Re: Why did progress fail?, etc

From: Brian D Harper (
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 12:54:49 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Why did progress fail?, etc"

    At 07:57 AM 1/10/00 EST, Mike wrote:
    >Brian wrote:
    >>What Matsuno did here was very interesting. He wanted to model
    >>not just the high temperature (he went up to 350 C) and pressure
    >>in the vent, but also the quenching that occurs when the water
    >>leaves the vent. What he did then was cycle between a high temp/
    >>pressure reactor and a cooling chamber. With repeated cycling
    >>he was able to convert amino acids into oligopeptides. He was
    >>further able to synthesize hexaglicine from oligoglycine.
    >>This would indicate, to me anyway, that the ball is back in
    >>Miller's court.
    >I'm not so sure. Exactly what amino acids were condensed into
    >oligopeptides? And didn't they get anything larger than six glycines
    >linked together?

    (1) glycine (2) no

    You seem to be missing the point. Go back and read the quotes
    that Steve gave. The implication of Miller's experiment is that
    the hydrothermal vents are a sink for organic materials. This
    creates a potentially serious problem due to the relatively
    rapid circulation of the early oceans through these vents.
    Matsuno's results call Miller's into question. The vents may
    not have been destructive. They may also have been generative.

    Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
    Associate Professor | something and want to
    Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
    The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
                                 | -- Morrowitz

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 10 2000 - 09:52:43 EST