Society & Culture10 mins ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
Dear jomifl,
Slow-witted me realised that your post was just friendly sarcasm as soon as I posted. If you can be bothered to trawl thro' the past posts (difficult now, I know), you will see that it started with a side comment from me to hypo although that roused jim, However I admit that I preferred his answer here rather than start on a separate question.
Oh, can you tell me what the thread is at the moment please? Oh, no forget that question please, lol.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
Slow-witted me realised that your post was just friendly sarcasm as soon as I posted. If you can be bothered to trawl thro' the past posts (difficult now, I know), you will see that it started with a side comment from me to hypo although that roused jim, However I admit that I preferred his answer here rather than start on a separate question.
Oh, can you tell me what the thread is at the moment please? Oh, no forget that question please, lol.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
I have a question Jim
You've said:
//And of course on top of that there is a further constraint that the ideas must be testable in the real world and must pass the test. //
Does this mean that you're conceding that string theory isn't Science ;c)
Friendly sarcasm apart this does illustrate another more speculative form of science.
Sometimes theories like string theory are simply not testable because the observable effects are beyond us and may always be so
These theories rely on providing logical explanations for observed phenomina (being useful) and being self consistant
In some such was we're loging for such a theory of abiogenesis
We can't know if any theory was the way life began on Earth, it was an event long ago and the evidence has doubtlessly been distroyed
But if we can find a self consistant theory that explains this it's at least as strong science as String theory
You've said:
//And of course on top of that there is a further constraint that the ideas must be testable in the real world and must pass the test. //
Does this mean that you're conceding that string theory isn't Science ;c)
Friendly sarcasm apart this does illustrate another more speculative form of science.
Sometimes theories like string theory are simply not testable because the observable effects are beyond us and may always be so
These theories rely on providing logical explanations for observed phenomina (being useful) and being self consistant
In some such was we're loging for such a theory of abiogenesis
We can't know if any theory was the way life began on Earth, it was an event long ago and the evidence has doubtlessly been distroyed
But if we can find a self consistant theory that explains this it's at least as strong science as String theory
I don't get it! Get what? How could I be involved in a debate which has basically moved to "amateur/professionalism" in science and now the value of the multi-disciplinary approach (thanks Jim) without me shouting the name Louis Pasteur? He was my inspiration thro' my biochemistry studies and career.
He should be revered by all of us here.
An academic professional, beginnning as a "pure" chemist, his accomplishments in science and particularly medicine are too numerous to cite. Like Newton he built on the shoulders of great men from various spheres using his great brain and experimental expertise. Hence firmly establishing as univeral practicable facts the bacterial cause of disease, immunology, vaccination etc. In fact I think he discovered the L- AND D-structures of molecules referred to earlier - correct me if I'm wrong.
So reference to 19th century science/philosophy is valid Khandro, provided you separate the wheat from the chaff.
SIQ.
He should be revered by all of us here.
An academic professional, beginnning as a "pure" chemist, his accomplishments in science and particularly medicine are too numerous to cite. Like Newton he built on the shoulders of great men from various spheres using his great brain and experimental expertise. Hence firmly establishing as univeral practicable facts the bacterial cause of disease, immunology, vaccination etc. In fact I think he discovered the L- AND D-structures of molecules referred to earlier - correct me if I'm wrong.
So reference to 19th century science/philosophy is valid Khandro, provided you separate the wheat from the chaff.
SIQ.
Dear Khandro,
Ty for explaing my term "too far away" to Zacs-Master. It was also a weak joke by the way.
Surely we are not going to hare-off on yet another tangent as you seem to imply you would like to - you now seem think it is relevant to
self-replicating molecules. I'm awfully sorry but that approach to your original question would be just nonsensical.
I am appealing for us not to go there because I feel guilty of accidently starting it in a side comment to hypo.
Also an appeal to contributors - if you aren't prepared to do the hard work of reading this "thread" from heathfields first point to here then please
zip-it.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Ty for explaing my term "too far away" to Zacs-Master. It was also a weak joke by the way.
Surely we are not going to hare-off on yet another tangent as you seem to imply you would like to - you now seem think it is relevant to
self-replicating molecules. I'm awfully sorry but that approach to your original question would be just nonsensical.
I am appealing for us not to go there because I feel guilty of accidently starting it in a side comment to hypo.
Also an appeal to contributors - if you aren't prepared to do the hard work of reading this "thread" from heathfields first point to here then please
zip-it.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Here's a subject which I regard as crucial to this debate: what I see as a progressive trend of corruption in science.
From student to professional scientist and now retired I have encountered cliques of scientists who stick together because they all agree on "the answer or approach to finding the answer" to a particular problem. I suppose I have tended in that direction - but never written-off others of a different view - that would be stupid.
To publish a paper in a reputable science journal, one's results and conclusions have to be first reviewed by fellow scientists who specialise in your field and approve publication. This is termed "peer review".
I have observed a distinct trend to abuse of the "peer review" process whereby excellent evidence which bucks the "ruling opinion clique" might never be published because the reviewers give it the thumbs down to the journal editor. I never encountered such treatment, so no axe to grind.
Most will know of the climate change scandal in which a Professor of East Anglia University resigned over the climate change issue. He, allegedly deleted evidence which contradicted his "results" and allegedly appealed to others to block publications which refuted his theories.
There was another major issue over HIV/AIDS but I'll stop there.
"Peer review" is open to corruption and should itself be scrutinised as it's abuse could damage science severely.
I say this to show to Khandro and others that scientists do not regard the disciplined method as perfect but I maintain that honest scientists are in the vast majority and it remains our best way forward towards knowledge.
Pity religionists are not so self-critical.
SIQ.
From student to professional scientist and now retired I have encountered cliques of scientists who stick together because they all agree on "the answer or approach to finding the answer" to a particular problem. I suppose I have tended in that direction - but never written-off others of a different view - that would be stupid.
To publish a paper in a reputable science journal, one's results and conclusions have to be first reviewed by fellow scientists who specialise in your field and approve publication. This is termed "peer review".
I have observed a distinct trend to abuse of the "peer review" process whereby excellent evidence which bucks the "ruling opinion clique" might never be published because the reviewers give it the thumbs down to the journal editor. I never encountered such treatment, so no axe to grind.
Most will know of the climate change scandal in which a Professor of East Anglia University resigned over the climate change issue. He, allegedly deleted evidence which contradicted his "results" and allegedly appealed to others to block publications which refuted his theories.
There was another major issue over HIV/AIDS but I'll stop there.
"Peer review" is open to corruption and should itself be scrutinised as it's abuse could damage science severely.
I say this to show to Khandro and others that scientists do not regard the disciplined method as perfect but I maintain that honest scientists are in the vast majority and it remains our best way forward towards knowledge.
Pity religionists are not so self-critical.
SIQ.
SIQ; //To publish a paper in a reputable science journal, one's results and conclusions have to be first reviewed by fellow scientists who specialise in your field and approve publication.//
How does this work in practice? Scientists close to me tell of stories of how for example, in a scramble to publish (and get career advancement, fame and/or funding), findings from research assistants are claimed in the name of their supervisor. How does this "Peer Review" take place, in a world where to publish anything seemingly original is paramount?
How does this work in practice? Scientists close to me tell of stories of how for example, in a scramble to publish (and get career advancement, fame and/or funding), findings from research assistants are claimed in the name of their supervisor. How does this "Peer Review" take place, in a world where to publish anything seemingly original is paramount?
Dear Khandro,
Ty for your response.
I'm afraid your "scientific advisors" are talking nonsense.
Indeed I'm surprised that you posted your question under "science" when you need advisors and do not know the way in which reputable (99.9%) research is publicised.
Sure, a great deal of scientific research is actually carried out by research students or lab assistants but only under guidance from their tutor or manager.
Then the order of authors is decided. The best is to be first or last in the order of authors (it's a team effort remember). To boost students' or assistants confidence/reputation they are often first and the real creative team leader of the research project last (others in between).
Then the results. To be scientifically scrutinised, they must be submitted to a reputable journal covering that research field. By publishing all the details of methods used, statistical analysis etc, this enables other scientists to repeat the experiment and thus confirm or deny the original authors' work.
Do you really think the editorial staff of a reputable journal can decide alone whether to publish or not?
No! They submit the results, conclusion etc. (termed a "paper") to experts in the field in question so-called "peers" ("equals"). They report back to the editorial staff "O.K." good enough to publish or "No" there are too many flaws the in the submitted "paper to merit publication".
That's it.
Forget magazines, newspaper rubbishy abstracts leaked to them by uncrupulous so-called scientists etc.
Hope that answers you query, Khandro.
With Best Wishes,
SIQ
Ty for your response.
I'm afraid your "scientific advisors" are talking nonsense.
Indeed I'm surprised that you posted your question under "science" when you need advisors and do not know the way in which reputable (99.9%) research is publicised.
Sure, a great deal of scientific research is actually carried out by research students or lab assistants but only under guidance from their tutor or manager.
Then the order of authors is decided. The best is to be first or last in the order of authors (it's a team effort remember). To boost students' or assistants confidence/reputation they are often first and the real creative team leader of the research project last (others in between).
Then the results. To be scientifically scrutinised, they must be submitted to a reputable journal covering that research field. By publishing all the details of methods used, statistical analysis etc, this enables other scientists to repeat the experiment and thus confirm or deny the original authors' work.
Do you really think the editorial staff of a reputable journal can decide alone whether to publish or not?
No! They submit the results, conclusion etc. (termed a "paper") to experts in the field in question so-called "peers" ("equals"). They report back to the editorial staff "O.K." good enough to publish or "No" there are too many flaws the in the submitted "paper to merit publication".
That's it.
Forget magazines, newspaper rubbishy abstracts leaked to them by uncrupulous so-called scientists etc.
Hope that answers you query, Khandro.
With Best Wishes,
SIQ
Dear Khandro,
Perhaps I was a bit harsh on your scientific friends and you by terming them "advisors". A lot of what they say about the fervour to publish, for selfish career reasons is often paramount amongst the unscrupulous minority of scientists. However I advise you to start with my explanation and fill in any gaps as you wish. After all I've been there. Yup it's a jungle at times especially in the related field of patenting your inventions or practicable discoveries but that's about inter-country rivalry and favouring the home industry.
Please also re-read my concerns about progressive corruption via the "peer review" process - it's ripe for what your friends term the rush to be first but even more so if you've arisen to be professor and find your fame was built on straw you're ruined and may take desperate corrupt measures.!
In other words my recent postings are linked.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh on your scientific friends and you by terming them "advisors". A lot of what they say about the fervour to publish, for selfish career reasons is often paramount amongst the unscrupulous minority of scientists. However I advise you to start with my explanation and fill in any gaps as you wish. After all I've been there. Yup it's a jungle at times especially in the related field of patenting your inventions or practicable discoveries but that's about inter-country rivalry and favouring the home industry.
Please also re-read my concerns about progressive corruption via the "peer review" process - it's ripe for what your friends term the rush to be first but even more so if you've arisen to be professor and find your fame was built on straw you're ruined and may take desperate corrupt measures.!
In other words my recent postings are linked.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
And what do our esteemed scientist ABers think of this?
http://
http://
SIQ; Ref. my "Scientific advisors". My daughter-in-law is a Professor of Biology at at one of Germany's most prestigious, Nobel-prize winning, Universities, and when she was younger and in a lower position, had personal intellectual property appropriated by an avaricious senior. My son, though now working outside of the field, is also a biologist. Theft it seems is quite a common occurrence. Did Darwin, Pasteur or Crick and Watson sit around having peer reviews?
Crick and Watson are a prize example.
Rosalyn Franklin was busy dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on her crystallographic research, (Fourier analysis using pen and paper!!) so as to make it fit for publication when she made the mistake of letting them set eyes on the, now familiar, photograph which, for reasons I don't understand, they immediately realised was an indication of a double-helical layout for DNA. They only had to spend a few days messing around with paper cut-outs of molecule shapes and building 3-D models to get a shape that worked.
They published well ahead of her and so they got the Nobel prize.
Darwin was reluctant to publish and remained so for years, until it became apparent that Alfred Russel Wallace was about to. Since Wallace was based in Malaysia/Indonesia at the time, it was taking weeks for his communications to reach the UK, giving Darwin ample time to get his manuscript to a publisher.
Modern research is certainly a team effort and the days of single-author research papers are more or less over. That's why crank research is so obvious for what it is - a single author, who thinks s/he's the next Darwin/Einstein/Feynman and is about to overturn their field of science. Oh and they love using phrases like 'paradigm shift'.
Rosalyn Franklin was busy dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on her crystallographic research, (Fourier analysis using pen and paper!!) so as to make it fit for publication when she made the mistake of letting them set eyes on the, now familiar, photograph which, for reasons I don't understand, they immediately realised was an indication of a double-helical layout for DNA. They only had to spend a few days messing around with paper cut-outs of molecule shapes and building 3-D models to get a shape that worked.
They published well ahead of her and so they got the Nobel prize.
Darwin was reluctant to publish and remained so for years, until it became apparent that Alfred Russel Wallace was about to. Since Wallace was based in Malaysia/Indonesia at the time, it was taking weeks for his communications to reach the UK, giving Darwin ample time to get his manuscript to a publisher.
Modern research is certainly a team effort and the days of single-author research papers are more or less over. That's why crank research is so obvious for what it is - a single author, who thinks s/he's the next Darwin/Einstein/Feynman and is about to overturn their field of science. Oh and they love using phrases like 'paradigm shift'.
I commented over on LG's thread that I thought that the maths was sound, but that there was most likely no need to panic as the calculation assumes only Standard Model particles -- and we have good reason to believe that there are other particles out there yet to be discovered.
In answer to most of the rest of the points, particularly about peer review, I think I might wait until I have some experience of it myself. I'm sure that several important papers have been blocked or delayed over the years because the reviewers disagreed with the results -- and if I could be bothered I'd find examples, but I don't really need to. Like any other group of people, there are Scientists with big egos, and that's a shame. Overall, though, the peer review system works, and it means that such results as do come out have been checked, double-checked, triple-checked, and as such are unlikely to be wrong in any major way.
In answer to most of the rest of the points, particularly about peer review, I think I might wait until I have some experience of it myself. I'm sure that several important papers have been blocked or delayed over the years because the reviewers disagreed with the results -- and if I could be bothered I'd find examples, but I don't really need to. Like any other group of people, there are Scientists with big egos, and that's a shame. Overall, though, the peer review system works, and it means that such results as do come out have been checked, double-checked, triple-checked, and as such are unlikely to be wrong in any major way.
Dear Khandro,
See Hypo's answer re "peer review" and corruption in science.
I agree 100% with every word he says so that's my answer as well.
Watson & Crick were extemely clever but in a race, notably with Chargaff
and they did use dubious means to win.
The treatment of Rosalyn Franklyn has left a scar on science's face in respect of attributing credit where it is due. However the co-Nobel Prize winner, Maurice Wilkins was equally if not more guilty as HE took the credit for Franklin's key evidence which used X-ray crystallography to prove the DNA's double helix. Watson and Crick then built their model using metal sheets cut into the A,G,C,T shapes.
My doubts about your scientific colleagues was the apparent implication that research students/assistants doing the benchwork for their mentors was in someway wrong, Nope it is correct and is the general current system, provided the mentor gives them due credit. Professors and Senior Scientists have to juggle many balls at once: their science, fund-raising and scientific politics including involvment with their relevant learned society. So if you think they can spend their time in white coats, you are mistaken.
The student-mentor team approach is a good system with mutual benefits and benefits to mankind despite the odd bad apples. I have of course left out post-doctoral assistants but the same system applies.
Sorry to hear of your daughter-in-law's betrayal, I'll comment on that separately.
SIQ.
See Hypo's answer re "peer review" and corruption in science.
I agree 100% with every word he says so that's my answer as well.
Watson & Crick were extemely clever but in a race, notably with Chargaff
and they did use dubious means to win.
The treatment of Rosalyn Franklyn has left a scar on science's face in respect of attributing credit where it is due. However the co-Nobel Prize winner, Maurice Wilkins was equally if not more guilty as HE took the credit for Franklin's key evidence which used X-ray crystallography to prove the DNA's double helix. Watson and Crick then built their model using metal sheets cut into the A,G,C,T shapes.
My doubts about your scientific colleagues was the apparent implication that research students/assistants doing the benchwork for their mentors was in someway wrong, Nope it is correct and is the general current system, provided the mentor gives them due credit. Professors and Senior Scientists have to juggle many balls at once: their science, fund-raising and scientific politics including involvment with their relevant learned society. So if you think they can spend their time in white coats, you are mistaken.
The student-mentor team approach is a good system with mutual benefits and benefits to mankind despite the odd bad apples. I have of course left out post-doctoral assistants but the same system applies.
Sorry to hear of your daughter-in-law's betrayal, I'll comment on that separately.
SIQ.
