Ophiolite

Why? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=heterochrony++arthropods&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=60&sa=N

I believe they wind up posting unsubstantiated crap on Science Forums.

No one is disputing that certain differences exist. Please explain in what way any of the unsubtantiated differences quoted in your post #41 demonstrate that 'blacks' are less evolved?

Organic, in this context (chemistry) does not mean produced by organisms, it means, as stated 'carbon based' as in 'organic chemistry, the chemistry of carbon'. I am confused as you appear to want to use organic sensuo stricto to refer to the specific products of life. My central rebuttal point is: rather than the simple molecules you proposed (water, methane, ammonia etc) constituting the bulk of interstellar material, there is a richness and diversity of complex molecules which fit any definition I am familiar with of 'prebiotic', and are described repeatedly in the extensive literature on the subject as 'prebiotic'. If these same 'prebiotic' assemblages allegedly gave rise to life on earth then it is a rather narrow view that fails to concede the possibility they could produce the same results off-earth.. In passing, you earlier remarked that " Sounds like (a) view from someone who is trying to reconcile two different beliefs, which is not good science." My response to this is Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Ahrrenius, Hoyle, Gold, Sagan (for a time), & Crick. Which two different beliefs were they trying to reconcile?

What would a false accusation of strawmaning come under?

It's worthy of attention because of the wealth of circumstantial data pointing in that direction.

All three answers are correct. (You may have to share the pint.) Initially the higher flow rate possible in the larger diameter pipe will place it slightly higher Once everything has reached equilibrium they must be at the same level. Except when you take into account surface tension: the meniscus on the smaller pipe will be marginally higher..

Not at all. It is saying that we have an larger arena in which the processes that consitute abiogenesis may operate. It is useful to discard this terra-centric viewpoint that constrains main stream thinking on this point. Life could just as easily (I would say more easily) have originated elsewhere. If it did we have mechanisms for transfering it to Earth. It is possible, and therefore merits attention.

I think the 'pass the buck' counter argument is awkward to deal with. What the panspermia argument does is help us out if we are concerned about the odds of quite complex life (and I consider prokaryotes complex) arising in a quite small window of opportunity, that may be well under 200 million years. I am certainly not saying this is impossible, only that the difficulties are diminished if we have more space and more time to play with. (Edit: and a wider range of environments) As regards testability we need only look to our own Oort cloud. If the hypothesis is valid we should find dormant organisms in the comets. The present probe (name escapes me) that will impact a comet, permitting remote sensing of its interior chemistry will not be all that helpfull. We need a manned or AI landing on, and diverse sample collection from, a long period comet to nail it.

Phil, I wholeheartedly endorse your last post, but find myself at odds with your former. Briefly, we are tribal animals attuned to living in small communities of around 100 individuals. It is an effective defense mechanism to be highly suspicious of any one who is different. This worked well enough when we lived in tribes; it is almost wholly counterproductive in cities populated by millions. The sooner it is suppressed, countered, de-evolved, the better.

Whereas with treatment the survival rate is 5%.

nameta9, you don't seem to appreciate the advances in all computation and transmission technologies. I simply observe that fifteen years ago a 1.4Mb floppy was huge. Hard drives were big at 40Mb. And thirty years ago you could program a multi-sensor input monitoring system in 8kb (sixteen bit words at that). So, I have zero doubt that that is the future - not hype.

Well, its a possibility. Perhaps I could interest you in a bridge I have for sale? Nice location.

True. But that also includes geometry. Bell shapes resonate. Bricks are porous. There's never a simple answer.

I was going to use a variant of Dak's explanation using a pub on the Thames, but it might not help much more. Then I thought I'd try explaining it using the Haber process. That was when I realised I'd forgotten what that was a couple of decades ago. In trying to refresh my memory I ran across this link that may be useful. About half way down the page it discusses the importance of equilibrium. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html If that doesn't work try some of the other results on googling ["haber process" "dynamic equilibrium"]. Good luck with the exam, though I don't think you'll need it: if equilibrium is your one concern, you've got it beat. Edit: From the same site a good general description: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/introduction.html

He suffers a power outage (but the grid companies are prepared these days). His retirement fund could dip lower because a satellite gets zapped and has to be replaced. His insurance premiums go up for the same reason. In short, no discernible effects other than the potential power loss.

I've found if you stay in bars long enough even stranger things happen.

1. Abundant pre-biotic material in interstellar dust clouds 2. Complex organics in comets. 3. Abundant pre-biotic material in meteorites 4. Match between IR signature of dust clouds and dust coated bacteria If your paradigm rejects an extra-terrestrial origin for life, you don't spend much research gelt looking for evidence. Spurious argument. One of the reasons for postulating an extra-terrestrial origin is that it helps get around the odds against abiogenesis by providing a larger environment in which to work. Life still requires suitable conditions. The Earth is the only planet we know that is definitely within the HZ, but we do have Mars and the putative bacteria on AH8001, not to mention the suggestive Viking results. It has been postulated that Earth life could have originated on Mars been transfered by impact. At any rate, you are missing the central point. We are originating life, by this hypothesis in space. "It just seems much more likely..." Do you really want to use 'seems' as scientific justification."somehow got caught on a comet (hmm)" You don't appear to have to good a grasp of the origin, character and evolution of interstellar clouds, star and planet formation, impact dynamics, or any of the other details that make this not only posible, but likely. "and not burn up in the atmosphere". Again, you seem unaware that the internal temperature of a fist sized bolide does not rise significantly during entry. Burning up is not an issue. (Most of the material will burn up, because its the wrong size, but only a tiny percentage needs to make it through.) "without leaving a trace of evidence anywhere." We are the evidence.

Why am I analysing them? For a job or promotion? For a prospective date? As a potential mugger? The answers will vary with the purpose.

As a simplification of an enormously complex and poorly understood suite of processes I think you may have gone to far:Solar radiation, especially UV, would tend to disociate proteins, not promote their formation. A chained suite of amino acids, polypeptide or protein, is not genetic material. We have to look to nucleotides (RNA and DNA) to provide that. And those may be the primary producer of subsequent proteins, not the consequence of abiotic proteins. The early atmosphere was not noxious to the organisms that evolved in it.

If an incoming bolide is the right size it can make it. Much too large and it impacts the Earth vaporising everything. Too large and it explodes in the atmosphere. Too small and it burns up. Just right and it lands intact with only the exterior hot. Keep in mind it takes only a matter of seconds to travel through the atmospere - no time for the interior to warm significantly. On an allied topic, in a recent series of experiments ice loaded with amino acids (which are common in interstellar space) was impacted at energies equivalent to striking the earth. Not only did the amino acids not decompose, but they linked up to form polypeptides , a precursor of proteins.

Just thinking out loud: RNA probably preceded DNA, functioning as a self replicating system. When (and however)DNA came on the scene , the RNA was coerced into its various current roles, including facilitating protein synthethis in ribosomes. The ribosomes would look pretty silly w/out DNA, so I vote for RNA first.