NASA’s Bennu Asteroid Sample Contains Carbon, Water

[everything]

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasas ... bon-water/

Initial studies of the 4.5-billion-year-old asteroid Bennu sample collected in space and brought to Earth by NASA show evidence of high-carbon content and water, which together could indicate the building blocks of life on Earth may be found in the rock. NASA made the news Wednesday from its Johnson Space Center in Houston where leadership and scientists showed off the asteroid material for the first time since it landed in September.

This finding was part of a preliminary assessment of NASA’s OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification and Security – Regolith Explorer) science team.

[Kong Bao Long]

Interesting:
70 yrs ago scientist set out to re-create a single cell organism, by replicating the earths conditions when it is thought that life sparked into existence on this planet.

They are no closer today to figuring out how it happened...or if it happened. They can create single cell organisms in a lab (which is scary) but they have no clue how it was done naturally.

Another fun fact... Scientist in the last 100 yrs have declared 33 times they have found the missing link. All of the fossils found to date could fit inside a truck bed.

One more, just for fun:

All our DNA is unique, through it, we can trace who we are, what our race and nationalities(s) make up is.... that part of the DNA comes from the male. However, their is a part that comes from the female... and within that... ALL of us.. every human on this planet has the same code sequence deriving from the same female.

[origami_itto]

One more, just for fun:

All our DNA is unique, through it, we can trace who we are, what our race and nationalities(s) make up is.... that part of the DNA comes from the male. However, their is a part that comes from the female... and within that... ALL of us.. every human on this planet has the same code sequence deriving from the same female.

That isn't quite true, and the existence of this female is entirely hypothetical.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180959593/

In reality, a mitochondrial Eve is not the first female of a species, but merely the most recent female historically from which all living animals of a species can trace their ancestry. Think of her like the peak of a genealogical pyramid, in which all ancestors of a species meet. While everyone below is descended from her, that doesn’t mean that there is no other female above her, or that lived at the same time as her. Perhaps some of her contemporaries had no surviving children. Or they only had sons, which wouldn’t have passed on their mitochondrial DNA.

“In any generation there will be some individuals that will leave no progeny,” Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistical genetics and molecular evolution at Rice University, tells Smithsonian.com. “Their genes will be eliminated.” He added that the number of individuals passing their genes to further generations is shrinking all the time, meaning that mitochondrial Eve isn't a fixed individual over time, but could become more recent as lineages die out.

[Steve James]

True. Mitochondrial "Eve" got her mitochondria from someone. The Biblical story makes people think there was one original female. Though, in the story, that female came from a male.

I think most people would agree that all gorillas alive today have a common ancestor, too.

[Trick]

:) True. Mitochondrial "Eve" got her mitochondria from someone. The Biblical story makes people think there was one original female. Though, in the story, that female came from a male.

I think most people would agree that all gorillas alive today have a common ancestor, too.

there is Lilith mentioned i some scriptures. first ”wife” of Adam, created equally as him from dust, proved to be too unruly for the man.
Im sure she's still around

[Steve James]

Well, yeah, but the 'scriptures' about Lilith say lots of different things. Some say she had kids with Adam, but they died. Others say she had demons for children. But, the scriptures say that all humans are descended from Noah's cre anyway.

[Kong Bao Long]

That isn't quite true, and the existence of this female is entirely hypothetical.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180959593/

In reality, a mitochondrial Eve is not the first female of a species, but merely the most recent female historically from which all living animals of a species can trace their ancestry. Think of her like the peak of a genealogical pyramid, in which all ancestors of a species meet. While everyone below is descended from her, that doesn’t mean that there is no other female above her, or that lived at the same time as her.

No..... the author is playing with semantics.
I love exercising critical thinking skills.. (always go a little farther in your research , just don't pull the first thing that you agree with ... its called Confirmation Bias)


Joshua Rapp Learn, the author bounces around and pulls a lot of quotes from different people to put a spin on it. In fact he misquote Marak Kimmel... his published study actually points to a Homo Sapien mitochondrial Eve. ( the exact opposite of what Joshua Rapp Learn is trying to say with conjecture)

Take a second to read out loud that quote from your article above, with particular attention to the "bold" text.

IF the subject is historically "the animal" that all species can trace their ancestry from, & where all ancestors meet (as modern science has proved with homo sapiens ) the subject is indeed the Mitochondrial Eve. The author (Joshua Rapp Learn) is using conjecture (in the part I underlined after the bold ) without offering up any proof that Eve was not the first female ... that is the actual hypothetical part. It is very important we remember that science has not found the a missing link. (where two species share the same geno) The author (Joshua Rapp Learn ) assumes there is one (and.... there might be... we don't know.) However, what we do know... is in the last 100yrs, 33 times science have stated they have found missing link, only to retract it, and the bones from all 33 discoveries combined, fit in a box in an average living room. (in all cases are to small of a sampling to be creditable.)

The author (Joshua Rapp Learn) uses Marek Kimmel a professor of statistical genetics and molecular evolution at Rice University. (Joshua Rapp Learn) quotes Kimmel
"Genes from a species will be eliminated.” Citing there must have been a female before the Homo Sapien Mitochondrial Eve. (WE DON"T KNOW THAT FOR NONE HAVE BEEM FOUND) I assume the quote is talking about Neanderthals. ? We know they existed, sure. But they died out... in it's place Homo sapiens (the only extant Hominina species on the planet) and once again all of us have that Mitochondrial Eve gene.

No one has been found without that Mitochondrial Eve gene.

Marak Kimmel published a study in 2010 that places the mitochondrial Eve of humans back to around 100,000 to 250,000 years ago (a 2013 study estimated the age as a little more recent)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 122405.htm
Summary: of his study
The most robust statistical examination to date of our species' genetic links to "mitochondrial Eve" -- the maternal ancestor of all living humans -- confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. The study was based on a side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth.

[Kong Bao Long]

:) True. Mitochondrial "Eve" got her mitochondria from someone. The Biblical story makes people think there was one original female. Though, in the story, that female came from a male.

I think most people would agree that all gorillas alive today have a common ancestor, too.

You just hit on the issue... that can not be proved! WHY?

Because there are a lot of gaps scientifically with Darwinism.

The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”
Natural selection scientifically is seen as an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
*** important to the conversation here *** The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.
***Important to the conversation here*** The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the bio geographical distribution of many species.

*** Extremely important to the conversation here*** A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?)

Finally: Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage.

Remember when I sated 70yrs ago scientist tried to re-create a single celled organism in natural conditions? It's called in biology, Abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

They still haven't been able to do it. Yes in a controlled environment/experiment they have been able to create a single cell organism ... but replicating actual Abiogenesis? They not any closer today than they were 70yrs ago.


I find all this fascinating. Especially all the conjecture the science community throws around lol...

[origami_itto]

Oh honey.

[everything]

people really confuse science with "Science". I guess nobody is really taught this in school and/or it's hard to figure out or hard to pay attention to the boring topic b/c of distractions. remember that science starts with an assumption we do not know. there is a "null hypothesis" that we try to rule out using statistics. but we never actually PROVE our new hypothesis. ironically by assuming we do not know, that is how humanity finally started to understand more (and hence engineer various cool inventions like smart phones with satellite GPS). homo sapiens is oddly so smart, yet so stupid. but our "stupidity" saved us many times (or at least 1 time out of 10), which is why conspiracy theories are popular. maybe 9/10 times there wasn't really a danger, but the one time there was justifies our fears, so we continue that way. if you actually read this far, think about it some more. railing against "Science" is like getting ready to attack windmills. even though my dad was a scientist, i didn't understand any of that until a stats professor told me the first part and i read about the conspiracy theory part on "Big Think".

[origami_itto]

people really confuse science with "Science". I guess nobody is really taught this in school and/or it's hard to figure out or hard to pay attention to the boring topic b/c of distractions. remember that science starts with an assumption we do not know. there is a "null hypothesis" that we try to rule out using statistics. but we never actually PROVE our new hypothesis. ironically by assuming we do not know, that is how humanity finally started to understand more (and hence engineer various cool inventions like smart phones with satellite GPS). homo sapiens is oddly so smart, yet so stupid. but our "stupidity" saved us many times (or at least 1 time out of 10), which is why conspiracy theories are popular. maybe 9/10 times there wasn't really a danger, but the one time there was justifies our fears, so we continue that way. if you actually read this far, think about it some more. railing against "Science" is like getting ready to attack windmills. even though my dad was a scientist, i didn't understand any of that until a stats professor told me the first part and i read about the conspiracy theory part on "Big Think".

I look at how much drama and passion can go into what color we see a dress, or what word we hear in degraded audio, or how to solve an ambiguously written math problem... and when you start to get to really complex issues it just seems absolutely pointless to try to argue with anybody convinced of anything.

We literally can't agree on what happened on the news yesterday in front of a thousand live witnesses, how the hell can we expect consensus on nuanced matters of abstract thought.

I'm a latter nihilist, i.e. nothing matters, that's awesome, so let's get cynical and epicurean about it

[everything]

hahaha yes

[Trick]

Follow the money - https://sciencenordic.com/archaeology-d ... ey/1380630

[everything]

in Sapiens, Harari talks about how scientists don't actually set the research agenda. We can see this in the biopic about Oppenheimer as well. you likely need massive funding and political and other power (such as for the atomic bomb). but of course you still have to do "science" and see what finding emerge, and then you still have to do "engineering" to see what you can build. sometimes you do the engineering just to collect the data for the hypotheses, and still things go seemingly nowhere for a long time.