Amino acids of the type common in living things on Earth were discovered in the meteorite. If the findings are indeed true, then the reason we can only use left-handed amino acids is the excess left-handed amino acids that came from outer space on top of the meteorite
The most basic fact of life is that all living things are composed of cells, and cells function with the help of proteins. The proteins are a type of small and efficient machines that do the work inside the cells - they produce energy from sunlight, provide mechanical reinforcement and the ability to move to the cell and are even capable of dividing one cell into two separate cells. The proteins themselves are built from building blocks called amino acids, and in nature there are two possible forms of amino acids - the right form and the left form.
What do 'right-handed' and 'left-handed' molecules mean? Can be explained through comparison with human hands. At first glance, the palms look exactly the same - on both the right and left hand you can find the little finger, ring finger, thumb, index finger and thumb. But the right and left are not the same in terms of direction - in one of them the thumb is directed to the right side, and in the other it is directed to the left side. No matter how we reverse the direction of the palms, they cannot be identical to each other. A similar phenomenon exists in organic molecules such as amino acids - there is a 'right-handed' form and there is a 'left-handed' form, and although the two are completely identical to each other chemically, they differ in their internal arrangement. You can say that their 'thumb' is pointed in the opposite direction. This property is called chirality, and comes from the Greek word hand. Chiral molecules have at least two possible forms - left and right.
The puzzle that has troubled biochemists for over a century, originates from the fact that proteins that exist in living things consist only of left-handed amino acids. The cells do not use right-handed amino acids - only left-handed ones - even though right-handed ones are as common in nature as left-handed ones. In all the natural processes we know, amino acids are created in equal measure - half of them are left-handed and half are right-handed.
As if to add fuel to the fire, our DNA is also chiral, but in the opposite direction. DNA consists of building blocks called nucleotides, and they are all right-handed molecules, unlike proteins, which are all made of left-handed amino acids.
The common answer today is that the ancestor of all of us - the first primitive cell - used only right-handed building blocks to assemble DNA, and when he developed the ability to make proteins, he used only left-handed building blocks to assemble the proteins. Since we are all distant descendants of the same ancestor, we all inherited these molecular mechanisms from him. But this of course opens the door to another question: why would the primitive cell only use such limited building blocks, right-handed DNA and left-handed proteins? After all, both types are around him in equal measure. Why would he choose to operate in mechanisms that would prevent him from using half of the molecules around him?
The answer to this question came two weeks ago, following the research of Sandra Pizarello of the University of Arizona, Yongsong Yueng and Marcelo Alexandra of Brown University. The three researchers examined a contamination-free meteorite, which was discovered in the icy steppes of Antarctica. The ice prevented the meteorite from being contaminated with the amino acids present on the surface of the earth, and therefore the researchers believe that this is a real discovery, from which it can be concluded about the amino acid composition present in this type of meteorites.
The researchers discovered that the meteorite contains several amino acids, with a preference for a right-handed or left-handed form. Isoleucine, for example, was found in a meteorite with a 14% preference for the left-handed form. In contrast, alloisoleucine was found in the meteorite with a 12% preference for the right-handed form.
Although a difference of 14% does not sound that big, it is known that even such a small excess of left-handed amino acids can lead to the creation of additional left-handed amino acids in a very large amount, and even affect the catalysis of sugars so that more sugars are formed with a preference for the right-handed form.
There is still no complete agreement among the community of biochemists and meteorologists regarding the reliability of the discovery. Many fear that the assumption that the meteorite is indeed completely free of impurities cannot be trusted. But if the findings are indeed true, then the reason we can use only left-handed amino acids is the excess left-handed amino acids that came from outer space on top of the meteorite. It can be said that the origin of life on Earth, as we know it today, is in outer space.
But of course, all this just opens the door to more questions. What is that cosmic event that results in the creation of left- or right-handed amino acids, or a preference for certain forms? How and when does it occur? Can it repeat itself in stars, asteroids or other solar systems? We don't know all this yet. But if we continue to ask questions, and do not shy away from the arduous path of scientific research, we will also continue to find the answers.
116 תגובות
Those who want a factual explanation of the video can find it, for example, here.
http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm
Those who want to learn something about the interviewee - Stefan Lubkin can read here:
http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-stephen-lovekin.html
Those who want to read more about the Cold War, will lose their sanity - should search Google for the relevant phrases.
Photos from "Columbia":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=azjP1Aw6NBw&feature=related
We are not alone…
They are everywhere! The net is flooded with movies and websites
You can even see them on Google Earth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OZSfTmndqLU&feature=related
All kinds of signs on Earth found thanks to Google:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PCg1SpEan5k&feature=related
Senior officials in the US military and government agree:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk
Truly a new era!
Company
No need to fight because an answer has been found.
The source of life comes from space and there is conclusive evidence.
The first on FOX NEWS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PmbSupnmK8k&feature=related
The second - a message sent into space by scientists in 2001 received an answer in a wheat field.
You will see that there is an exact and detailed match.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_KoR2t-iM9k&feature=related
What's on CNN?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2503167475052291663&q=ufo+seti&total=193&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
Sorry, I confused you with Shahar Fahima and it happened because I didn't go up high enough, because on the way I saw your message in which you mentioned New Age. It is also possible that what you said contributed to it (by the way, comments that mislead the public are also not gentle in my opinion. As you said yourself. Are they allowed to hurt my feelings?)
Apologies again for the unnecessary confusion.
Schrödinger's cat
I'm losing you too. I do not agree with New Age's claims, nor with the claim of a watchmaker. Maybe because I tried to encourage Limor in her response to conclude that I am a follower of the New Age? I simply think that one should respond more delicately even when the opposing opinion is unacceptable and even jarring.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Wait, I didn't understand something here - New Age arguments without proof are fine, but the clock argument is not? I lost you here.
to Roy and others
What is true is true, they are already at the forefront both in Maariv and in other means of communication, therefore, the battle is not over their heads, which, as mentioned, about which almost nothing will help, the battle is over the heads of the general public whose innocence is able to believe the "proofs" of watches and clocks and the like.
I hope someone will go and do a counter article in Maariv at least to downplay the stupidity.
may we have a nice week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I'm not naive enough to think that it will always help, but out of all the possible solutions, education is the best solution (besides brainwashing of the kind that is done in certain workshops and cults).
And the problem is that the creationists and the Chabatites are no longer tweeting in the background. When a column like this appears in the headlines in Maariv, it's already a violent knock on the door.
Good week to you and all of us,
Roy.
Roy Cezana
You are naive if you think it will help. Understand that belief in Darwinism will oblige them to give up their Creator. They won't. They will cling to any shred of hope to strike back at Darwinism.
We, the believers of Darwinist evolution will continue on and they will continue to tweet in the background. When you get used to it, it's actually nice.
may we have a nice week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
An interesting article about Menachem Ben and his call to stand up against evolution.
http://bioteach.snunit.k12.il/upload/.webpage/lamanoyman.html
I have to agree with the opinion of the respected professor Joseph Neumann, when he says that the best solution for opponents of evolution is Arthur Koestler's solution, 'take these people and oblige them to read for a year the appropriate literature'. Knowledge solves many problems.
There is nothing surprising about Menachem Ben's words. By looking at Wikipedia you can easily learn about his opinions.
To Michael
I received your response with satisfaction. I still think you can visit differently. Note that even as soon as Limor talks about Hawking, she does not forget to mention that he is a professor so that it is possible that what would have been required here is an explanation on her part. But it's nice that we hold on and don't degenerate into a stupid argument, at least you and I.
So I invite Limor, Einbar, and the Schrödinger cat, as well as others, to respond without fear, and if the spirits get angry from time to time, then no big deal, because after all, it's all for the sake of science.
Now all I have to do is get Maariv on Shabbat to read the article about Darwin that our friend Arya Seter was so "enthusiastic" about.
may we have a nice week.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Interesting to interest in the same matter.
Anyone who wants to read the words of an ignoramus who claims that Darwin is stupid and has Shabbat evening at home, should read
Menachem ben
Darwin's confession
Ma'ariv Friday 4.4.08, Shabbat Supplement, Literature and Books section, p. 29
Yehuda:
This is perhaps the place to clarify something that seems to me to have been misunderstood in my story about the locomotive.
What I see as a kettle that may develop into a locomotive is not the person making the strange claim but the strange claim itself which, if not eradicated, can take over the person.
Therefore, when you said that something good might still come out of this locomotive, you actually did not refer to the locomotive I was talking about. I certainly accept that many more good things can come out of Amber, but I'm sure that many more good things will come out of her if her approach to science is logical. This also applies, of course, to Limor.
Yehuda:
You are a nice person - I don't think anyone will disagree with that, but I think that a demonstrated disdain for the work of serious people deserves a response that puts the disparager in his place, especially when his words prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his place is not among those who are able to judge the work of scientists.
I don't find any need to show tolerance towards behavior that to me is violent from the start and disdain for the work of scientists without any concept of science is violence.
By the way, all the criticism I voiced was true and when I said that I don't know history I explained why I said that.
You know I'm not the type to hold a grudge and as soon as a person behaves logically I talk to him matter-of-factly.
I hope everyone who visits the site notices this.
He who is unable to accept criticism is better off not criticizing others (as they once said about the glass house).
Dear Limor
Strengthen and embrace in your difficult times. I actually quite understand you and do not understand the attitude you are receiving here. If I had come here before then I would have tried to make order.
Michael
If you keep killing commenters like this, eventually there will be only you and me and maybe a few more.
Limor came willingly and said:
"By chance I came across the article: very interesting by the way..."
And what does she get?
"Not only are you not a scientist, you also don't know history"
"Although it seems to me that it's a shame that every moment is devoted to you, but still."
Michael, this is a site not only for physics doctors, you should also give a chance to people who think that "but never underestimate a person who is not a scientist..."
And finally you both reached the Big Bang:-
Limor:
"The one who doesn't reach their ankles is you, not me...you must be a very frustrated person..."
Michael:
"I've already gone through this stage in kindergarten and I'll leave you to go through it without me
I've already gone through this stage in kindergarten and I'll leave you to go through it without me"
Dear Michael, I must say that as a vegetarian, you really are a carnivore.
So please don't forget to take B12.
Friends, give peace a chance.
I want to tell you that I had a great idea to write a telenovela about the connections between a great scientist and a young philosophy student, while in the background there is a grove of evil and conflicting conspiracies: Schrödinger's cat.
you are welcome. Limor, Michael and the dear cat, please respond gently!
The sun is shining outside and the fiery big bang has long since passed.
So I'm going to have Saturday lunch so please behave yourself until I get back.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Unbelievable, the comment thread here...
Why (I really want to say "baboons", but it's not pretty) people who all they understand is that Einstein was an idiot until a button in his brain turned on (is there some code for this button that I can stick to myself too??), or an argument about energies and dates Lida is in the field of scientific philosophy, or at all relevant to the matter of the article, do you even go in to read articles from science?
There are articles here specific to a certain field and some of the responses take them to a completely different place. These are not comments criticizing the text, I'm very sorry.
I really don't understand why such people bother to come in and read here.
Limor:
So we've reached the stage of "everything you say comes back to you?"
I've already gone through this stage in kindergarten and I'll leave you to go through it without me
The one who doesn't reach their ankles is you, not me...you must be a very frustrated person...
Limor:
I will not enter into a debate about your qualities nor about your incorrect interpretation of the word 'barat'.
You provided the data for forming my opinion on your information with your own hands above the pages of this website and they are certainly sufficient for that purpose. An educated person would not write such nonsense, so I definitely have empirical data.
As someone who allows herself to belittle the great scientists, don't go complaining about my disdain for those who don't reach their ankles.
You keep talking about empirical evidence…
But you have no empirical proof about what I learned and if I learned….
You are contradicting yourself…
And you draw wrong conclusions that not only do you not have any "empirical" proof for which they also border on libel...don't tell me that what you think is an "axiom"...
Maybe you understand physics and math more than I do, but you throw out words you have no idea what they mean:
Berut - this is a synonym for illiteracy, it's interesting that as an inferior creature like me according to your definition and illiterate I can comment on what you write...
Limor:
Although it seems to me that it is a shame for every moment that is devoted to you, but still.
Everything you said, also in this response, is simply not true.
Many people understand very large parts of physics and there is nothing that is understood by only one person (except, perhaps, in the first week after the discovery). Everything is peer-reviewed, but everything!
Of course, for people like you who didn't even bother to start studying and for whom ignorance is an ideology at all, things are not understood, but for people who are willing to make an effort, things are understood.
Beyond that, one of the functions of understanding (what it does - you have to study at least a little math to get to it) is to find ways to test the theory in reality - that is, to set up an experiment that has not yet been performed and predict the results it should give according to the theory. When such an experiment is defined (and again - this does not happen by idleness), it is carried out (also something that requires overcoming idleness and arrogance) and its results are analyzed (again, what to do, only those who are willing to make an effort to understand things and not talk about what they have no clue about Concept of it, deals with it). If the results do not match the theory, they realize that the theory, as beautiful as it may be, is not a correct description of the physical world, and then they go back to the drawing board and try to improve it while taking into account the results obtained in the experiment.
This is how we arrive at more and more successful theories over time, when the definition of successful is based on the ability to correctly predict what will happen in reality.
It so happened that today we have theories that make it possible to fly into space, to build televisions and cell phones, to look inside the body without analyzing it, to cure all kinds of diseases, to give the Boers and the peoples of other countries tools (such as the Internet) with which they can express themselves with a people and the world and cancel the meaning of all of this and more and more .
The funny thing is that you say that Dekel confirms your words when he didn't even hint on purpose.
Ladkel: So as I understood correctly...
A person who studied theoretical physics at any institution and became a researcher...
can define well... a certain theory... and describe it quantitatively in different equations...
It is impossible to prove it, because it is at a very developed level that no human being is able to understand except the inventor himself, and it is also impossible to check if he is right...
Because we do not have experimental tools suitable for this...
But everyone believes him...so science is then also a form of faith?!
Are you really blindly believing that the entire universe started from an initial size that resembles a pea?!
You live in a world where the physical laws are well defined...
Limor:
You claim that for you, philosophy and physics are the same thing.
That is not true at all! Physics is a science that is first of all based on the experimental method, if a mathematically developed theory does not pass the experimental test, it is replaced by a theory that describes reality in a better way (and here you are also wrong in the context of Stephen Hawking and in general in theoretical physics - usually these are very developed theories that are not yet experimental tools to test - and not in something artile and amorphous, these are well-defined theories)
Philosophy is really, really not an exact science and any connection between it and experimental proofs does not exist, philosophy does not come to quantitatively describe reality like physics, but perhaps to give a certain interpretation of the thought process that characterizes one theory or another, and this is where the imagination ends.
Limor:
Not only are you not a scientist.
You don't know history either.
Einstein was a scientist both when he worked in the patent office and before that.
Also the claim that it took several years to prove the theory of relativity is not true and in fact it shows so much ignorance (because it is not possible to prove a scientific theory at all but only to disprove it) that it is really a shame to waste time on the details of the historical mistakes.
Everything you describe about your "perception" on this subject of science, forgive me, a quibble, and if you think I'm blunt, then you're right because it really annoys me that people who have learned nothing look down on those who have and try to enlighten the world in the darkness that surrounds them.
By chance I came across the article: very interesting by the way...
I got to read the comments…
Perhaps you are right about science, that every hypothesis requires experiment and examination with scientific tools and only then can it be accepted after it has been proven...
But philosophy as well as theoretical physics - it's the same for me...
Both cannot be proven with scientific tools, only perhaps inventing equations...
But never underestimate a person who is not a scientist...
Einstein, as you know, was a junior clerk in a patent office until a light bulb went off "in his brain" and he came up with the special theory of relativity...
Only after a few years were they able to prove it...
I'm also sure that if he were alive today and talking about it, everyone would look at him as an eccentric...
Prof. Stephen Hawking - how do you treat him "and his science"?!
None of his theories have ever been proven, but he is "regarded" and respected in the field of theoretical physics...
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not a scientist, but my perception of science is this:
that the real and correct knowledge can be obtained without experimenting with scientific tools because the real scientist, as far as I am concerned, is the one who is able to recognize and absorb and overcome repeating patterns, just as a person who drives or walks knows the road...because he "remembers" traffic signs or intersections or buildings that are in the same fixed place... Just as a professional chess player remembers patterns of moves by fixed positions of the pieces on the board... so if you come up with patterns that are created as a result of a connection between several factors, you can gain insights "that science" does not recognize... because they have not been proven with scientific tools...
Hanan,
I agree that the theory is interesting, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to accept it unequivocally.
Regarding the Yuri-Miller experiment, a serial mixture of amino acids was obtained.
Regarding subsequent experiments, I found the following sentence in Wikipedia: "Other experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible"
But the references they bring are not related to this claim.
A question for Roy -
Hello Roy.
Although, in my opinion, the attempt to build a complete theory based on the state of the enantiomers of one (or several) amino acids in one meteorite is a bit problematic (and not only because of the small differences), I am very interested to know if you know the splits of the enantiomer percentages in the Yuri-Miller experiment???
Also in my opinion, the source of the preference stems from a primary selection that was imprinted during evolution, and it is very interesting to know whether in the Yuri-Miller experiment (and in the experiments conducted after it), similar percentages of L and D enantiomers of amino acids were discovered.
Best regards,
Hanan Sabat
I tend to believe that your experience with this New Age subject is greater than mine.
I still had no chance for this kettle
You know that sometimes a kettle is able to surprise you and make you unexpected and good coffee.
So have a good and blessed week for you and all of us
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
As someone who has encountered New Age views many times, it is really possible that the allergy I have towards them leads me to respond bluntly (allergies, as we know, get worse the more you are exposed to their factors).
I don't know if this is the optimal response or if showing a little more sympathy would have achieved better results.
What is clear to me is that the result I want to achieve is for people to understand that what separates science from the New Age is that science compares its assumptions with reality and the New Age does not bother to do this and allows itself to make baseless claims that not only have not been tested but most of them have been tested (by scientists , because the New Age people don't bother to check) and absurd.
It reminds me of the joke about the man who was run over by a locomotive and after being hospitalized for months came home and smashed the kettle when it started whistling. His argument was that they should be killed when they are still small.
So in the case of the locomotive it is of course a joke, but it is possible that in the case of New Age views it is actually a correct strategy.
To Michael
Since we've already pretty much rambled on this topic, I won't go into it again. We pretty much understand each other's opinion.
I just think you are "a little" rigid with Ainbar. As a commenter who doesn't often comment she deserves a little more credit.
You will notice that Einbar also qualifies her words several times with the word "maybe" and "I don't think so..." etc.
The typical New Age people usually speak with exaggerated and reserved confidence and not like Einbar.
So let's all have a good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I don't understand what you are saying for several reasons.
The first reason is that it is a prophecy. I do not usually argue with prophecies, but only dispute the prophesier's ability to predict them.
The second reason is that people can express themselves accurately and if Inbar is writing about higher levels of awareness then either she got confused (that's what you say), or she meant something else, or - and this is my opinion - she meant to throw sand in the eyes of the readers and hoped it would pass without a response.
Regarding your accusations against the scientists - you should base them on something.
In my opinion, these accusations are not true in general, and if there is a scientist or two who occasionally ignore reality, it is not because of science, but because they are human and human beings, as the people of the new age prove every day, defend positions also because of their ego and not only because of their truth.
to Einbar
Unlike Michael, I quite understand what you are saying. Maybe I wouldn't say it in the same words for example. Instead of the words "breaking into higher places of awareness" I would say "ideas far beyond scientifically proven". I think that's what you meant and I agree with you.
The scientists, contrary to Michael's custom, often do not check the "adjustment to reality" and there are countless examples where they only pay lip service to existing paradigms, and are not willing to give them up even though the data on the ground "cries out" for change. And in addition and contrary to his words, many scientists do not treat with equanimity "nonsense" that means nothing. These "nonsense" were often the basis of new theories.
To Michael
I disagree with you in your words to Einbar. I think her words deserve a more positive response, the cosmological principle is a principle that is often untestable and yet is accepted by most scientists.
Scientists will agree on any outcome that suits them. As for those who are not suitable, they will find excuses, certainly not canceling them immediately.
Good evening, and all in good spirits.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Amber - continued:
Even hypotheses that were raised when there were no tools to test them were ones that could be tested. The fact that there are currently no tools does not deter any scientist. On the contrary - it speeds up the development of the tools. The claims that science rejects are those that, in principle, cannot be tested.
By the way, I'm still waiting for example for "breaking into higher places of awareness" - a typical New Age phrase that means nothing.
amber:
Modern science is completely different from the science of a few generations ago.
The reason for this is that science is not at all self-limiting as you try to make it out to be.
The only limitation he assumes is the limitation of conforming to reality.
He rightly rejects everything that contradicts the observations and therefore he rejects those nonsenses that not only cannot be proven but can also be disproved.
He treats with equanimity nonsense that means nothing (such as those that cannot be substantiated or disproved) because a claim that cannot be disproved or disproved is obviously a claim that has no effect on our world and in this sense it means nothing.
Answer to Michael,
I meant hypotheses that arose at a time when there were still no tools to scientifically prove them. I am small compared to the enormous amount of knowledge, etc. that science has provided until today, but even more so compared to the infinite unknown amount - perhaps because science does not yet have the tools to test it, perhaps because due to human limitations there never will be.
and no It doesn't seem so terrible to me to take seriously "nonsense" that cannot be proven... at least no more than limiting myself to those insights that are accepted by the science of my generation.
Who is this clown Shahar Fahima.
Let him move his nonsense somewhere else.
This is a site for serious people.
Shabbat Shalom.
To Mr. Fahima
You are babbling nonsense that is not of this world, you throw away all kinds of things you have heard here and there and turn them into a new religion.
What do you really know about additional dimensions, how do they fit into space, what is your scientific knowledge on the subject and how many dimensions are you talking about?
What scientific articles do you rely on from known sources?
You ascribe to yourself all kinds of powers that you don't have
The interpretation of the experiment you saw on TV is yours and not necessarily correct.
To rattle off all your loads you need only a developed imagination.
amber:
The main philosophers of science are the scientists themselves.
Come and show us one example of what you call a "breakthrough to higher places of awareness" that has ever been achieved
I really enjoyed reading. As a side reader - it seems to me that the debate here is between science and scientific philosophy and that over time history has proven that philosophy wins, meaning it breaks through to higher places of awareness.
Dawn:
I don't know what you saw and if anyone there worked on anyone.
What is certain is that if they were to do such an experiment under Randy's control mechanisms, then one of two things would happen:
1. Or they would fail
2. Or they would have received a million dollars
I suggest, therefore, that you, too, take all your miracles for such a test.
Randy's challenge was posted over forty years ago and no one has yet been able to get the money. Everyone who tried ended up with the first option.
Feel free to try it yourself.
You'll probably find something to do with an extra million dollars.
Browse to http://www.randi.org/ And see Randy's activity.
If you would like to register for the challenge, do so through the link in the left column.
Successfully!
I saw an interesting experiment where scientists showed normal and shocking pictures to people and measured their brain waves and heart rate.
It was discovered that in all cases (100%) where a shocking image was presented to the viewer, a second before there was a small increase in the indices followed by a sharp increase as soon as the image was presented. There was no early response again in cases where a normal picture was presented.
This experiment was published and I even saw it on one of the science channels on TV.
Dawn:
believe me or not
I can see the flying spaghetti monster.
I didn't tell you until now because I knew she had no effect on your world.
Science deals with things that have an impact on the world. If we cannot sense it through any experiment - it is meaningless.
Electromagnetic waves that we have not seen before have always affected our world - we simply did not know that some of the phenomena that we could not explain were caused by them.
If you want some attitude you have to point to something that you claim is a result of the nonsense you are telling and that cannot be explained by normal means
So there may be a slim chance that everything I say is based on existing reality.
Because it is hard for people to grasp this, they explain to themselves that it is happening somewhere thousands of light years away or that it happened billions of years in the past.
Radio waves, sound waves are not visible to the eye but we have learned to measure them and use them.
In the same way, there are very low or very high frequency waves that we don't really know how to perceive. The whole experience on the physical plane we are in is limited to a specific range of frequencies. Humans can hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. We see colors from ultraviolet to infrared.
Believe me or not, I can see the primal aura of humans. Not the whole aura containing colors, etc. - but the same "ether" body that surrounds us about two centimeters around the body. Also I see sound particles.
In order to explain a higher perception than us, we need to use analogies familiar to humans and use abstract terms. I guess guys like you are looking for an answer in your language. I don't have a miracle answer, the knowledge of existence is vast and cannot be contained in one day. The first step here is the theoretically possible agreement that something exists outside of human perception.
I am waiting for the day that a scientist will come who will explain it better than me because he probably does not speak your language and cannot provide you with an answer that is acceptable to you.
I will explain to you the Hebrew meaning of my words.
Dawn:
Your question has no meaning in the Hebrew language.
of which live in a higher dimension. You should define words you use if they are not clearly defined.
In general, an absurd situation is impossible - this is the definition of an absurd situation.
The situation in which there is a life that we do not perceive is possible - especially if this life exists at a great distance from us. In general - if there is something we cannot perceive, then that something has no effect on us because any effect can be discovered experimentally.
Beyond that, I also have no doubt that you cannot perceive anything that a sane person does not perceive.
I will add the question: if it is possible - then what?
I never claimed to be omniscient, I asked for the date of birth so you know there is no magic. Everything is accurate according to track. You did not respond to anything I said, I only heard defensive, ego-centered responses and accusations of lack of seriousness towards me instead of real research.
Historically, people have based their beliefs on their understanding even if in modern times it seems as absurd as the classic example that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around us.
I ask for a simple answer, is it possible for an absurd situation in which there is life in a higher dimension than us that we cannot really perceive just as the bacterium does not understand us?
Shahar, unlike mystic sites, let you express the music produced by the people of the New Age without having to stand behind them. Let people enjoy science. Do you have a substantive response, please?
Dawn:
What is?!
You can't find my date of birth from my words?
Do you want to draw the target according to where the arrow hit?
I assume that if I give the date you will present us with a collection of meaningless sentences that try to show how the qualities that you think (poor) I demonstrated in the discussion are derived from the date but let's see you work the other way around - check all the possible dates of birth and tell us which one I should match.
If this process gives more than one possible answer, state all the possible answers or simply use your ability to read minds - the same ability you demonstrated in response 29 when you made a nonsensical claim about what "we all believe" in.
It is said about this: things that are seen from here are not seen from there
Anyway, I'm glad everyone left satisfied 🙂
I feel like I made new friends
Today I understand the difference between us, it is in Michael's message number 47.
By the way, I would love to know your date of birth.
Dawn:
I did not fall into your hands as a plaything.
I gave you an opportunity to present your doctrine of my own free will. I just wanted everyone to see how stupid she is
I am facing my challenge right now. It is called 'Differential Equations of Mass Transfer', and is a big challenge.
If you want to help, you can start by finding the release rate of retinoic acid molecules from eight micron diameter poly-caprolactone fibers.
I, in return, would be happy to grant you Maori.
There is also a breakdown of the system.
http://www.auracam.info/chakra.htm
Alternative medicine is based on this as well as acupuncture and other ancient methods from the days when humans started injecting viruses into themselves, a destructive medication of the body, instead of strengthening it to heal itself.
For those who are interested in observing the aura of living beings, their "energy",
There is a camera that captures this field.
http://www.auracam.info/
Let me summarize for you, for those who are confused, what happened here.
If you notice Roy's reaction after the surgery I did on him, everything is incredibly accurate.
Although I had never met Roy or visited this site until yesterday.
It is interesting that the words that came out to him were: "God Almighty"...
According to Michael's argument, by the way, a toy fell into my hands and this debate will be ignited so that I can convey the message for which I came here.
In short, according to common sense, if I was incredibly right in Roy's short and precise analysis, could it be that the rest of my things are anchored in reality? Everyone will believe what they want in the end.
Roy, you are the reason I visited here, there are many more things I could tell you, including your lesson in this life, the challenge that if you overcome it you will be able to realize your full potential.
For a new dawn, Toyota Prius and the like:
You still haven't said anything in this whole discussion.
All you do is claim that you are smarter than others and that your conclusions from the same facts that others also see are different.
In my opinion your claim to superior intelligence is disproven by your inability to answer mathematical questions that others can answer and therefore your whole house of cards collapses.
It's a waste of time that sane people devote to you.
http://www.truthessentials.com/extraterrestrial-studies/UFOs.html
In general, the title deals with the origin of life from space.
I wonder what you can see on the internet today.. I found a website with interviews with people who were senior in the establishment and the American military who tell all kinds of interesting things.
You can't teach an old dog a new trick.
For those whose fate is not yet decided like Michael, I definitely recommend researching the collapse of the Twin Towers.
A "physical" phenomenon that never happened back then - and since.
Who can explain the physical process that caused the collapse of the buildings
will discover something new about the world we live in.
Dawn:
What you call the tip of the iceberg is nothing.
Usually, the tip of the iceberg (the visible part of it) makes up 10% of the total.
Therefore, to get the whole glacier you need to multiply by 10
So here's a question you might be able to answer: How much is nothing times 10?
Guys, this is the tip of the iceberg. I hope it is clear to you that there are better sources than Google and YouTube. Don't stop researching and asking questions
I wish you success in the future
I have an important question for Mr. Michael.
Can you please explain how the twins collapsed in 911?
Whoever finds a real answer, will get to understand a little more about life as a whole.
It's just funny how the speakers of the new era who never contribute anything to science and technology always jump in and appropriate what we - the scientists and technologists - create and discover.
Let's see you give us one answer that is unknown to anyone and can be verified by anyone (if you even understand what I'm saying)
Leave you drugs
there is
FLOATATION TANK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEjTXX2rHgA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_tank
I have no prophets and no messiahs
I mentioned Terence McKenna because he discovered a mathematical explanation for the teachings that were among the Mayans, the Hopi, etc.
I can link you to a google movie with a lecture on the subject it would be much simpler.
Link to the movie
For those who want to know who is that prophet on whom Shahar is based, then here is the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna
In addition to the fact that he also seems to me to be drugged with delusions, it is interesting to note that he actually, unlike Shahar, believed in evolution
Michael:
I will explain something about you "homo sapien". You studied at MIND. It helps you differentiate between things. What is good for you and what is not. When to attack and when to run.
The MIND works at a rate of 24 frames per second (yes, like in the cinema). It's his reaction speed and ability to make decisions.
Intuition, on the other hand, works at a crazy speed a thousand times (I'm just throwing out, don't catch me with a number) than the speed of the mind.
Such messages arrive in a second, which explains how people get out of accidents and the like.
Sometimes your intuition tells you to go even though logic leaves you in a certain place that hurts you because you couldn't say no to your mind.
"Homo Sapien" will be replaced by "Homo Illuminos". People who are fully aware of their energy system and use it on a daily basis.
By the way, today's technology is starting to catch up to allow people to understand that the concept exists.
Already today there are game consoles that work by thought only, as long as you put a device on your head that is calibrated accordingly.
The telepathy receives Faiz interpretations. Think that such a device is connected to your cell phone and you can call whoever you think of and he immediately receives a message from you into a chip installed in his body.
Very interesting. I am quoting one of the sites you brought, about the novelty theories:
"Perhaps the real value of novelty theory, at the end of the technological war-driven 20th century, is that it is a parody. It is not a scientific theory, nor is it a pseudo-scientific theory—it is a parody of a scientific theory. It basically mocks the pretensions of 20th century physical science. It purports to explain the nature of time and to elucidate the inner workings of the temporal world, yet it is obviously absurd, at least to a more than superficial examination.
And I'm still waiting to hear about your chart, Mr. Fahima.
Don't trust the media and newspapers to tell you what's going on.
We live in a world of censorship.
Was it announced in the news that SETI received a message from space that they don't know how to decipher?
There are many things that are not made public.
Regarding the evolution of consciousness you can see a site on this site:
http://mayanmajix.com/lab_F1.html
TimeWaveZero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Timewave.9.11.2001.png
Novelty Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_theory
Unlike you, Shahar, I only investigate things that pass the initial test of logic. Once they contradict even themselves there is no need to keep checking.
Therefore, Shahar, I also already know a thing or two while you have not yet shown me that there is anything you know at all.
Historically, by the way, none of the opinions I hold is a belief I was brought up on.
Homo sapiens, Shahar, and not only a scientist, is a type of person endowed with the ability to think logically and I am just one of those among members of the same species who also exercise this ability.
Evidence, Mr. Fahima. where is your proof
You claim to have a diagram that existed among the Mayans and ancient Indians, in the Americas.
You claim that the diagram also existed among the Chinese, who are not exactly a lost tribe as you try to portray them. The history of the Chinese is recorded as early as 8000 years BC, and they are more than ten thousand kilometers by sea and land from the American continents.
If this diagram is real, then this is the greatest anthropological and historical discovery of the 21st century. It will be proof of an exchange of messages between two cultures that have never had real contact since the breakup of the great continent Pangea. These two civilizations - the Chinese and the Maya - are completely different from each other in their technologies, their animals, their history, their culture and their ways of recording.
And now you claim to have evidence linking these two cultures in the form of an ancient diagram.
Well, come on! Reveal it to us! Do not be afraid! If the chart is authentic, dear Mr. Fahima, then very soon you will become one of the richest and most famous people in the world.
Don't hesitate, Mr. Fahima. Ori shines on you with all its might. If you are telling the truth, then you are destined for greatness.
I can't wait to read in the papers about the auction of the world's most important chart.
All that remains to be said to Mr. Michael is for him to go and investigate.
A scientist is a person who questions everything, even the belief system he was raised on.
Of course, none of this is new to anyone, but the fact that every significant jump in evolution is synchronized to a mathematical function and can be viewed in advance changes the order of thoughts a bit.
At the beginning of the nineties, a new CYCLE began that opened the global consciousness with the release of the WWW to the free world. Globalization is already here and today people define themselves as citizens of the world and not necessarily citizens of a particular country or religion.
Everything is just perfect for millions of years.
Dawn:
One thing you were right about:
You really look crazy.
I can't give an honest answer without looking "crazy" or a source of anger. Instead I will try to explain a little about time and fractal functions.
A fractal is a shape in which the whole is the same as each of its parts. For example, a cauliflower looks like each of the small cauliflowers that make it up or a shingle roof that looks like a single shingle. Time can be described by a fractal function as well. This means that at all times processes are happening at all levels. Daily processes of 13 days.
Processes of a year, 13 years, 13.000 years, 1,600,000 years, etc.
(In Tanach this appears as seven days and six nights of creation). Every day comes a new consciousness or rather another aspect, "another color" that is created in a different way. At night, the consequences. Ideas enter execution and process and are realized in the world.
I have a map of the history of life, a chart that has existed for thousands of years among the Mayans, ancient Indians, Chinese and other lost tribes.
In the last century, Terence McKenna discovered the fractal functions and constructed a diagram of time.
It describes all of life and the growth of global consciousness starting from the initial level of cells (cellular level) through the growth of tribal consciousness like fish or bees that are not aware of the individual but move in a group. Then came the family consciousness - the monkeys. Everyone is aware of the tribe but also of their personal choices to survive.
Then the humans came, they created a new consciousness of "nationality" (this was in Egypt, by the way). Until then people were just scattered people and from that day came a new concept of a nation.
And another response to Dawn:
I actually took into account all the serious things you said.
In fact, I wrote an entire book about each of them, which I later adapted into an Oscar-winning film.
All this is true, of course, because the set of serious things you said is empty.
Dawn:
Besides, I hope you remember, I also asked you some more trivial questions (for a prophet of your stature) about processes and facts that are completely mundane
Dawn:
These are not anyone's homework and I, as I mentioned (it turns out that you are not particularly good at reading comprehension either), solved both of them.
In any case, mathematics, as even you should know, exists throughout the universe and especially on Earth, so instead of rambling on, all you have to do is answer them.
Analyzing Roy's energetic elements is not related to mind reading.
I defined specific parts of his personality that Roy himself could not define in words until today.
Dawn,
I'm curious. Why don't you have all the same insights about astrology, the consciousness of the universe, the evolution of the mental processes and so on? What experiments did you conduct? What are your review groups?
And according to your advice, I do not demand money from you (yet) for sharing my light with you.
Michael, you are entertaining me, you want me to help you with your homework instead of addressing the serious things that were said, you are twisting a minor sentence that I said I am ready to answer questions in the context of processes that happen on Earth.
Dawn:
You have a hint about the mathematical questions:
I solved them, so if you can't solve them with the power of your mind and if you don't know any smart people, you can still use your mind reading power and read the answers from my fevered mind
A small extension for Dawn:
in the discussion that took place HERE,
With your friend Irwax I suggested that he demonstrate his mastery of probability by the incomprehensible use of which he tried to convince us of all kinds of nonsense.
I did it Reply 56.
After meandering for many days (in fact he admitted it was months because I had already asked him the same question before) I suggested to him in response 80 to prove his belief in his understanding of the subject by organizing a series of games of the type I described.
To this day he has not dared to do so.
Further to your claim to know the future and your willingness to answer any question, I ask you:
1. Will he answer the challenge?
2. Will it solve the question?
3. Will you solve the question?
4. Are you ready to accept the challenge in his place?
5. How do you solve the question?
6. What am I wearing now?
Roy, the astrology offered to you in newspapers and the like is superficial and unaware of all the elements that make up a person's personality.
The universe is a mandala rotating in opposite directions,
Each "evolution" of a consciousness process is divided into thirteen parts until it completes the process and gives way to the next process.
This is the way of "creation". Every day has a certain aspect and way of creating. Humans create a reality around them by the way they understand life and the way they bring processes to fruition, their interaction with people.
Roy, don't demand money but share your "light" with people, influence them positively.
I didn't just come here to tell you this
My God, it's all true…
It's strange that I also found it on the numerology channel at the Burgos-Burger-Bar restaurant in Kyrion, for five other different people.
And yet, everything is true. Sometimes I regret that I don't demand money from people who want to sunbathe.
For the new dawn that broke:
I wouldn't compete with your ability to read other people's minds and I wouldn't even disagree with them if you weren't talking about me too.
Well - you didn't read my mind correctly. That at least I know.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who knows you missed reading his mind completely.
I assume that your prophecies regarding the future are also on the same level.
You offered to answer every question for us, so come and answer us the following question:
Given N natural numbers between one and 1000 whose least common multiple of any two of them is greater than 1000.
How do you prove that the sum of the inverses of all N numbers (the inverse of X is one divided by X) is less than 1.5?
(You wrote etc..., remember?)
In order for you to be a little less skeptical, I decided to share with you the energetic information of your friendRoey Tsezana:
Roy is a guy with a vision and his life path is about completing it, he works hard for it, knows there are no shortcuts in life, brave and loyal, you can trust him.
Stubborn and sometimes he misses out on new and good opportunities because of his inability to change.
In a relationship he is loyal and committed, an "ideal" partner.
His "conscious self" is very bright and people are attracted to him and feel good in his company, but sometimes a great "light" can cast a shadow on those close to him and make them feel less worthy, etc.
Roy's "subconscious" is connected with instinct, desire, life force. This means that on a deeper level he has the ability to nurture people, nourish them and even educate or raise them.
His "higher self" his "guide" in life is associated with sowing awareness. He is guided to open people to new ideas, to show them that it is possible, to bring original ideas to people who will implement them later and not necessarily for his personal use.
This is interesting, because Roy was also born on a special day that serves as an interdimensional gateway, this means that he can also move people between one perception of reality and a new one.
Such people usually engage in art, education, creation when they reach maturity and a sufficiently high awareness.
We are all particles in orbit.
Just like the butterflies transfer pollen, if you look at us from above you will see that humans are transferring ideas, spreading consciousness. We are servants of a higher order than ourselves and the ability of an average human to understand this is about as much as a bacterium found in our body can understand us.
You all believe that humans are the highest intelligence in the universe and I guess Michael is also sure that it is him..
The earth was here before us and so were the animals..Dogs perceive reality at levels that humans do not understand..Birds and insects use different frequencies than humans to perceive reality and take advantage of aspects of existence that we are not aware of at all. Tell me who speaks here arrogantly and who clearly?
I am not fighting anyone, I want you to know that we are at the beginning of a new era in which all the laws defined by science are going to be contradicted, additional levels of existence will be discovered and additional questions will arise.
All the processes happening today can be explained as part of a galactic change, a new season and the synchronization of our sun with the center of the galaxy
I am ready to answer any question in context, social, political, etc.
I come in peace
Dawn,
I quote your words:
"Free molecules will never form a living thing by chance. One big bang that creates a disk spinning in one direction will never create a universe with galaxies spinning in different directions."
From what do you come to these conclusions?
Yehuda:
Because Shahar is not interested in an explanation, as you were. Shahar went to war and does not want any explanation.
To Michael
Why don't you explain to Shahar that the fact that we placed an integration even with higher dimensions than us does not solve the question of how this integration was built. In any case, this is the explanation I received from you and it is quite acceptable to me. I still believe that God, instead of building everything, would have preferred to build evolutionary tools that would do the work for him.
Have a good evening and happy holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dawn:
No one feeds me anything and your condescension as if you are the only one who can understand what is right and what is wrong is just pitiful.
Are you really sure that all scientists are stupid and only you are smart?
I suggest you grow up and stop wasting people's time.
So much has already been explained above the pages of this site about the question of why your words are nonsense that it is clear to me that another explanation will not be helpful.
I can exactly understand how you know there is a higher intelligence than yours. It's good that you understand at least this fact and it's just a shame that you don't understand that they are more intelligent than you are humans.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, people will believe any nonsense written in the newspaper or on television but fail to understand that there is a higher intelligence than them and instead start believing in coincidences.
Nonsense is what humans have fed you all these years that if you give an impossible process enough time like billions of years it will become possible.
Free molecules will never form a living thing by chance. One big bang that creates a disc that rotates in one direction will never create a universe with galaxies that rotate in different directions.
Dawn:
Why not recognize the nonsense?
Just do not want to!
We are three-dimensional beings who are aware of the interaction with two-dimensional beings such as viruses and bacteria on an everyday level but are unable to perceive that there is also an interaction with higher dimensions than us.
Each of us has an "etheric" ETHER" energetic body, we explain phenomena related to this with "supernatural" "sixth sense" or just coincidences but in fact every person can grow into a higher consciousness than what he holds during the day and acquire "supernatural" skills.
It is clear that life came from space, but if we already understood that, then why assume that a meteorite accidentally hit with amino acids that created all life here instead of seeing that there is a living being in the universe that has the tools to manipulate DNA and proteins at a level humans have not yet understood.
The complexities of the universe are many and it is possible that there are life forms with more than 2 strands of DNA as we are built.
Have you ever thought about DNA? about its structure? He is like a hollow tube! It seems to me a simple logic that something flows there that scientists don't really know how to explain.
exciting. Thanks for the interesting links.
The new paper only came out in 2005, and the results are still controversial (as with any new paper, actually). It will be very interesting to see in the future whether it will be fully compatible. If so, then it is really possible that the chiral contribution of the meteorites (if it itself is true), is marginal.
There is evidence that shows that the null assumption of the article (ie - in nature, chiral molecules are evenly distributed) is wrong:
See here for an example (English) - a popular article
The scientific article on which it is based
What's new,
Computer simulations should include all known conditions and interactions. We are still discovering every day new ways in which DNA can connect itself and replicate, new interactions between fatty acids that form unusual structures, and so on.
As such, we cannot feed into such a simulation all possible interactions, as we do not know them all. Even if such a simulation were created, I do not believe it could have created a primitive cell (or even a primitive replicating molecule).
But I admit to being a skeptic, and the prophecy was given to fools. I can only hope that in the near future we will hear about such a simulation that came to fruition, and although it lacked some of the interactions we are not familiar with, it still managed to prove a simulated creation of a replicator. You just have to remember that this will not prove abiogenesis beyond any doubt, but will only support the theory.
Let's say that we accept that life began billions of years ago from simple molecules and the animals and plants as they are today more or less began with these molecules (which seems logical to me and also acceptable to me). The problem for me is the theory (which is called evolution) that tries to give an explanation for the process that led to what exists and an explanation for why what exists exists and why what does not exist does not exist (and maybe also what will or will not exist). I don't think there can be a theory that can give explanations for these why, without oversimplifying.
Why is it not possible to restore the creation according to the following options:
1. A computer simulation that will dynamically process initial data in billions of cycles until we get the most primitive animal form known.
2. To recreate the conditions of the beginning in a physical-chemical laboratory and speed up the process until the creation of the most primitive living form known.
Why is it not possible to perform Is there not enough data?
If they succeed, this will show the feasibility of the creation of life according to the theory of evolution.
Evolution is similar to God, everyone (or just like everyone) talks about him and doesn't know what he is. Here we have evolution in its embodiment from God to evolution! Come to Zion a redeemer.
Armac, has a replicating molecule. I made one of these.
But I destroyed her for various reasons.
Have you seen the movie "Return of the Irwax"?
So suddenly evolution = abiogenesis? Good to know. Speaking of a replicating molecule. Is there such a thing as a self-replicating molecule (without the help of proteins) + coding ability? There is no such thing anywhere on earth, nor in any laboratory.
And there is no degree to the formation of the genetic language that consists of several parts (ribosome, codons, guide RNA, etc.)-conclusion->>biogenesis will not be possible.
lion,
I may not have phrased the question well. You are right when you say that the first replicator created would have taken the resources of the environment and replicated only itself. My intention in the question was to wonder how such a chiral replicator is formed, if the amino acids and nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) are found in equal amounts in the environment.
I believe that the news strengthens the theory of evolution indirectly. A few weeks ago I read on a creationist's website a statistical explanation of why it is not possible that replication was created from nucleotides. It went something like this:
1. Nucleotides exist in nature in their two forms - right and left.
2. DNA consists of billions of right handed nucleotides only.
3. Therefore, the chance that only billions of right-handed nucleotides will connect by themselves to each other (and not to left-handed nucleotides), is zero.
I suppose for those of you who understand a bit of biochemistry and the idea of evolution over time, this argument seems far-fetched anyway in its current form. But there is a kernel of truth in it, because in my opinion a certain area with a high concentration of right-handed nucleotides was indeed needed for the first replica to be formed. The knowledge about the meteorite can provide an explanation why in certain places on the earth there were areas with a large excess of right-handed nucleotides over left-handed ones, and it is possible that the first chiral replicator came from there. In short, we found a possible and reasonable solution to another problem that the opponents of evolution tend to bring up in discussions.
Roy - I don't understand this question: "Why would the primitive cell use only such limited building blocks, right-handed DNA and left-handed proteins? After all, both types are around him in equal measure. Why would he choose to act in mechanisms that would prevent him from using half of the molecules around him?" The first replicator that was created happened to be in a certain direction and then as soon as it began to reproduce, it took up the resources of the environment and left no possibility for the development of replicators with the opposite direction. This is the accepted explanation for the existing directionality and this explanation is sufficient and logical and does not need To ask why the second option is not used. The primitive cell only had molecules available in a certain direction, so it could not use the other direction. In conclusion, I do not think that the findings presented in the article support panaspermia, although of course they do not rule it out.
For Armac why call it by new names to separate part of the evolution from all the rest?
If it talks like evolution, walks like evolution it's evolution.
According to what is written in the article, amino acids are formed more or less equally in space. There may be slight fluctuations in their relative frequency in different places in space. When amino acids arrive from space to planets with conditions for the formation of life, they begin to replicate themselves and within a "short" period of time on an evolutionary scale, the majority acids dominate life on the planet and eliminate the minority acids.
In this way, life systems identical in their biological properties but with opposite "chemical polarity" may be formed on different planets.
To my father - how exactly does this strengthen evolution? You probably mean Avgionza. In any case... the claim is about to be coded, someone needs to code,
Especially if several parts are required for this.
In other words Armac, none of the billions of arguments supporting evolution convinces you. Probably only if God Himself comes down and tells you Armac - believe in evolution, it will convince you……
And if they found amino acids, what would make them work according to a structured code? And what about all the other essential acids for living things that were not found anywhere? Did they come from space? Let's say the whole ocean was full of them, what is the chance of creating a functional protein from them that both replicates and is coded? And when it changed And the extension, did it retain the wonderful auto-replicating ability? (After all, the spatial structure changed).
And how did the genetic language even come about? After all, there is no point in a genetic code without a ribosome and without the guiding RNA proteins that link between a codon and an anticodon and its amino acid. For that, more special proteins are needed that link between the guiding RNA proteins and its amino acid.
First the following question must be answered: what is the chance that protein creation mechanisms will be created that will prefer left, right, mixed chirality.
If it is 20%, 20%, 60%, you can say that the preference for left-handedness is random and there is no question here.
All these questions about the origin of life are not really questions until we know the details of the assembly processes.
Yehuda,
I agree, but even in this case it is doubtful that the sample will be contaminated by bacterial spores that are also found on tools sent into space.
exciting! The more questions we answer, the better
More questions pop up…
There is no choice and one must take a sample from a comet and test the amino acids in it. This is the only way we can be sure that the sample is not contaminated with amine acid produced on earth.
Sabdarmish Yehuda