pinball1970

No there were quite a few, some to do with physics, some to do with Abiogenesis, occasionally some to do with Evolution or the Theory of Evolution. Most were low hanging fruit that were just repeated creationist garbage.

You don't use it for the organics, Chloroform was my choice back in the day. That was getting novel chemistry into solution for NMR. Distilled water or Chloroform did the trick once we looked at the structural formula, or at least what the synthetic chemist thought it is was. A lowly graduate, I was presented with a bitch of a formula and sample so tried both, nothing worked. It looked nasty too, like rock salt, contaminants, intermediates, something. Super smart PhD on hand (really, I'm not being facetious) so I brought her in, she immediately went to the concentrated stuff, I think it was sulphuric, 10 molar? Serious tackle. Anyway, full PPE in the fume cupboard , I stood back, wire wool filter in case there were contaminants. It dissolved, also dissolved the wire wool, it's a metal.....so. PhD. "What just happened?" Me. " Strong acid so..." PhD. "Oh yeah (laughs)"

We think Yanks are bit nutty but they are our cousins so we love them.

For me it was cathartic. By the time I had decided the Bible was not what I thought it was I immersed myself in all things music and all things science. Just me, my beautiful girlfriend, my job, my drums and the universe. Then it happened in 2007, I came across a Buddy Rich YouTube video, I posted the following. "Buddy Rich is god." I got a reply, "Buddy Rich is not god, god made Buddy Rich." I suggested they piss off back to their Jesus website and left me and Buddy Rich alone. Then it happened on a few science websites, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Dawkins. On the plus side it helped me vent my anger at myself for worrying about heaven and hell for 23 years. I increased my knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis and the Bible from a historical perspective and I am still learning. I learned all of the creationist arguments and how to dismantle them. I discovered the late great Christopher Hitchens debating these people.

TOE for me is the physics. String theory was supposed to be the answer but that seems to have run out of steam. TOE is the standard model explaining gravity in terms of QM and also incorporates DM. That is from an outsider. (I'm a tech) There is a quote I always remember (paraphrasing) in the introduction of a published paper. " I think it is safe to say, that there is no one coherent quantum theory of gravity." Stephen Hawking 1975.

Summaries please or just state the most important. We don't open links

I'll stop also unless something changes.

Unfortunately these conversations are spam in themselves because they do not interact and the content looks like crap, lots of references but no links so those refs could be bogus. Someone visiting would not know the difference.

A few red flags as @exchemist mentioned. "Hey that's a great question..." "Thanks, that’s a very interesting explanation!" Newbee talks to newbies in a dash jolly fashion after only a few hours of meeting, they have stuff in common, what are the chances!?

It's a shame the physics Nobel has just been announced, the quantum tunneling guys. Buddha guy here would have smoked them with his reams of code only higher beings understand.

You are making stuff up and using some bra ket Dirac notation to bolster the reems of text.

No. If we're that simple NASA, ESA and the other scientific organisations, would not be spending billions of dollars every year looking for life signatures on Mars, meteors and the atmospheres of exoplanets. What you described sounds like animism which is nothing to do with science. The link below may be useful. https://www.britannica.com/science/life In terms of definitions things get a little tricky when you get to viruses and things like plasmids as discussed. The first replicator whatever it was on earth that kick started Abiogenesis, would not have met the Britannia definition.

Ok I will rephrase. All of the JW who have come to my house or I have encountered have shown no awareness of scholarship, or even named any scholars.

Not my experience. All of my interactions via street stall discussions, home visits and interaction with two work colleagues over 20 years, illustrated an ignorance of any sort of scholarship regarding scripture. They were all literalists and the "Watchtower" publications regarding claims about life and the Univers,e were scientifically illiterate garbage and lies.

Huh. A poster from 2023 claimed Einstein was wrong on a thread with a very similar name to yours. What are the chances? Edit, the same name.

I second that, nothing worse than putting some effort into a reply to help someone then they just move onto the next question.

The paper cites other impact sites and associated ancient microbial fossilisation but mentions the difficulty linking those two events directly. "Microbial sulfate reduction (MSR) leads to low δ34S values in the produced hydrogen sulfide, as 32Ssulfate is favored over 34Ssulfate ref. 32. Pyrite formation following MSR inherits the sulfur isotopic signature of the precursor hydrogen sulfide33, making δ34S in pyrite a common marker for MSR in ancient environmentse.g. 34. The low minimum δ34S value of −31.9‰ (Fig. 3a) in the lower impact melt rock section is thus interpreted to reflect MSR" Their claim is that the presence of these particular signatures at the site, could only be explained by microbial activity, which in turn is a direct result of the features created by the impact. Sorry that was supposed to be one post. Ok this is a little tricky as I am flicking between the site and the paper on my tablet. What I should have done was print the paper and make notes as I am not familiar with a lot of the terms, it's a technical paper after all. I am not sure why they can put the events together if separated by these time periods or why those features could not have housed existing microbes. Hydrothermal vents and the connection to Abiogenesis is not new, I am not sure if you have read any Nick Lane or Wachtershauser and his iron sulphur world theory? If nothing else for me, this has emphasized the importance of understanding what a paper is claiming i.e. understanding the paper sufficiently before citing it!

Ok I had another look. Firstly though, a word about phys.org. As you said this just reports on the science of that day across multiple disciplines. Two things that are good about it, its focus is current publications, these are commented on literally that day and they always provide a link to the paper. Sometimes there is no paper because they are reporting on an article only, usually "the conversation" or "Universe today," something like that and cite the original article. Sometimes the article is very good, gets to the heart of the matter and they include interviews by the lead author, or one of the scientists connected with the study. All good. Sometimes the article is not good, has mistakes and can be even self contradictory. From the articles I have read though, this is in the minority. Ok, so the paper itself! From the intro. "Using micro-scale isotopic techniques, we provide direct evidence of microbial colonization during the waning stages of the IGH system of this terrestrial impact structure. This research has significant implications for the hypothesis that impact craters serve as hot spots for microbial colonization on Earth and, by analogy, on other planetary bodies."

Funny, I got this immediately. Not because I am super observant regarding palindromes, and not because I had just finished fiddling about with my rotavator. I am a Mancunian and as a people, a tribe, we were raised on Joseph Holts beer. Their lager was "Regal" lager, the joke was that it was not only spelt backwards it also tasted a bit backward. The beer wins awards these days but I will never forget Regal.

The definition of life is a little nebulous. Is a bacterium alive? They were about for billions of years before multicellular life. There is no "pass down" either, this is not a thing in Biology, bacteria reproduce asexuality. The soul is also not a thing in Biology. You should not mix unsupported notions with scientific process.

+1. Yes, mostly a thankless task.

Loeb? yet you cite Loeb

It reads like Ai garbage. I thought lawyers valued solid evidence and arguments?

Reads like Ai crap

Ok, I'll stick numbers and sub forums if more than one the report box if it happens again. Help you target them.