressive to me than this. He used that which we know to be in the atmospheres of the various planets and created the building blocks of life. The vents are truly alien life though. They get no energy from the Sun, they are purely using chemical energy for their life cycles and that is remarkable.
The disconnect I have is the claim that the vents make the enzymes. There is no proof of that. The enzymes could just as easily have come from the detritus of the tube worms in the area.
Except the computer simulations didn't use detritus and generated the same results:
The team combined laboratory experiments with supercomputer simulations to investigate the conditions under which the mineral particles would catalyse the conversion of CO2 into organic molecules. The experiments replicated the conditions present in deep sea vents, where hot and slightly alkaline water rich in dissolved CO2 passes over the mineral greigite (Fe3S4), located on the inside surfaces of the vents. These experiments hinted at the chemical processes that were underway. The simulations, which were run on UCL's Legion supercomputer and HECToR (the UK national supercomputing service), provided a molecule-by-molecule view of how the CO2 and greigite interacted, helping to make sense of what was being observed in the experiments. The computing power and programming expertise to accurately simulate the behaviour of individual molecules in this way has only become available in the past decade.
"We found that the surfaces and crystal structures inside these vents act as catalysts, encouraging chemical changes in the material that settles on them," says Nathan Hollingsworth, a co-author of the study. "They behave much like enzymes do in living organisms, breaking down the bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms. This lets them combine with water to produce formic acid, acetic acid, methanol and pyruvic acid. Once you have simple carbon-based chemicals such as these, it opens the door to more complex carbon-based chemistry."
Since when are computer models data? Get with the program dude. Too many failures have cropped up for "simple" computer models to be taken seriously anymore.
OMG, have you ever even used one? Of course you haven't. When a computer model simulates laboratory results, which simulates findings in the real world, that is anything but a failure. The only failure here is your understanding.
Of course I have. I also understand that they are not DATA. Any good scientist KNOWS that. When did you forget that fact? The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent. Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes? Hmmmm?
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
Except the computer simulations didn't use detritus and generated the same results:
Since when are computer models data? Get with the program dude. Too many failures have cropped up for "simple" computer models to be taken seriously anymore.
OMG, have you ever even used one? Of course you haven't. When a computer model simulates laboratory results, which simulates findings in the real world, that is anything but a failure. The only failure here is your understanding.
Of course I have. I also understand that they are not DATA. Any good scientist KNOWS that. When did you forget that fact? The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent. Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes? Hmmmm?
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Since when are computer models data? Get with the program dude. Too many failures have cropped up for "simple" computer models to be taken seriously anymore.
OMG, have you ever even used one? Of course you haven't. When a computer model simulates laboratory results, which simulates findings in the real world, that is anything but a failure. The only failure here is your understanding.
Of course I have. I also understand that they are not DATA. Any good scientist KNOWS that. When did you forget that fact? The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent. Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes? Hmmmm?
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
OMG, have you ever even used one? Of course you haven't. When a computer model simulates laboratory results, which simulates findings in the real world, that is anything but a failure. The only failure here is your understanding.
Of course I have. I also understand that they are not DATA. Any good scientist KNOWS that. When did you forget that fact? The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent. Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes? Hmmmm?
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
Really? Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why. Hydrologists do indeed use models. In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant. Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.
Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.
Want to know why the difference? A hydrologist HAS to be correct. He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can. A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise. No one will care if they're wrong.
I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......Guess you didn't read the article or ever studied biology and chemistry, believe me when I say I hated chemistry......... Now does that mean the research proves this is how life started? No, it specifically states from a purely scientific aspect it's possible. That's called a postulation, not a theory, not a law.Example of life being created from non living things?This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth. This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life. Feel free to contribute other examples.
Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily
This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.
More at the link.
Think life starts pretty easily where ever chemistry is favorable to it. Intelligent life on the other hand using Earth's example is exceedingly rare.
I suspect planets are teeming with life all over the universe. But intelligent life seems something of an accident. Of course the law of large numbers is on our side and even a freak occurence as happened here could happen millions of times across the whole universe.
So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made. I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry. You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt. Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started. Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper. It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
"..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......Guess you didn't read the article or ever studied biology and chemistry, believe me when I say I hated chemistry......... Now does that mean the research proves this is how life started? No, it specifically states from a purely scientific aspect it's possible. That's called a postulation, not a theory, not a law.Example of life being created from non living things?Think life starts pretty easily where ever chemistry is favorable to it. Intelligent life on the other hand using Earth's example is exceedingly rare.
I suspect planets are teeming with life all over the universe. But intelligent life seems something of an accident. Of course the law of large numbers is on our side and even a freak occurence as happened here could happen millions of times across the whole universe.
So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made. I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry. You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt. Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started. Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper. It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......Guess you didn't read the article or ever studied biology and chemistry, believe me when I say I hated chemistry......... Now does that mean the research proves this is how life started? No, it specifically states from a purely scientific aspect it's possible. That's called a postulation, not a theory, not a law.Example of life being created from non living things?
So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made. I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry. You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt. Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started. Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper. It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
I guess you're just slow.Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......Guess you didn't read the article or ever studied biology and chemistry, believe me when I say I hated chemistry......... Now does that mean the research proves this is how life started? No, it specifically states from a purely scientific aspect it's possible. That's called a postulation, not a theory, not a law.
So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made. I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry. You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt. Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started. Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper. It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
Another typical response from evolutionists... Demeaning opposition to the theory that they don't even completely understand. Typical deflection.I guess you're just slow.Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made. I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry. You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt. Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started. Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper. It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
Of course I have. I also understand that they are not DATA. Any good scientist KNOWS that. When did you forget that fact? The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent. Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes? Hmmmm?
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
Really? Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why. Hydrologists do indeed use models. In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant. Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.
Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.
Want to know why the difference? A hydrologist HAS to be correct. He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can. A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise. No one will care if they're wrong.
Where did you get the idea that groundwater is straightforward? Diffuse flow sometimes is simple in a formation that has uniform permeability and porocity (particularly if both are relatively high), but most of the time, even diffuse flow is very complex, because aquifer formations are rarely homogenous. Conduit flow is much more complex, and the combination of diffuse flow and conduit flow (which includes most karst systems) is even more complex. And I take issue with your claim that climate models are simple. Name one that you believe is simple, and why. And of course, regardless of the facts, that you would make the pronouncement that climate scientists produce "crap" demonstrates your utter bias on the subject, and so there is no reason to believe you have any credibility on the subject. But then, we knew this already.
It's the best answer for fundamentalist religionists who denigrate the sciences they know nothing about.Another typical response from evolutionists... Demeaning opposition to the theory that they don't even completely understand. Typical deflection.I guess you're just slow.Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.You truly are a defensive moron aren't you. Reread who I was responding to then get back to me. Putz......
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
I have never seen you post a knowledgeable post. You always make your stupidity obvious with every insult.It's the best answer for fundamentalist religionists who denigrate the sciences they know nothing about.Another typical response from evolutionists... Demeaning opposition to the theory that they don't even completely understand. Typical deflection.I guess you're just slow.Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
See, you are slow.I have never seen you post a knowledgeable post. You always make your stupidity obvious with every insult.It's the best answer for fundamentalist religionists who denigrate the sciences they know nothing about.Another typical response from evolutionists... Demeaning opposition to the theory that they don't even completely understand. Typical deflection.I guess you're just slow.Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact."..... because I say so"
There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.
Sure you have. So why don't I believe you? The point is that the laboratory experiments, which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents. Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue. You can't because it isn't.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
Really? Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why. Hydrologists do indeed use models. In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant. Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.
Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.
Want to know why the difference? A hydrologist HAS to be correct. He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can. A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise. No one will care if they're wrong.
Where did you get the idea that groundwater is straightforward? Diffuse flow sometimes is simple in a formation that has uniform permeability and porocity (particularly if both are relatively high), but most of the time, even diffuse flow is very complex, because aquifer formations are rarely homogenous. Conduit flow is much more complex, and the combination of diffuse flow and conduit flow (which includes most karst systems) is even more complex. And I take issue with your claim that climate models are simple. Name one that you believe is simple, and why. And of course, regardless of the facts, that you would make the pronouncement that climate scientists produce "crap" demonstrates your utter bias on the subject, and so there is no reason to believe you have any credibility on the subject. But then, we knew this already.
Groundwater is very straightforward. We know all of its physical properties, thus the only variables are those that pertain to the media it is traveling through. Climate models are INCREDIBLY simple. In fact, most abstracts describe them as such.
A CFD model, as used by the aviation or racing industry, is orders of magnitude more complex and they are merely dealing with aerodynamics. The global climate models are attempting to model the most complex system that exists, and they use models that are simple because that is the best they are capable of coming up with.
I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes". Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts. Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.
Models are not data. They never will be data. The study is interesting, but not earth shattering. That is my point. Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
Really? Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why. Hydrologists do indeed use models. In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant. Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.
Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.
Want to know why the difference? A hydrologist HAS to be correct. He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can. A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise. No one will care if they're wrong.
Where did you get the idea that groundwater is straightforward? Diffuse flow sometimes is simple in a formation that has uniform permeability and porocity (particularly if both are relatively high), but most of the time, even diffuse flow is very complex, because aquifer formations are rarely homogenous. Conduit flow is much more complex, and the combination of diffuse flow and conduit flow (which includes most karst systems) is even more complex. And I take issue with your claim that climate models are simple. Name one that you believe is simple, and why. And of course, regardless of the facts, that you would make the pronouncement that climate scientists produce "crap" demonstrates your utter bias on the subject, and so there is no reason to believe you have any credibility on the subject. But then, we knew this already.
Groundwater is very straightforward. We know all of its physical properties, thus the only variables are those that pertain to the media it is traveling through. Climate models are INCREDIBLY simple. In fact, most abstracts describe them as such.
A CFD model, as used by the aviation or racing industry, is orders of magnitude more complex and they are merely dealing with aerodynamics. The global climate models are attempting to model the most complex system that exists, and they use models that are simple because that is the best they are capable of coming up with.
If you truly believe that ground water is straightforward, I challenge you to determine the fate of TCE in a 10 mile long, subaerial karst system with both dendritic and fault-controlled channels and both conduit and diffuse flow. Good luck with that.
Geologists use models ALL THE TIME. I've used ground water models many times. Mineralogists use models. Seismologists use models. Volcanologists use models. Engineering geologists use them. We all do. I've not made the claim that they are "data". So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools. Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions. I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water. Some were successful. Some weren't. But all of them were useful in one way or another. If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.
Really? Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why. Hydrologists do indeed use models. In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant. Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.
Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.
Want to know why the difference? A hydrologist HAS to be correct. He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can. A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise. No one will care if they're wrong.
Where did you get the idea that groundwater is straightforward? Diffuse flow sometimes is simple in a formation that has uniform permeability and porocity (particularly if both are relatively high), but most of the time, even diffuse flow is very complex, because aquifer formations are rarely homogenous. Conduit flow is much more complex, and the combination of diffuse flow and conduit flow (which includes most karst systems) is even more complex. And I take issue with your claim that climate models are simple. Name one that you believe is simple, and why. And of course, regardless of the facts, that you would make the pronouncement that climate scientists produce "crap" demonstrates your utter bias on the subject, and so there is no reason to believe you have any credibility on the subject. But then, we knew this already.
Groundwater is very straightforward. We know all of its physical properties, thus the only variables are those that pertain to the media it is traveling through. Climate models are INCREDIBLY simple. In fact, most abstracts describe them as such.
A CFD model, as used by the aviation or racing industry, is orders of magnitude more complex and they are merely dealing with aerodynamics. The global climate models are attempting to model the most complex system that exists, and they use models that are simple because that is the best they are capable of coming up with.
If you truly believe that ground water is straightforward, I challenge you to determine the fate of TCE in a 10 mile long, subaerial karst system with both dendritic and fault-controlled channels and both conduit and diffuse flow. Good luck with that.
The "fate" of TCE? What the hell do you mean. TCE is a pollutant that is exceptionally soluble. The TCE goes where the water goes. You can use granular activated carbon in combination with packed tower aeration to clear it, but it's a stone cold bitch. Of course MTBE is even worse. BTW ALL karst exhibits both dendritic and fault-controlled channels. Why didn't you mention the bedding planes too? They are every bit as important.
DNA is synonymous with life, but where did it originate? One way to answer this question is to try to recreate the conditions that formed DNA's molecular precursors. These precursors are carbon ring structures with embedded nitrogen atoms, key components of nucleobases, which themselves are building blocks of the double helix.
Now, researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (Berkeley Lab) and the University of Hawaii at Manoa have shown for the first time that cosmic hot spots, such as those near stars, could be excellent environments for the creation of these nitrogen-containing molecular rings.
In a new paper in the Astrophysical Journal, the team describes the experiment in which they recreate conditions around carbon-rich, dying stars to find formation pathways of the important molecules.
"This is the first time anyone's looked at a hot reaction like this," says Musahid Ahmed, scientist in the Chemical Sciences Division at Berkeley Lab. It's not easy for carbon atoms to form rings that contain nitrogen, he says. But this new work demonstrates the possibility of a hot gas phase reaction, what Ahmed calls the "cosmic barbeque."
In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells.
Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists -- Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD -- have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.
"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."
More scientific research on the origin of life:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601172834.htm
In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells.
Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists -- Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD -- have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.
"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."
More at the link.
