« first day (167 days earlier)      last day (4942 days later) » 

Beofett
Beofett
15:59
@Sklivvz Regarding your comment to me about the NASA-related "life originating from inorganic" question, I thought it might be better to switch to chat to avoid adding more noise to the comments section.
I don't see any real skeptical claim in that question, which is why I have not voted to reopen.
The question, as worded, makes me suspect that there is some confusion as to what "inorganic" means. I don't see any reference to "life from inorganic materials" in the article, or even anything implying that this is the case (or would be somehow significant).
Sklivvz
Sklivvz
16:31
@Beofett we are in agreement, and @Comptrol's comment about "if these are discovered since 60's..." makes me suspect he hasn't read the article either.
thanks for moving to chat :-)
Beofett
Beofett
@Sklivvz np :)
@Sklivvz it does seem like the material in the article does not match up with what he's asking
although it seems like the question has changed several times already, so perhaps that's not surprising....
 
1 hour later…
Comptrol
Comptrol
17:47
@Sklivvz, of course I read the article. I was addressing this part by inorganic "In the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in the asteroid parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are extraterrestrial," maybe I should use "non-bilogical" instead; I didn't think this will matter this much. @Beofett, FYI.
and I am still expecting some answers to my last question, if this last discovery of no difference than the previous ones. why does NASA make such a fuss? The skeptical part is whether these discoveries could contribute anything related to the life's origin.
Maybe I don't know the context of this site, but I thought this question would be suitable for. I don't intend to be a PITA, but I just got furious when my recent questions have been closed in succession. I apologize if my comments/posts had resulted in any inconvenience. So that's all.
 
3 hours later…
Sklivvz
Sklivvz
20:22
@com I think that the only new development is in the method used, which provides more convincing evidence on the extraterrestrial origin of the bases.
The context of the site is simple: if you suspect something to be a hoax, or b.s. or superstition or an unfounded assertion, you can ask about it here and people will look at what evidence is available to validate or discredit it. The problem with your questions is that there is nothing suspicious about the news article, and it is not clear what want... Such questions would work on a forum, but not an evidence based q&a site such as this.

« first day (167 days earlier)      last day (4942 days later) »