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.
I've seen theories that point to life essentially "in the air" for gas giants such as Jupiter. In other words, life that doesn't require rocky terra firma, but that which is born and exists within the heavy atmosphere, drawing sustenance from the ambient elements there.Given the many places we never expected to find life here on earth, and the fact that impacts kind of spread the very primitive life around, I would not be surprised to find life as we know it, that is RNA or DNA bases life on the bodies that have liquid water. For life not as we know it, I really think that Jupiter would be a good place to look. Lots of energy and organic compounds, with all kinds of temperature and pressure gradients.
Would really like to see some missions into Jupiters atmosphere.
That is not what evolution is... I hope you're just ignorant and not willfully delusional, anyways, Evolution is driven by natural selection, and is in no way random.
I look at that and I think of all the random combination that had to be tried in order to get the parts to fit perfectly and work together; each part itself having been previously formed by random chance of molecules banging against each other.
Evolution, yeah that's how it happened
That has nothing to do with evolution.That is not what evolution is... I hope you're just ignorant and not willfully delusional, anyways, Evolution is driven by natural selection, and is in no way random.
I look at that and I think of all the random combination that had to be tried in order to get the parts to fit perfectly and work together; each part itself having been previously formed by random chance of molecules banging against each other.
Evolution, yeah that's how it happened
How did proteins and amino acids randomly select each other to form cells? Can you walk me through that? Remember, on left-handed amino acids are used on planet Earth
You're talking about the initial formation of cells, that is not what evolution is, evolution is a change in traits over successive generations driven by natural selection,.That has nothing to do with evolution.That is not what evolution is... I hope you're just ignorant and not willfully delusional, anyways, Evolution is driven by natural selection, and is in no way random.
I look at that and I think of all the random combination that had to be tried in order to get the parts to fit perfectly and work together; each part itself having been previously formed by random chance of molecules banging against each other.
Evolution, yeah that's how it happened
How did proteins and amino acids randomly select each other to form cells? Can you walk me through that? Remember, on left-handed amino acids are used on planet Earth
...because cells were already created and dropped here fully formed????
No, you're trying to equate the first formation of cellular life to evolution..You're talking about the initial formation of cells, that is not what evolution is, evolution is a change in traits over successive generations driven by natural selection,.That has nothing to do with evolution.How did proteins and amino acids randomly select each other to form cells? Can you walk me through that? Remember, on left-handed amino acids are used on planet Earth
...because cells were already created and dropped here fully formed????
I thought evolution occurred at the cellular level based on changes in the DNA?
You're making the common mistake made by ignorant fundamentalists who have no science vocabulary in connection with biology. Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life. This has been addressed so often, it's impossible you missed it.No, you're trying to equate the first formation of cellular life to evolution..You're talking about the initial formation of cells, that is not what evolution is, evolution is a change in traits over successive generations driven by natural selection,.That has nothing to do with evolution.
...because cells were already created and dropped here fully formed????
I thought evolution occurred at the cellular level based on changes in the DNA?
You're trying to decouple cells from evolution, not sure how that helps your case
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
Date:
April 27, 2015
Source:
University College London
Summary:
Hot vents on the seabed could have spontaneously produced the organic molecules necessary for life, according to new research. The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water.
This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.
What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms
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.
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
Date:
April 27, 2015
Source:
University College London
Summary:
Hot vents on the seabed could have spontaneously produced the organic molecules necessary for life, according to new research. The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water.
This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.
What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms
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.
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
Date:
April 27, 2015
Source:
University College London
Summary:
Hot vents on the seabed could have spontaneously produced the organic molecules necessary for life, according to new research. The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water.
This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.
What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms
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?
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
Date:
April 27, 2015
Source:
University College London
Summary:
Hot vents on the seabed could have spontaneously produced the organic molecules necessary for life, according to new research. The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water.
This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.
What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms
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?
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?
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
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?
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
You may, and I emphasis may have done well in science but your English comprehension skills are seriously lacking. Read who I was responding to and what I said, I was on your side with this one, at least partially.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........
Don't quit your day job.
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?
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
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.
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."
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?
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
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."
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?
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
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.
Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds. This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments. To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
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.
From the OP:
"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."
This is not something shown by Miller's experiments. This is something never shown before. It is completely new.
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?
