Crosswords1 min 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 Zacs-Master,
Whatever your hyperlink refers to, why restrict it to "esteemed scientist ABers"?
I have said much earlier that we humans are all scientists to some degree or other. My example was a baby which experiments with it's surroundings, learns and reaches educative solutions, eventually.
Yup, I am a qualified scientist and worked as such in research into biological chemistry but never reached the title of "esteemed" in my judgement.
Sorry, I don't like the restrictions you impose on resondents. I'm almost certainly wrong but I suspect a sniper attack from your calculated use of words.
Thanks for the offer to ABers, but I am defo out as far as your link and question are concerned.
Sincere Best wishes,
SIQ.
Whatever your hyperlink refers to, why restrict it to "esteemed scientist ABers"?
I have said much earlier that we humans are all scientists to some degree or other. My example was a baby which experiments with it's surroundings, learns and reaches educative solutions, eventually.
Yup, I am a qualified scientist and worked as such in research into biological chemistry but never reached the title of "esteemed" in my judgement.
Sorry, I don't like the restrictions you impose on resondents. I'm almost certainly wrong but I suspect a sniper attack from your calculated use of words.
Thanks for the offer to ABers, but I am defo out as far as your link and question are concerned.
Sincere Best wishes,
SIQ.
Dear Khandro,
I have already expressed my regrets regarding your daughter-in-laws apparent rip-off.
But I'll explain how professional research works as regards "intellectual property" in honest environments. (Note it's not exclusive to science).
(a) To carry out serious research you need funding from a grant-giving body or commercial company.
Without such funding for salary, research equipment and materials, assistant(s), the costs of attending conferences etc. plus the privelege of working alongside fellow researchers (not necessarily in your field) you have no job!
(b) It follows from the above that you cannot claim ownership of your results.
(c) This is best exemplified by the patenting process which requires unique invention, a major improvement on an existing invention (e.g. Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaner) or practicable discovery like penicilllin although Fleming ruined the British patenting chance by the real workers: Ernst Chain and Lord Florey by "giving it to the world" i.e. the USA.
(d) Given the above, certainly in industry, the ownership of the intellectual property is not that of the individual employee research worker but of the company or other funder.
(e) Whenever I, using the company's patent officer, filed a patent application, I had to assign the patent-rights to my company. In return I was sent a pound coin sellotaped to a letter acknowledging my assignment of the intellectual property. Quite right and the pound coin over-payment but sealed the deal legally.
(f) Friends and family have said "What! A mere quid for making a patentable finding, not fair". Of course they are wrong - without my company's funding I could not have achieved it and anyway that was my job (as well as making open publications where the address below my team's names was that of the company).
In summary, being a research worker is not fundamentally different from being a bus-driver or a road-sweeper. It's just more fun - some of the time!
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
I have already expressed my regrets regarding your daughter-in-laws apparent rip-off.
But I'll explain how professional research works as regards "intellectual property" in honest environments. (Note it's not exclusive to science).
(a) To carry out serious research you need funding from a grant-giving body or commercial company.
Without such funding for salary, research equipment and materials, assistant(s), the costs of attending conferences etc. plus the privelege of working alongside fellow researchers (not necessarily in your field) you have no job!
(b) It follows from the above that you cannot claim ownership of your results.
(c) This is best exemplified by the patenting process which requires unique invention, a major improvement on an existing invention (e.g. Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaner) or practicable discovery like penicilllin although Fleming ruined the British patenting chance by the real workers: Ernst Chain and Lord Florey by "giving it to the world" i.e. the USA.
(d) Given the above, certainly in industry, the ownership of the intellectual property is not that of the individual employee research worker but of the company or other funder.
(e) Whenever I, using the company's patent officer, filed a patent application, I had to assign the patent-rights to my company. In return I was sent a pound coin sellotaped to a letter acknowledging my assignment of the intellectual property. Quite right and the pound coin over-payment but sealed the deal legally.
(f) Friends and family have said "What! A mere quid for making a patentable finding, not fair". Of course they are wrong - without my company's funding I could not have achieved it and anyway that was my job (as well as making open publications where the address below my team's names was that of the company).
In summary, being a research worker is not fundamentally different from being a bus-driver or a road-sweeper. It's just more fun - some of the time!
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Dea jim.
Not going on about anything serious. I just refused to class myself as an "eminent scientist" as per Zac's question. I just don't understand why he phrased the question as he did. I believe the question should have been put to all on this thread. O.K., maybe I was a bit sensitive over his phraseology.
I'll accept his decription of me as being "a fruitcake", Not a very nice description but that's the end of the matter. I don't care about his hyperlink whatever it refers to nor his views about me..
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Not going on about anything serious. I just refused to class myself as an "eminent scientist" as per Zac's question. I just don't understand why he phrased the question as he did. I believe the question should have been put to all on this thread. O.K., maybe I was a bit sensitive over his phraseology.
I'll accept his decription of me as being "a fruitcake", Not a very nice description but that's the end of the matter. I don't care about his hyperlink whatever it refers to nor his views about me..
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
As initiator (or perhaps instigator) of this thread, and after nearly 470 posts covering numerous digressions, is it not fair to say that we have absolutely no evidence for the spontaneous eruption of self-replicating molecules (let alone conscious life) from the arbitrary combination of chemicals?
And wasn't heathfield's very first assertion "We don't know" correct.
Thanks guys, it's been a fascinating journey, with seasonal good wishes, I declare the meeting closed. Khandro :-)
And wasn't heathfield's very first assertion "We don't know" correct.
Thanks guys, it's been a fascinating journey, with seasonal good wishes, I declare the meeting closed. Khandro :-)
The crux of the argument is that both self-replication and consciousness exist and therefore they both emerged somehow, from somewhere? The presupposition that such complexity (or an infinitely more complex 'creator') arose spontaneously without means or process is the least likely scenario. Until we discover and understand the means and process by which such things could develop, rather than presuppose anything, I suggest . . . we keep looking.
