This would be (and is) interesting because it is a specific result relating molecular mechanisms in the brain to observable and measurable mental characteristics. Do you really believe that the generalization that "any mental trait is determined by genetics and environment" is all we need to know about the genetics of brain function?
Your dismissal of this result is like arguing that there is no point in studying any particular aspect of astronomy because we already know everything that's out there: matter and energy.
"Because it is certain that Fox's structures possessed metabolic capabilities."
No, it is only certain that they possesed *catalytic* capabilities. "Metabolism" is by definition a property of living things, so you can't use it as evidence of life, without circular reasoning. This is the same trap that ID proponents fall into with their use of the term "design".
I don't believe that any definition can completely distinguish "life" from "non-life", but that isn't the question. The question is, how did the things that are now incontrovertibly alive actually originate. Whether Fox's structures satisfy one or another definition of "life" is not evidence of whether life actually originated from them.
My position is that scientists do not know how life originated, and that Fox's results are a long way from an explanation.
"It's not exactly like modern day protein structures"
I'll say. These are just random amino acid chains with no definite sequence, structure, or function. In other words, they lack all of the essential elements of proteins that make them building blocks of living things. This is just chemistry. There is no information processing here, and information processing is at the heart of life.
The error density in this short post is high, but I'll restrict my comments to two points.
1. "For example we can now create fully artificial viruses in a lab environment"
Yeah, but the crucial steps of protein synthesis, replication, and packaging are performed by a living host cell. This is "fully artificial"? Also the DNA sequences are designed by a living scientist, based on modifications of existing viral sequences. This has no relevance at all to abiogenesis of early life.
2. "In time we'll learn how to add self replication without a host cell." Really, how? In several billion years of viral evolution, viruses have never acquired the ability to replicate without a host cell. What mechanism do you propose? Can you tell me of a single lab that is working on this?
Where do you get your facts?
P.S. I think you are confusing "synthesis" with "abiogenesis". The fact that scientists may soon be able to design and synthesize living organisms from inorganic molecules in a lab is completely irrelevant to the question of the origins of life, unless they can show how it could have happened under natural conditions without the lab, and without the scientists. At present this is unknown. Not unknowable, just unknown. All current scientific explanations of abiogenesis are simply informed speculation.
I don't think its wise to try to counter the arguments of creationists with specious arguments, made-up facts, and gross exagerations of what is actually known. That's their specialty.
Really? You say that with such authority, as if it were a fact. Can you provide me with a citation for a single credible instance of recovery of DNA fragments from stony fossils of that age? The oldest non-controversial (ie. replicated by other labs, not attributable to contamination) DNA recovery that I can find in the literature is 400 thousand years, in frozen plant tissues. (Science. 2003 May 2;300(5620):791-5)
Anything older than that is extremely controversial in the field. For recent reviews see:
Willerslev E, Cooper A.
Ancient DNA.
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 7;272(1558):3-16.
Hebsgaard MB, Phillips MJ, Willerslev E.
Geologically ancient DNA: fact or artefact?
Trends Microbiol. 2005 May;13(5):212-20.
When you say that fossils "capture" some cellular structures, you are correct in the sense that the morphology of the cellular (and subcellular) structures is sometimes captured by mineral replacement, but the actual biomolecules are long gone. There has been one recent report of soft tissue preservation in T. Rex fossils (Science. 2005 Mar 25;307(5717):1952-5.), but the biochemical analysis has not yet been published. Commenting on the possibility of recovering DNA from these "tissues", the first author of the paper says that "the likelihood is probably next to none."
You can't be serious; these are 140 million year old fossils! These are rocks, and you can be sure they won't "find a few cells." Even DNA from mammoths that have been frozen for only 10 thousand years are fragmentary.
(Or maybe I just don't get the joke.)
Maybe the poster was so breathless from all the hype that they didn't notice that this HUGE Godzilla-like beast is SMALLER than modern crocodiles. Nile Crocodiles can be 5 meters long, while Saltwater Crocs can be over six meters.
Revised headline: Paleontologists discover midget crocodile!
-- Anonymous Pedant
I think the "defensive note" that you detect is simply that these comments are directly responding to the original posting, which proposes exactly that: that "NASA should be building a space elevator instead of their current plans." This is not just the typical slashdot mischaracterization of the original article, which states "it looks as if we could build a working space elevator -- or several -- within the $100 billion pricetag and over the same time frame." The so-called "engineering perspective" linked in is just absurdly optimistic boosterism from a space elevator enthusiast's blog. (Example: "We should demand our government invest $6 billion and build us a 200 ton space elevator in 5 years.") I don't think that directly on-topic responses to the main point of the news item should be characterized as "defensive."
And speaking only for myself, I don't see why I need to "get a grip" for posting a reasonable response to this thread. The dismissive phrase "get a grip" is not a cogent form of argument.
The problem with promoters of this kind of fantasy technology is that they don't understand how engineering really works. For example, the Apollo 11 landing happened more than 40 years after Goddard flew his first liquid fueled rocket. In between there were many intervening rocket designs, each taking the technology a small step forward. And of course, there were many catastrophic failures along the way as engineers learned to deal with unanticipated problems. Even the most advanced technology is the end result of a long chain of trial and error learning.
So how would this work for the space elevator? No one has ever built anything like it before; it is many orders of magnitude larger than anything humanity has ever built. It can't be built on any scale other than full scale, and would have to work perfectly the first time. Just because something is theoretically possible on paper doesn't mean that it is practical to build in the near term. After all, the THEORY of rocket propelled space flight has been known for over 300 years, since Newton.
I usually describe mine as an "iPod consumer oriented digital media entertainment playback device", to distinguish it from my tape backup and my digital camcorder.
Refresh my memory; when was Apple ever in charge?
Even in the heyday of MSDOS, Macs were a small minority of the computer market. And back in the days when Apple IIs roamed the earth, nobody was "in charge" because there was no single dominant platform (though you could make a case for CP/M).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not impressed. I already have genetic material all over my computer.
(Oops, did I just admit something bad?)
Sure. A guy with with a computer that small must really be hung.
The 12" powerbook is the anti-Hummer.
This would be (and is) interesting because it is a specific result relating molecular mechanisms in the brain to observable and measurable mental characteristics. Do you really believe that the generalization that "any mental trait is determined by genetics and environment" is all we need to know about the genetics of brain function?
Your dismissal of this result is like arguing that there is no point in studying any particular aspect of astronomy because we already know everything that's out there: matter and energy.
A modest semi-classic? With a recomendation like that I think I'll put it at the top of my reading list.
"Because it is certain that Fox's structures possessed metabolic capabilities."
No, it is only certain that they possesed *catalytic* capabilities. "Metabolism" is by definition a property of living things, so you can't use it as evidence of life, without circular reasoning. This is the same trap that ID proponents fall into with their use of the term "design".
I don't believe that any definition can completely distinguish "life" from "non-life", but that isn't the question. The question is, how did the things that are now incontrovertibly alive actually originate. Whether Fox's structures satisfy one or another definition of "life" is not evidence of whether life actually originated from them.
My position is that scientists do not know how life originated, and that Fox's results are a long way from an explanation.
"It's not exactly like modern day protein structures"
I'll say. These are just random amino acid chains with no definite sequence, structure, or function. In other words, they lack all of the essential elements of proteins that make them building blocks of living things. This is just chemistry. There is no information processing here, and information processing is at the heart of life.
-- Anonymous Pedant
The error density in this short post is high, but I'll restrict my comments to two points.
1. "For example we can now create fully artificial viruses in a lab environment"
Yeah, but the crucial steps of protein synthesis, replication, and packaging are performed by
a living host cell. This is "fully artificial"? Also the DNA sequences are designed by a living scientist, based on modifications of existing viral sequences. This has no relevance at all to abiogenesis of early life.
2. "In time we'll learn how to add self replication without a host cell."
Really, how? In several billion years of viral evolution, viruses have never acquired the ability to replicate without a host cell. What mechanism do you propose? Can you tell me of a single lab that is working on this?
Where do you get your facts?
P.S. I think you are confusing "synthesis" with "abiogenesis". The fact that scientists may soon be able to design and synthesize living organisms from inorganic molecules in a lab is completely irrelevant to the question of the origins of life, unless they can show how it could have happened under natural conditions without the lab, and without the scientists. At present this is unknown. Not unknowable, just unknown. All current scientific explanations of abiogenesis are simply informed speculation.
I don't think its wise to try to counter the arguments of creationists with specious arguments, made-up facts, and gross exagerations of what is actually known. That's their specialty.
-- Anonymous Pedant
Really? You say that with such authority, as if it were a fact. Can you provide me with a citation for a single credible instance of recovery of DNA fragments from stony fossils of that age? The oldest non-controversial (ie. replicated by other labs, not attributable to contamination) DNA recovery that I can find in the literature is 400 thousand years, in frozen plant tissues. (Science. 2003 May 2;300(5620):791-5)
Anything older than that is extremely controversial in the field. For recent reviews see:
Willerslev E, Cooper A.
Ancient DNA.
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 7;272(1558):3-16.
Hebsgaard MB, Phillips MJ, Willerslev E.
Geologically ancient DNA: fact or artefact?
Trends Microbiol. 2005 May;13(5):212-20.
When you say that fossils "capture" some cellular structures, you are correct in the sense that the morphology of the cellular (and subcellular) structures is sometimes captured by mineral replacement, but the actual biomolecules are long gone. There has been one recent report of soft tissue preservation in T. Rex fossils (Science. 2005 Mar 25;307(5717):1952-5.), but the biochemical analysis has not yet been published. Commenting on the possibility of recovering DNA from these "tissues", the first author of the paper says that "the likelihood is probably next to none."
-- Anonymous Pedant
You can't be serious; these are 140 million year old fossils! These are rocks, and you can be sure they won't "find a few cells." Even DNA from mammoths that have been frozen for only 10 thousand years are fragmentary.
(Or maybe I just don't get the joke.)
Maybe the poster was so breathless from all the hype that they didn't notice that this HUGE Godzilla-like beast is SMALLER than modern crocodiles. Nile Crocodiles can be 5 meters long, while Saltwater Crocs can be over six meters. Revised headline: Paleontologists discover midget crocodile! -- Anonymous Pedant
"A true genious will try and be able to express himself as simple as possible."
I, on the other hand, would prefer to express myself as simply as possible. I guess I'll never be a "true genious" (or a true genius either).
Also, "try and be able to" is unnecessary verbiage. Why not say: "A true genius will express himself as simply as possible."
Brevity is the soul of wit.
-- Anonymous Pedant
P.S. You really shouldn't hate people, it's bad karma.
Wow, an entire generation of video game consoles! What is that, six months?
Modavis:
I think the "defensive note" that you detect is simply that these comments are directly responding to the original posting, which proposes exactly that: that "NASA should be building a space elevator instead of their current plans." This is not just the typical slashdot mischaracterization of the original article, which states "it looks as if we could build a working space elevator -- or several -- within the $100 billion pricetag and over the same time frame." The so-called "engineering perspective" linked in is just absurdly optimistic boosterism from a space elevator enthusiast's blog. (Example: "We should demand our government invest $6 billion and build us a 200 ton space elevator in 5 years.") I don't think that directly on-topic responses to the main point of the news item should be characterized as "defensive."
And speaking only for myself, I don't see why I need to "get a grip" for posting a reasonable response to this thread. The dismissive phrase "get a grip" is not a cogent form of argument.
The problem with promoters of this kind of fantasy technology is that they don't understand how engineering really works. For example, the Apollo 11 landing happened more than 40 years after Goddard flew his first liquid fueled rocket. In between there were many intervening rocket designs, each taking the technology a small step forward. And of course, there were many catastrophic failures along the way as engineers learned to deal with unanticipated problems. Even the most advanced technology is the end result of a long chain of trial and error learning.
So how would this work for the space elevator? No one has ever built anything like it before; it is many orders of magnitude larger than anything humanity has ever built. It can't be built on any scale other than full scale, and would have to work perfectly the first time.
Just because something is theoretically possible on paper doesn't mean that it is practical to build in the near term. After all, the THEORY of rocket propelled space flight has been known for over 300 years, since Newton.
I doubt that you really meant "interloper" which means a meddler or intruder.
You probably meant "intervener" or "intervening article."
-- Anonymous Pedant (making the world a better place, one annoying comment at a time)
FYI, the plural of "virus" is "viruses".
The only place I've ever seen "virii" is on slashdot, where for some reason it seems to be the most common spelling.
-- Anonymous Pedant
Without even doing any calculations, your result is obviously wrong.
First, if gasoline contains 45 MJ/kg then you would expect a gallon to contain MORE than 45 MJ, not LESS.
Second, if electric cars were really that cheap to run, you would expect them to be common. How many people do you know that have one?
If you work in science or engineering you should get in the habit of checking your results for plausibility. Every time.
-- Anonymous Pedant
I usually describe mine as an "iPod consumer oriented digital media entertainment playback device", to distinguish it from my tape backup and my digital camcorder.
Refresh my memory; when was Apple ever in charge? Even in the heyday of MSDOS, Macs were a small minority of the computer market. And back in the days when Apple IIs roamed the earth, nobody was "in charge" because there was no single dominant platform (though you could make a case for CP/M).
If I'm living in an asteroid, and the Rapture comes, will God be able to find me?