is it safe to say this might just be the origin of the DNA? finally!
Adrian Calderon
One potential hit to the creationist fundamentalists? I hope so (:
Robert Hoge
In 1947, Immanuel Velikovsky published his book Worlds in Collision. Velikovsky had perused ancient legends and historical documents from all parts of the world, and based on their very similar accounts, he concluded that during historical times, Earth has had near-collisions with both Mars and Venus. He correctly predicted the discovery that Venus\'s atmosphere consists of hydrocarbons and that its surface temperature is over 800F. The scientists he thus offended ridiculed him and made his publisher cancel his contract. (His second publisher made a killing on his books.)
Velikovsky, from his sources, concluded that Earth\'s stores of crude oil are not a result of the decomposition of organic matter, but a remnant of the atmosphere of Venus, detached during the near-collision by Earth\'s gravity. The discovery of Dr. Kwok and Dr. Zhang seems to support the idea that hydrocarbons could have rained from the sky, as Velikovsky said. Anyway, where else would Venus have got its hydrocarbon atmosphere? Certainly not from the decomposition of organic matter.
@tarahoa: This is to DNA what sand is to the Chartres Cathedral in France. @Adrian: why do you want to hit people?
There\'s a very controversial (some believe crack-pot) theory out there that petroleum is not the result of decaying organic material but rather was formed as part of the process that formed the early earth. If this is the case, then there could be huge deposits of petroleum locked deep inside the earth (at a greater depth that where one would find the accumulation of organic material). Proponents of the theory point to two things: (1) there is a larger mass of petroleum in known reserves than the estimates of the total mass of organic material over the history of the earth and (2) depleted oil well are \"filling back up\" and no one can ascertain the source of the oil that is replenishing the wells, but its thought to be coming from very deep sources.
This new work would tend to add some credence to the theory (moving it from \"crack-pot\" status to \"wild and unsupported speculation\".
\"chances of life outside our solar system as the complex organic compounds\" Did anyone miss the word \"chances?\" People are so desperate to hang their hats on the idea that life can begin by accident, that reality is abandoned! To go from \"chance\" to DNA is such a leap of faith that it makes creation seem more real. The beauty of creation is that it does not force anyone to except it. Evolution has had an opposite history of bombardment of overwhelming ideas as to make others except it. What are they afraid of? If it is true - why try so hard to prove it?
re; Adrian Calderon
Complex organic chemicals or even actual extraterrestrial life is no more evidence of evolution than it is of biblical creation.
The \"Florida Panther\" is evidence one way or the other and given it was going extinct because the mutation laden progeny would die before being born until they brought in outside genetic material to dilute the mutations; I\'m going with Special Creation.
It's safe to say that this is probably the organic matter that came out of my rear end a few life times ago in a distant galaxy or two.
\"The researchers say the substances generating these infrared emissions actually have chemical structures that are so complex that their structure resembles those of coal and petroleum. Since coal and petroleum are remnants of ancient life and this type of organic matter was only thought to arise from living organisms,....\"
OK, I see two assumptions in this line of argument, so I\'m introducing two alternate theories:
1. Stars are actually fueled by coal and petroleum,
2. Stars are really giant organic space eggs
Just because the \"lame stream\" media promotes myths like global warming and fossil fuel does not mean we should accept them without investigation. The science tells us that oil is NOT created by plant life. This latest finding is just one more proof.