A team of scientists using the National Science Foundation’s Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) has discovered two new molecules in an interstellar cloud near the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. This discovery is the GBT’s first detection of new molecules, and is already helping astronomers better understand the complex processes by which large molecules form in space.
The 8-atom molecule propenal and the 10-atom molecule propanal were detected in a large cloud of gas and dust some 26,000 light-years away in an area known as Sagittarius B2. Such clouds, often many light-years across, are the raw material from which new stars are formed.
“Though very rarefied by Earth standards, these interstellar clouds are the sites of complex chemical reactions that occur over hundreds-of-thousands or millions of years,” said Jan M. Hollis of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “Over time, more and more complex molecules can be formed in these clouds. At present, however, there is no accepted theory addressing how interstellar molecules containing more than 5 atoms are formed.”
[…]Complex molecules in space are of interest for many reasons, including their possible connection to the formation of biologically significant molecules on the early Earth. Complex molecules might have formed on the early Earth, or they might have first formed in interstellar clouds and been transported to the surface of the Earth.
Molecules with the aldehyde group are particularly interesting since several biologically significant molecules, including a family of sugar molecules, are aldehydes.
“The GBT can be used to fully explore the possibility that a significant amount of prebiotic chemistry may occur in space long before it occurs on a newly formed planet,” said Remijan. “Comets form from interstellar clouds and incessantly bombard a newly formed planet early in its history. Craters on our Moon attest to this. Thus, comets may be the delivery vehicles for organic molecules necessary for life to begin on a new planet.”
I find this pretty interesting, because the enzyme I work with catalyzes an aldehyde dehydrogenase reaction that uses propanal (aka propanaldehyde, aka proprionaldehyde). We use propanal to assay the enzyme’s activity, so I’ve got a big bottle of propanal sitting in the fridge. I kind of like the way it smells.
If you’re wondering what propanal is, think of its little brother, acetaldehyde, which contains two carbon atoms instead of three. Acetaldehyde is something that most of us have had the joy of communing with, given that it’s the main product of ethanol metabolism. When you drink, it’s actually the acetaldehyde, and not the alcohol itself, that gets you intoxicated. A second dehydrogenation turns acetaldehyde into acetic acid, aka vinegar, which gets digested as usual.
29 Comments
Creationist Timmy · 23 June 2004
It is impossible by every known law of physics that tons of complex molecules like "proprionaldehyde" could just assemble themselves randomly. Clearly Jesus went out there and assembled them by hand, or possibly did it using telekinses.
And you scientists are too arrogant to admit it, because it would contradict your Darwinism religion, which has been disproven.
Mark Perakh · 23 June 2004
What a fine message from Creationist Timmy! We need more of it - such messages serve as the best arguments in favor of our position by illustrating who we sometimes have to deal with (unless he is joking for our entertainment). Cheers!
Bob Maurus · 23 June 2004
Okay, c'mon - this is a parody/satire riff, right? I love it. Jesus does a spacewalk and throws in some telekinesis for an encore. Brilliant!
Mark Perakh · 23 June 2004
Perhaps it is a joke - but who knows? I have heard such assertions before, made in all seriousness. Like the guy who tried to convince me that a bulb lights up when a plus and a minus meet each other.
Steve Reuland · 23 June 2004
Guys, of course it's a joke. Lighten up!
Bob Maurus · 23 June 2004
I knew it, Steve. It wasn't subtle enough, and "Creationist Timmy" was a definite give-away. It WAS fun though. Feel free.
steve · 23 June 2004
nobody noticed Creationist Timmy's email address?
;-)
Yeah, I couldn't let the other fake creationists have all the fun. And I'd guess there's some faking going on. That whole 'this is radically revises our understanding' confusion? That lunatic painting with a guy with a bible and an oxford shirt, with pterodactyls in the sky? I'm not the only one having fun.
steve · 23 June 2004
Ian Menzies · 23 June 2004
While the name alone was enough to give away the parody nature of steve's post, the fake position held really isn't all that different from when Kent Hovind and everyone's favorite tract writer, Jack T. Chick, tell us in Big Daddy that gluons have never been seen thus it is the power of Christ that holds atoms together.
As a side note, I would like to submit the idea that folks like Kent Hovind are a large reason why Evolutionists are so adamant about fighting ID. If YECers didn't exist, then I think scientists would probably be a bit more calm when it comes to discussing ID and explaining why it is not science. Instead, there are YECers who have picked up the mantle of ID in order to cloak their religious motivations, so that scientists must not risk giving ID the appearance of respectability in order to keep Creationism out of science classes.
steve · 24 June 2004
Thinking about origin-of-life issues is complicated. This article expands the known interstellar chemical inventory. We already knew that amino acids exist in space and on asteroids. It's easy to think that self-replicating proteins would follow naturally. Self-replicating RNA, though, seems to be a good contender for OOL. And anyone who's done the tiny bit of bio I have can tell you that it's fairly easy to see how RNA can get into spontaneously-formed lipid bilayers in an aqueous environmnent, forming a few rudiments of a cell. So I wonder, did spontaneously-formed RNA strands begin interacting with spontaneously-formed proteins to get the whole thing started? Or did primitive spontaneously-formed proteins happen to start interacting with, and eventually being ordered around by, the RNA? Anyone have any good info on how the interstellar inventory suggests either of these scenarios over the other?
Marcus Good · 24 June 2004
Bob Maurus · 24 June 2004
But Steve,
We know, because the Bible tells us so, that Jesus walked around performing all sorts of miracles. I read it to say that 1) clearly Jesus went out there (spacewalk and/or telekinesis) and assembled them by hand, or 2) clearly Jesus went out there (spacewalked) and assembled them using telekinesis. And besides, Creationist Timmy suggested he might have used "telekinses," which adds another level of mystery that might require some serious praying over for guidance into what exactly telekinses might be. Perhaps someone could run a Bible Code search on the subject?
T. Russ · 24 June 2004
Why bring up Jesus?
You know, I here these claims from anti-evolutionists all the time that one of the main background reasons for such a staunch defense of evolutionary theory comes from the evolutionist proponents anti-religious zeal. At times I think that this must be an exageration, however at other times (like when visiting the pandasthumb) it looks to be almost true. I mean no offense and could be maing to much out of a simple joke, but this is not the first time that i've seen a defense of evolutionary naturalism coupled with stabs at religion.
Ian: I think your pretty much dead on.
~DS~ · 24 June 2004
Come on Russ, there are plenty of religious people who contribute both here and on Talk Origins. They just happen to be honest, well informed, and rational; unlike their creationist counterparts (in pretty much all three of those qualities).
The line is not between the religious and irreligious, it is between the rational and irrational.
FL · 24 June 2004
Thanks, T. Russ. You're not the only one who's noticed that phenomenon. Indeed, it is not the first time.
It is true that there are evolutionists here who profess to be Christians as well; but they often seem to tacitly approve of the anti-religious (specifically anti-Christian and non-scientific) barbs of their more secular brethren.
Ed Darrell · 24 June 2004
I don't consider stabs at creationism to be stabs at my Christian faith. Please don't confuse the two.
Eddie Rios · 24 June 2004
"Thanks, T. Russ. You're not the only one who's noticed that phenomenon. Indeed, it is not the first time."
Of course, FL, if creationist don't like being made fun of, they should probably just bow out of the discussion. It's not like it's a great deal of fun trying to explain scientific fact and theory with the willfully ignorant.
Most rational people would quite content to just go about doing their thing without having to be bothered trying to educate the Peter Pans of this world.
"It is true that there are evolutionists here who profess to be Christians as well; but they often seem to tacitly approve of the anti-religious (specifically anti-Christian and non-scientific) barbs of their more secular brethren."
As a person of faith I don't tacitly approve of barbs of my secular bretheren; but, at the same time, Christian creationists seem to bring it upon themselves. If you don't want to be treated like a fool, don't act like one.
T. Russ · 24 June 2004
Come on Ed, invoking Jesus and the Bible in the way that they are invoked above aren't merely stabs at creationism alone.
Your christian faith might not take any offense at little jokes about Jesus, (whom, I am supposing, you follow being that your a christian) but to others, creationist or not, these statements could be easily interpreted as exposing anti-religious sentiment.
And Eddie Rios when you say "person of faith" what does that mean?
I imagine that we're running a bit off topic with all of this but hey I didn't start it.
Eddie Rios · 24 June 2004
T. Russ,
I am a Nichiren Buddhist and been one for about 30 years.
Also, I don't think anyone is attacking your religion. They are attacking(and rightely so)creationism. That it might be part of one's religious belief is irrelevant.
Bob Maurus · 24 June 2004
T. Russ,
I seem to have offended you. My apologies.
rampancy · 24 June 2004
Looking at the tactics and attitudes that many Creation/ID supporters use, I think that the biggest attack on my Christianity comes from them, and not from Evolutionary Biology/Biologists. People like Hovind, and Johnson portray Christians as bigoted, intellectual ignoramuses who would wish to subject all people to their form of intellectual slavery -- ironic, since to me, Christianity has always been a religion of freedom and liberation.
With the exception of people making severe blanket statements regarding Creationism and Christianity, I've never equated an attack on Creationism to an attack on my faith as a Christian. But every attack on science and Evolutionary Biology that the Creationists have waged is to me an attack on what I see on the virtues of tolerance, humility, and honesty -- virtues which Christianity has taught me to cherish.
T. Russ · 24 June 2004
Bob:
Oh no, I wasn't offended at all. I personally have never been offended by anything here on pandasthumb, I was just noting that talk about Jesus zapping things into existence and using telepathy is not anti-creationistic alone, but also anti-christian in a way.
Bob Maurus · 24 June 2004
T. Russ,
We're cool then - my problem is not with Christianity or religion per se, but with the perversions and ignorance displayed by a pestiforous, frequently fringe segment who seem to delight and glory in that ignorance.
\
I thought Creationist Timmy was a pretty dead on parody of that segment, and responded in kind.
Bob
FL · 24 June 2004
Ian Menzies · 24 June 2004
Ian Menzies · 24 June 2004
A little more detail about creationism and attacks on it.
The creationist position is little more than "evolutionism is wrong because therefore my particular interpretation of the Bible is correct."
Why does this inspire attacks and jokes with the theme of God "poofing" things into existence? Because a subset of the creationist argument is "said naturalistic explanation is wrong because , therefore God did it." Well, that sounds a lot like "God poofed it into existence." once again I point you to Big Daddy, specifically these three panels:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages44639/0055/0055_18.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages44639/0055/0055_19.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages44639/0055/0055_20.gif
As far as I can tell, the only interpretation of those panels is "Gluons don't exist because , therefore atomic nuclei are held together by the continuous, miraculous intervention of Jesus Christ," (nevermind the fact that every single statement in the first half-panel is wrong). The position of a rational Christian would be something like "gluons are God's way of holding atoms together," to which an atheist like my self would respond "I can respect that, though I may not believe it."
Thus, for the most part, when a person makes a joke like "Jesus poofed the molecules into existence," they are poking fun at the creationist position.
steve · 24 June 2004
Dead on, Ian.
I'd like to add, if you have a religion called Lightism, and it believes that light comes from invisible demons saying "Lo, there shall be light about these here parts", members of that religion are going to think that physic and optics and Maxwell's Equation are demonic theory being taught as fact. They'll complain that scientists are anti-Lightist. They'll do all the things creationists do, and they'll maintain the problem is hostility on the other side.
Joshua · 20 February 2005
Since several posters here have mentioned and mocked Jack Chick's "Big Daddy," I was wondering if perchance anyone here would either happen to posess a copy of the brilliant parody, "Who's Your Daddy?" or if anyone might have any ideas about where I might find it? Though a couple of pieces can still be found (for instance, here: http://pharyngula.org/index/whos_your_daddy/ ) the vast majority of copies seem to have been lawyered clean off the internet.
I'm hoping to resurrect this piece of work by getting an artist to redraw all the pannels him or herself. (If you click the above link you'll see "Who's Your Daddy" uses Jack's artwork; and thus wasn't available for protection under "fair use" laws.)
Joshua · 22 February 2005
Found it. http://facts4u.us/offsite_stored_pages/wyd_files/wyd.htm