Arthur Smith

Antech has an excellent reputation for quality. Can speak first-hand! 😇

Yes. Some smaller producers still use pupitres and hand-turning though most larger coops have automized. On checking, I see Champagne has also adopted machine remuage.

Fortran was good enough for me. I see it's still going.

I live in an area that produces carbonated wine, not champagne, Limoux. Most people seem to possess a clip-on seal that retains the fizz in open, fridge-stored bottles for a few days. We also make Blanquette de Limoux, Méthode Ancestrale, which is only 6%. Not sure if it is available elsewhere but very refreshing on a hot day. The greased piglet may yet escape, for now. Another shameless plug for Limoux wines. There are three appellations, Ancestrale mentioned, Blanquette de Limoux (major grape variety, Mauzac, not high in acidity) and Crémant de Limoux, which can have up to 60% Chardonnay (the workhorse Champagne grape) so worth considering as an alternative to Champagne.

One data point is what we have. I suspect one data point is all we will ever have.

Yes and I intended in the "not from Earth" sense. In context, I thought it was obvious but someone misunderstood. That it why I took the precaution in clarifying above. Again, this is an open forum.

Previously someone took my use of "terrestrial" to mean "land-based (non-aquatic)" rather than "(from the planet) Earth" and I didn't get chance to clarify before that thread closed. And I note there are contributors who may not have English as a first language. The clarification was not intended for any particular commenter.

Circular would be nearer the mark. There's very little evidence of any Biblical characters or events for disinterested* historians to research. Ditto for archaeologists. The archaeology of the Levant has been subject to political control since it became a genuine discipline which has added to the problem of independent verification of people and events described in the NT. *Disinterested means impartial, objective.

France. Up until recently I could easily access iplayer via VPN but no longer, it's almost impossible now. I was thinking of renewing my Prime account anyway so may do that.

Thanks,that's helpful. Suggests that archaea are being overlooked less than previously. From an evolutionary point of view, an organism with no volition (caveat on motile bacteria and Archaea) can't help but profit from an opportunity presented. Whilst Archaea are an ancient kingdom, they have stumbled (or the motile ones tumbled) upon recent opportunities such as the gut of humans. A recent study on Koreans. I'm frankly staggered at the abundance and variety. Opportunity for symbiont, parasite and pathogen.

That's an intriguing question. I can see there is a pile of stuff with the consensus that while some archaea can be find in our gut, there is no unequivocal case of an archaean pathogen. Though I see some have alleged they may play a rôle in some diseases, the list includes Crohn's disease, arthritis, lupus and gingivitis. Certainly seems that Archaea are for the most part benign organisms. I have no immediate suggestion as to why. Will read some of the articles I've turned up.

Sure. I was only being serious about the inevitability of climate change and the problems humankind are already facing that will only get worse. I suspect this is getting a little off-topic for the search for extraterrestrial life.

Well, climate change will be bad enough that humans could become extinct but that will leave the field open for other species to fill the gap and evolve in all sorts of ways we can't predict. Ninja'd

Duplicate

Good grief, no! No knowing where we could end up in a billion years or so. ETA In fact that could be us, the seeded archaea (with a sprinkling of bacteria) and our benign overlords watching developments until we are ready to be contacted I jest but Kipping is making his point using a timescale from abiogenesis to intelligence of a couple of billion years. I think the point that some sort of life (leaving stromatolites as evidence) of life starting very soon after water condenses on Earth is an argument for the inevitability of some sort of life arising, given the right environment. That second data point would be quite useful.

David Kipping (the astronomer in the videos) has published a paper on this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08033.pdf I managed to watch the second video. Having the paper available helps with following the video. In his concluding remarks, he seems to agree a second data point would be handy. Actually the video was also good for improving my understanding of Bayesian analysis. So thanks, mistermack!

Thanks for providing links. Unfortunately, my internet speed is 0.5Mb currently, I'm promised fibre later in the year (already behind schedule due to Covid) so at the moment I can't watch Youtube. ETA I managed via hotspot on my cellphone.

Indeed, until we get a second data point, we are limited to informed speculation. I was going to enlarge but here is a blog post I came across elsewhere that makes some good points. It is talking about the current effort to recover physical samples from Mars. Possible result Conclusion Mars is sterile Life on Earth is unique hypothesis strengthened Molecules closely related to life on Earth Panspermia, common source for life on Earth and Mars Evidence of life unrelated to that found on Earth Life evolved separately on Mars, so life is likely to be teeming across the universe Something else ? Also Robert Shapiro wrote Planetary Dreams in 1999 advocating exploration of space to search for life elsewhere. Shapiro is best known, unfairly I think, as a critic of the RNA world hypothesis and he does touch on that in a chapter "Birth of the RNA World". The approach is more "needs more work" than "nonsense" and a lot of work has been done since 1999. I missed that as I don't subscribe to OCS. I see it's available on Amazon Prime now. Thanks for the info. I'll give it a go.

What about chemical kinetics? Not sure what you want to know. There isn't a question there. (Horizontal line) @studiot And my comment about chirality was in response to your question about Japp's theory of chirality, for which I haven't been able to find a clear statement. I'd still like to establish what that is, if only to draw a line under it. Shapiro's book is very much in line with the thread topic and wasn't directed at you particularly. Forum software insists on merging replies which is why I've been adding horizontal lines.

Is that a throwaway remark or are you suggesting virus origins are separate from all other terrestrial life? https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/#:~:text=Viruses may have arisen from,the evolution of%2C cellular life. For background.

No problem. I realised after my wading I'd read more into your comment than you intended. On the other hand, your suggesting an HGT involvement in virus evolution is intriguing.

I keep making the excuse that I'm new here. Haven't read that thread. A link to the relevant comment(s) would be greatly appreciated if not too much trouble. Never mind, I found it. I see it dates from 2004 and Dawkins' Selfish Gene crops up in the early comments. I'll wade backwards. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm. wading through a lot of oyster guts but no pearls so far. TIL Archaea have their own double-strand DNA viruses. https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008574

Well, not sure about the connection to thalidomide (there is a Kékulé ring in there). The thalidomide tragedy certainly highlighted the lack of drug regulation. The molecule exists in two enantiomers and I presume the drug was administered as a racemic mixture. Are you suggesting all the therapeutic worth was in one enantiomer and all the disastrous side effects in the other? When I consider origin of life, I consider opportunity and emergence. Given scenario A, what emerges? There is no "bringing about" force. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Found it. [Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life Beyond Earth] Shapiro's take on RNA world is understandable from his viewpoint as a chemist. But that is a sideshow to the main theme which is advocating a search for the second data point, life elsewhere. The Second Data Point. Maybe a topic for another thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist) A discussion elsewhere on origin of life. Mikkel Rasmussen has assembled a plethora of articles and there is ensuing discussion. https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/raw-materials-for-life/13951 https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/landmark-achievement-in-rna-world-experiments/13956

Well, see above, Arete's comment. Not all viruses use RNA to store information, many use DNA. Viruses are indeed special in that they are perfect (not in the philosophical sense, don't get me started) parasites. They don't bother to retain their own metabolism. The interesting thing is that viruses could only have evolved from more complex precursors that were free-living, but that's another story. Regarding mutations being beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, context matters. Apart from lethal mutations, the niche matters. If there is one thing you should take home from my comment, it is the niche - the micro-environment that an organism occupies, interacts with and influences. Among the many things viruses lack is intent. Opportunity (niche) arises and viruses flourish.

Pasteur first noticed sodium aluminium tartrate formed crystals of two sorts which, when sorted by eye and redissolved, the solutions were either dextrotatory or levorotatory, leading to the idea that molecules could form enantiomers, spacially opposite mirror reflections. But hang on, here's an article about Japp: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v103n1-2/06.pdf OK, vitalism. Chirality arises from some fundamental law or is just an accident? That's a great story, the Dorothy L Sayers plot an all