Le puede interesar: Origin of life. Of the human body. Who has rights over them, including that of abortion?
By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News
February 26, 2019
Laurie Barge, left, and Erika Flores, NASA astrobiologists, in the laboratory where,
so they assure humanity, they have created in laboratory beakers conditions similar
to those they suppose existed near fumaroles, which they suppose formed
in the primordial sea that they suppose existed 4 billion years ago,
the number of years they assume the Earth to have from its
early phase to the present. There is no absolute proof any
of these four suppositions are anything but that.
Photograph and text added by HDS
Chris Ciaccia writes…
Commentary by Homer Dewayne Shappley
This sentence contains patent contradictions. If humanity still “attempts to understand how life started on Earth,” with what common sense or logic can it be categorically affirmed, as a fact, that “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life?” “…attempts to understand” and “has recreated the origins of life” constitute, unquestionably, an obvious contradiction. Humanity does not yet understand, according to Mr. Ciaccia, “how life started on Earth.” Thus, neither NASA, nor the writer Chris Ciaccia nor any other human being can assert that “the origins of life” have been recreated.
Such twisted information and false logic easily deceive the incautious, the credulous or anyone lacking ample knowledge of these subjects, but NOT the clear mind, duly educated and strictly impartial.
Neither NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the writer Chris Ciaccia, nor any other entity or human being has the right to speak on behalf of all “humanity.” As if all humans, without exception, continue attempting to understand how life began on planet Earth.
As a matter of fact, the immense majority of humans attribute the origin of life to a Super Intelligent Creator, repudiating the speculative hypotheses of Darwinists evolutionists, atheists, secularists and humanists of all kinds.
Discarding superstitions and distorted beliefs of people with little or no academical preparation, the force of serious arguments presented by multitudes of thoughtful, highly educated humans convinced of the existence of that Super Powerful Being are not minimized or ridiculed by impartial minds.
“The study, conducted by astrobiologists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at how life began in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
Commentary by HDS
I would suppose that to be a real “astrobiologist” it would be necessary to go to at least one star and identify accurately its components and their interactions, or, not being able to make such a trip, in some way acquire those components, examining them with true scientific rigor. Pretend to have carefully and exactly examined them by means of electromagnetic rays, radio astronomy, telescopic observations, etc., would not satisfy the exigencies of rigorous science.
Biology is the science of studying live beings. Do live beings inhabit stars themselves? Logically, it would be necessary for a specialist to at least find such beings before adjudicating to himself, or herself, the mighty high-sounding title of “astrobiologist.” Until then, we would classify the title as somewhat “fantastical.”
The clause “…looks at how life began,” is, effectively, a plain, bald assertion that life did, in fact, begin “in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.” An aggravating lack of overwhelming proof to that effect should obligate honest scientists and writers to express themselves with more precision and reservation. At least to add the words “might have.” The clause would then read: “…looks at how life MIGHT HAVE BEGUN.”
"Understanding how far you can go with just organics and minerals before you have an actual cell is really important for understanding what types of environments life could emerge from," said Laurie Barge, the lead investigator, in a statement. "Also, investigating how things like the atmosphere, the ocean and the minerals in the vents all impact this can help you understand how likely this is to have occurred on another planet."
“…before you have an actual cell.” Dear Laurie Barge, you and your co-religionists, mix organics and minerals in a beaker and heat them to effect changes, but, never, never, have you been able, to date, to produce even one “actual cell!” That is, a cell that is alive. A LIVING CELL! Why don’t you wait until you have done it before writing scientific papers and making grandiose declarations about “recreating the origins of life?” Then, there would be no cause for doubts, allegations of fraud, clever manipulations of elements, etc.
Fumaroles on the ocean floor
Did life on planet Earth begin near fumaroles?
Have NASA astrobiologists recreated the origins of life in laboratory beakers?
Photograph and text added by HDS
“Barge and her team were able to recreate the seafloor by filling beakers with mixtures that were similar to the primordial ocean, including water, minerals and ammonia and pyruvate that are generally located near hydrothermal vents. The mixture was heated to 158 degrees Fahrenheit, the oxygen was removed and they added iron hydroxide, or ‘green rust,’ which was abundant in the early days of the planet.
“The green rust reacted with the traces of oxygen that were left, which produced the amino acid alanine and the alpha hydroxy acid lactate. Some researchers believe these could combine (like Legos) and create further complex molecules which could then be a precursor to life.
That is, not even the slightest bit of LIFE is produced in these experiments!
Experiments based on mountains of suppositions.
Recreate, in small laboratory beakers, conditions on the primordial ocean floor, including precise mixtures of elements, temperatures, depths, water pressures, currents, gravitational pressures, atmospheric conditions and who knows how many more relevant parameters?
Take notice, Mr. Ciaccia, that we added some parameters you did not mention, but which are surely relevant.
That the researchers themselves should set their own parameters based on a plethora of hypotheses? Because no intelligent being was present there four billion years ago to register exactly all relevant parameters precisely as they existed. Seems tremendously presumptuous to me, and far from truly scientific.
One must have stupendous faith in pure hypotheses to spend so much time and resources on such experiments, the sensible, worthwhile practicality of which could reasonably be questioned, especially in view of the critical, multiple, many-faceted crises impacting masses of real, live humans who inhabit a vibrant, livable planet called Earth literally teeming with untold billions of life forms.
Who verified that hot fumaroles, with a concoction of water, minerals and acids that measured precisely 157 degrees Fahrenheit, existed on the bed of the primordial sea? At what depth were they found?
Who verified that there was abundant “green rust” around such fumaroles or submarine valves?
In the beakers, “The green rust reacted with the traces of oxygen that were left, which produced the amino acid alanine and the alpha hydroxy acid lactate.” So? The crux of the matter is to prove that the experiments carried out today in laboratory beakers really and truly replicated exactly parallel conditions on the ocean floor 4 billion years ago.
A challenge much greater by far would be to absolutely prove that such an ocean existed in such a dimension of time.
“Some researchers BELIEVE…” That is, they have not proven anything of what so many of them and their sympathizers present as FACTS! An unpardonable sin in the kingdom of the exact sciences. A huge ERROR that induces masses of youth and adults to receive as REALITIES mere postulations resting on hypotheses by the barrel full.
“…complex molecules which could then be a precursor to life.” Astrobiologists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CREATE A SINGLE ONE! The combination of their acids, like Legos, HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE!
"We've shown that in geological conditions similar to early Earth, and maybe to other planets, we can form amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids from a simple reaction under mild conditions that would have existed on the seafloor," Barge added in the statement.
Again, numerous suppositions.
What were the precise geological conditions of Earth in its early stage? Who or what power was there to verify those exact conditions? “Similar” is a relative term. Geological conditions just like those on early Earth recreated in a beaker today. Can you accomplish that, Laurie Barge?
The most rudimentary LIVE CELL known is extraordinarily complicated. Logically, its’ supposed appearance as a result of the fortuitous combination of inert elements would presuppose phenomenally precise and complex parameters. To this day, scientists have not been able to produce a single, original, fully alive cell from totally inert elements or chemicals.
Who has proven that “mild conditions… would have existed on the seafloor” of “the early Earth?” Another mere supposition. Who established that “mild conditions… would have existed?” “…mild,” and not any other state. Furthermore, and of greater importance: The existence of such an Earth 4 billion years ago is a supposition based on speculations of inexact sciences.
In synthesis, the only thing Barge and her team were able to demonstrate is that they could cause two specific acids to form in laboratory beakers, recipients that, due to their limitations in size, fragility and other factors, never could make possible the replication of absolutely exact conditions on any area of the ocean floor, whether of the present or of remotely distant times. Let it be clearly noted: Two acids, no more, which DID NOT UNITE to form other elements or components, much less a LIVE CELL.
Underscoring for emphasis: This is the only thing Barge and her team demonstrated. Despite that fact, Chris Ciaccio dares begin his article with the preposterous affirmation: “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life…” A GREAT LIE! An ENORMOUS DECEIT! And, as he believes it, so also may a great number of his readers, particularly those for whom the inclusion of “NASA” in the very false declaration is the magic acronym that dispels all doubt.
“While it's important to note NASA has not created life itself in the experiment, it does raise the possibility that the hydrothermal vents could appear elsewhere in the universe and be a building block for life.
“While it's important to note NASA HAS NOT CREATED LIFE ITSELF in the experiment…” Mr. Ciaccio, this is HUGELY IMPORTANT! You should have said this at the beginning instead of deceiving the public with your very erroneous and irresponsible declaration “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life…”
“If we have these hydrothermal vents here on Earth, possibly similar reactions could occur on other planets," said JPL's Erika Flores, co-author of the new study.
Phraseology that expresses another speculation. Erika Flores should have said: “If we have these hydrothermal vents here on Earth, then there might be some on other planets where they might produce similar reactions.”
"We don't have concrete evidence of life elsewhere yet," said Barge. "But understanding the conditions that are required for life's origin can help narrow down the places that we think life could exist."
“The implications of the research are vast, especially as new celestial bodies are discovered, with some having the components to host life.
Not only do they lack “concrete evidence of life elsewhere,” neither do they know, as a scientific certainty, the “conditions that are required for life's origin,” according to the totally materialistic parameters of Darwinian evolution theses. The conditions they do establish are ones they themselves have conceived based on mere hypotheses.
By saying that some of the newly discovered celestial bodies have “the components to host life” they provide another classic example of presenting as fact that which is mere supposition. “…having the components to host life” is a clear affirmation that, yes, those components do absolutely exist and they absolutely can host life. Are those two absolutes absolutely verified beyond any doubt? Perhaps Barge should have said: “…with some possibly having components that might host life.”
“In 2018, researchers discovered that Saturn’s moon, Enceladus, has the ‘building blocks for life,’ after complex organic molecules were found on the natural satellite.
Naturally, the impartial mind, a little skeptical, like mine, would ask: What are the absolutely unquestionable evidences that support such a conclusion? I need reliable, irrefutable evidences to accept that those “building blocks for life” really do exist on Enceladus in the form of “complex organic molecules” absolutely proven to exist there; not mere speculations of inexact sciences.
How inexact some sciences, such as astronomy, can be is highlighted in the extensive article in www.wikipedia.org on the moon Enceladus, in the sections on “Potential habitability” and “Hydrothermal vents.” Don’t miss the statement on “the tree of life on Earth, the birthplace of all life that is known to exist.”
Relevant excerpts. Speculative expressions are in bold.
[Clarification: The “subsurface ocean,” if, indeed, it does exist, is not visible on the surface of Enceladus, which is mostly covered by ice, according to the Wikipedia article. HDS]
Molecular hydrogen (H2), a geochemical source of energy that can be metabolized by methanogen microbes to provide energy for life, could be present if, as models suggest, Enceladus's salty ocean has an alkaline pH from serpentinization of chondritic rock.   
The presence of ample hydrogen in Enceladus's ocean means that microbes – if any exist there – could use it to obtain energy by combining the hydrogen with carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. The chemical reaction is known as “methanogenesis” because it produces methane as a byproduct, and is at the root of the tree of life on Earth, the birthplace of all life that is known to exist.
On April 13, 2017, NASA announced the discovery of possible hydrothermal activity on Enceladus' sub-surface ocean floor. It has been speculated that such activity could be a potential oasis of habitability.
The following statement is found in the article Observation Astronomy, in www.wikipedia.org.
As a science, the study of astronomy is somewhat hindered in that direct experiments with the properties of the distant universe are not possible.
Let us keep in mind that even if “building blocks for life” do exist on other celestial bodies in the form of complex organic molecules but those blocks never do come together to produce true, living organisms, then their presence would not necessarily alter the view that true living organisms are found only on planet Earth.
“A recently discovered exoplanet that orbits Barnard’s Star – known as Barnard b – could have the potential for extraterrestrial life if water exists somewhere on the planet. That's due to the possibility of geothermal heating, which could create an ocean for primitive life.”
“…could have… if water exists… the possibility of… could create…” WOW! Classic speculations of astrobiologists. One would almost dare to ask: Does that exoplanet Bernard b really exist? Not that I doubt it; just to call attention to the speculation factor that characterizes so many affirmations, expositions and postulations not only of astrobiologists but of the immense majority of scientists, engineers, philosophers and writers who are Darwinian evolutionists. Blinded, it could be said, by their intransigent convictions, they do not even perceive, so it appears, that they frequently present as facts, including Darwinian evolution itself, matters which belong in the categories of speculations, hypothesis or purely fantastical projections.
We could hope to find in them, professionals that they are, more objectivity, honesty, exactness, sound logic, transparency and the humility of minds open to continual learning.
By the way, I personally do not find anything “shocking” in the “results” of the study carried out by employees of NASA! What does profoundly shock me is the subtle, clever manner of transmitting those “results.” For I do not doubt many readers take them as indubitable proof of the discovery of life itself in mixtures prepared today in laboratory beakers. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Sincerely, Homer Dewayne
Hydrothermal vent. www.wikipedia.org
A hydrothermal vent is a fissure on the seafloor from which geothermally heated water issues. Hydrothermal vents are commonly found near volcanically active places, areas where tectonic plates are moving apart at spreading centers, ocean basins, and hotspots. Hydrothermal deposits are rocks and mineral ore deposits formed by the action of hydrothermal vents.
Hydrothermal vents exist because the earth is both geologically active and has large amounts of water on its surface and within its crust. Under the sea, hydrothermal vents may form features called black smokers or white smokers. Relative to the majority of the deep sea, the areas around submarine hydrothermal vents are biologically more productive, often hosting complex communities fueled by the chemicals dissolved in the vent fluids. Chemosyntheticbacteria and archaea form the base of the food chain, supporting diverse organisms, including giant tube worms, clams, limpets and shrimp. Active hydrothermal vents are believed to exist on Jupiter's moon Europa, and Saturn's moon Enceladus, and it is speculated that ancient hydrothermal vents once existed on Mars.
In contrast to the approximately 2 °C (36 °F) ambient water temperature at these depths, water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C (140 °F)up to as high as 464 °C (867 °F). Due to the high hydrostatic pressure at these depths, water may exist in either its liquid form or as a supercritical fluid at such temperatures.
The above article in SPANISH.
Materials in ENGLISH on this site. More than fifty titles.
Our culture is experiencing a HOSTILE TAKEOVER. We must stop
rejecting God if we ever want it to end. By Sam Sorbo.
Evolución, humanismo, ateísmo, escepticismo, creacionismo, etcétera. Muchos artículos e intercambios en esta Web.