Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Becky Jungbauer | November 11th 2009 02:19 PM | 24 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Truth Universally Acknowledged articles

All

About Becky Jungbauer

A scientist and journalist by training, I enjoy all things science, especially science-related humor. My column title is a throwback to Jane Austen's famous first line in Pride and Prejudice


... Full Bio

The word on the street is that Jesus is pretty t'd off at NASA.1 What mortal sin2 did the space agency allegedly commit? The non-biological reproduction of an RNA component in a laboratory, of course.

NASA scientists reproduced uracil in a lab under conditions found in space, according to Astrobiology. Uracil is one of the components of the genetic code that makes up ribonucleic acid (RNA); RNA is mainly known for its role in protein synthesis. In other words, NASA was able to create a building block of life in the lab.

Jesus bringing the divine hate.

But why would that piss off Jesus? First, a brief lesson in nucleic acids.

Purines and Pyrimidines

The three main needs of processes within the cell are nucleic acids, proteins, and membranes. Nucleic acids are, very simply, molecules that carry genetic information in all living cells and viruses. The two heavyweights are deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA). At its most basic, DNA is the blueprint, the card catalog, the information storage unit, whereas RNA is the delivery truck, getting the information to the folks in the cell that make proteins.

DNA is generally composed to two chains that wrap around each other (a double helix), and RNA is typically a single chain. The chain "links," or bases, in DNA and RNA are almost identical. Both have bases called cytosine, guanine, and adenine. However, the fourth base for DNA is thymine, while the fourth base for RNA is uracil.

Guanine and adenine are members of the purine group, which share a common foundation of two rings (see below). Caffeine is also a purine.



Cytosine, thymine and uracil are all pyrimidines, which all share the common foundation of a single ring (see below).



If you look closely, you can see uracil and thymine are almost the same molecule, except thymine has an attached methyl group (CH3).

Why do we care about purines and pyrimidines? Well, they're the lego pieces in the building blocks of life. The key question is, where do they come from? Here's the kicker - some of it comes from space.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves, that we are underlings."


Meteorites can contain a soup of organic compounds, including pyrimidines and purines. The problem is that early Earth life was a lot like Dick Cheney - hostile, volatile and full of hot air. Not exactly conducive to survival of stable nucleotides (and formation of amino acids and proteins).3 Plus, space itself isn't a big warm and fuzzy nurturing environment. So, how did pyrimidines survive out there?
"Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat whimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don’t have nitrogen," aid Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. "We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive
in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil."

Researchers thought that if pyrimidine made it to Earth in meteorites it had to survive somehow - maybe interstellar dust shielded the compounds from radiation, which would blast it to bits. And once it was in the dust it would freeze anyway, further protecting it.
During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (approximately - 340 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in water ice, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA component uracil, which is found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

The researchers thought the experiment could be "an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development."

So, the Earth formed from star dust, and later meteorites and comets delivered even more materials to our planet that could have formed primitive life's building blocks. Now NASA has figured out how to replicate this in a lab.

Nowhere in that sentence do I read "God created the heavens and the earth," but maybe I'm missing something. I checked Genesis, but couldn't find anything. Playing God, are we? Horning in on Jesus' game? Well, if Jesus comes knock, knock, knocking at NASA's door, hopefully it's Buddy Christ and not cyborg pirate ninja Jesus.


1 Or, rather, creationists in Jesus' name.
2 Clearly NASA committed a mortal sin, versus the lesser venial version. Mortal sins are knowing and willful violation of God's law. Venial sins, on the other hand, merely injure our friendship with God (although you can still pal around and maybe get some pizza later).
3 What could possibly survive during those early millennia,  however, were molecules like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). In a paper in Astrobiology, authors suggested that the "aromatic material can be used as a container, as a metabolic unit, and as a genetic information carrier. We think that aromatic material can be used for all three requirements for life."

Comments

rholley's picture
Becky,

I commented not so long ago on SciBlog, quoting from an author saying that in the sixties Americans were happy to keep their science in one lobe of the brain and their religion in another.  However, Google seems unable to fish it up again.

I don't know if you have read the Screwtape Letters, but I can imagine that the Lowerarchy have made effective use of you-know-who in effectively separating one lobe from the other (as is sometimes done as a last-ditch treatment for epilepsy.)

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I too read that somewhere (or just remember it from your posting). I think there's something about child psychology in this too - at some point a child can hold two conflicting realities in his/her head - a development stage, maybe? Obviously I can't remember very well. Anyway, yes, I have read the Screwtape Letters. This would be quite the effective tool for the Lowerarchy!

Stellare's picture
That's right, you give them astrochemistry and astrobiology, girl! Hilarious! :-)

Not hilarious, it's just sad that an interesting discovery at NASA is used as a pretext for gratuitous and insulting anti-religious rhetoric.

I thought better of you. I thought at first that there must have been some vocal religious group complaining about NASA's attempt to 'play God' in creating Uracil, and that you were simply reacting to or parodying their extremism with some of your own. That could be justified, although a wiser person would avoid it. Instead, it seems like that "word on the street" is totally your own fabrication just to give the excuse to post an insulting portrait of Jesus and link to others.

No disrespect intended to the NASA scientists, who would probably avoid framing their results as you did, but spitting a brick in a laboratory and showing that the same brick might form in outer space dust is quite a different thing from showing how billions of bricks might be assembled to create a functioning city. I trust you can make the analogous leap to a Uracil molecule and living cells.

jtwitten's picture
Dennis, had I ever thought about you before, I would have thought better of you, too. Not to get all 1950s on you, but a little masculine, stiff-upper-lip is in order here. Why so sensitive? Why so quick to offend?

The "PO'd Jesus" schtick was the pretext for an interesting article on nucleic acid biochemistry.

By the way, understanding how the brick is made is a necessary part of understanding how your earthquake-unsafe, dubiously plumbed city of bricks was built.

> Why so sensitive? Why so quick to offend?
I don't think I'm that sensitive, nor quick to offend. The "PO'd Jesus schtick" was just gratuitous insult and piled on pretty thick. And honestly, it seemed out of character for Becky's usual writing style. (Admitted that I've only read a few of her columns.)

You would probably respond similarly if I wrote oily, sarcastic insults about Charles Darwin or any modern defender of naturalistic evolution. I try to avoid doing that. It's disrespectful and does not advance one's argument. It's only funny to people who would already agree with me, and for all those reasons it's unprofessional.

The real Jesus stated a bit of wisdom that you would do well to emulate. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

> By the way, understanding how the brick is made is a necessary part
> of understanding how your earthquake-unsafe, dubiously plumbed city
> of bricks was built.
Sorry, you missed it. That was an implied point in my analogy. There is a huge amount of additional complexity in the city, way beyond even the planned, complex stacking of bricks.

jtwitten's picture
How is anything Becky wrote even comparable to creationist claims that Darwin inspired Hitler and, therefore, evolution is wrong - as an example of an actual oily insult?

I understood your analogy. It was simply out of place. The article is about the synthesis of a basic building block of biological life. Nowhere does this say we are extrapolating to understanding all of life.

Unprofessional? Dear god, man, this is a blog. Frankly, I've read worse "schtick" from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal editorial writers and more sarcastic perspectives in high level research journals.

There are 7 sentences in the entire article about Jesus or God. That is laying it on thick? The first sentence makes it clear that "Jesus" is being used as a proxy for the reaction to this study by creationism advocates.
The word on the street is that Jesus is pretty t'd off at NASA.1
1 Or, rather, creationists in Jesus' name.

That is a swell quote. I do unto others as I would have them do unto me; I just have a thick skin.

jtwitten's picture
I forgot to mention that you probably will want to avoid my blog given your preferences. On the other hand, I donate all my blog's proceeds to Doctors Without Borders, which is very Beatitudy. So, make up your own mind.


Becky Jungbauer's picture
It was satire. The discovery itself is fascinating; the vehicle for the story was inspired by a friend's comment. I'm sorry you didn't get that it was meant to be humorous.

The chemicals you presented are fairly simple and easy to make, as long as you are willing to accept them as a percentage in a mixture and not as purified chemicals.

Those chemicals probably occur naturally without biology in the vicinity of a lightening strike.

The entire group could probably be found in expanding gas clouds of star explosions.

They are short lived in unprotected places, but are easily regenerated from fragments almost anywhere.

The amazing part is that astronomy is becoming advanced enough to find things like that in distant places.

The connection to Jesus was a weak one. He never struck a blow at his enemies and only gave one short huff at the money changers.

His continual complaint was with his followers, that they didn‘t know what he was talking about.

jtwitten's picture
You are assuming that particular Jesus ever existed.

I think the phrase you are seeking is "cognitive dissonance" - the holding of 2 opposing ideas.

And yes, people of faith experience it all the time in a science world that is ever shrinking the gaps for their god to exist in.

Also, given how most of the commandments are about worshipping authority figures - are you really surprised they don't understand humour or satire?

Josephus (Yosef Ben Matityahu) a Jewish priest, military commander, and historian from the first century AD, wrote an article about the person Jesus that comes down to us in three different versions from Jewish, Christian, and Moslem sources, all of which are disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

I would suggest that the Jewish text in Hebrew is the best for scholarly studies, but most people prefer the early Greek version for emotional arguments. In either case the existence of the person Jesus is not in doubt. The arguments are about who he was and what he did.

History has been tampered with the same way that science has been tampered with, and for the same reasons. A careful study and much reading is required to get a reliable opinion of either one.

Cognitive dissonance can be applied to science as well as to any other topic.

The world of science is not shrinking. It is getting rapidly larger and accelerating in scope, depth, and breadth.

The dispute between science and religion is continually shrinking into smaller subsets of both topics.

Here is a link to one of the recent exchanges on the topic.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/philosophical_scientist/dna_probabilit...

and another link to a related scientific discussion.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/philosophical_scientist/late_night_ram...

My view of the dispute is that the two sides come to different answers because they established different boundary limits.

My own opinions require a wider boundary limit including Quantum Mechanics ( Many Worlds, and Sum Of Paths ), String Theory ( many hidden dimensions ), Cosmology ( Other Living Worlds and Many Universes ), and CPT Reversal ( antimatter going backward in time ).

If you want to give arguments inside those boundaries, then I will laugh at your humor and smile at your satire, and you can giggle at mine.

A lot of people believe the person Jesus will return as a commando warrior. I don’t often hear it from the scientific community.

As in the previous message, the quotation that is ascribed to Jesus says that people who claim to know him best will be the ones he doesn’t remember at all.

Can you find the satire in that?

There is really no evidence for a Jesus as in the bible at all

Josephus's writings were not contemporary and the Jesus references have been proven to be later add in or forgeries.

No historians of the era that Jesus allegedly lived in wrote about him - and Nazareth didn't exist as a village until long after the alleged Jesus was supposed to have died.

That no contemporary writers wrote about Jesus if he existed would be tantamount to the media wholly ignoring Elvis Presley. It just wouldn't have happened.

Even the Romans would have had records and there aren't any.

I don't accept political speeches form the 17th century as proof of anything about antiquity. Political action committees sponsored a program of social revolution that eventually led to the French Revolution and the Communist Manifesto, neither one of which produced a lasting system.

In the political campaigns a of the 17th century a mythology was created that Saul Of Tarsus was the founder of the Christian movement. That mythology is still being promoted, but has never found much support. It has no scholarly content at all.

When you say there is no evidence for the person Jesus, what you are really supporting is the Saul mythology and a failed social revolution.

Unless you are presenting a third proposal for the origin of the Christian movement supported by original evidence and contemporary documents, then I would favor the older evidence for existence of the person Jesus over the over the more recent claims about Saul of Tarsus.

What you claim to be proven about Josephus is not true of the Hebrew version I recommended. The Hebrew version makes a reverence to Jesus that is not contested by anyone except one Christian scholar, who claims that the text was abridged. Josephus was a Jewish Priest, so the claim of abridgement is a weak one.

Concerning the other versions of Josephus, there is no consensus of any sort except for an agreement that it has been tampered with. For every claim there is a counter claim of equal and opposite intensity. It is a stalemate, not a proof of anything.

Josephus wrote about Pontius Pilate, Agrippa II, and John the Baptist, in passages that are not disputed , although they cover the same period of time. He had access to people who lived during those times.

The Christian bible does not contain all of the contemporary books that describe the person Jesus. Nearly half of the available material was left out. Some parts omitted are thought to be fictional. Others are suspected of being forgeries. Some are regarded as not relevant, and one of them was not complementary. I don't know how that was decided.

Other contemporary books like the Gospel of Peter from Ethiopia is usually left out because it disagrees with the standard version in about 50 topics. There are disputes about that , causing another stalemate. All of the Christian books in the bible are disputed in one way or another, as are all of the Jewish books.

.The arguments against Jesus as a person are entirely based on what a small number of writers did not say before 300 AD, in fragmentary texts that were not assemble until the 11th century.

The death penalty for writing about Jesus in the Roman World was revoked in 313 AD. Arguments about what was not said before then are truly ridiculous,. Executions were held every day. That's what happened to your contemporary writers.

Elvis Presley in your example served in the US Army when a lot of other people didn't. He did other public service and religious observances that mitigated the resistance to his new style. He was never banned, and none of his fans or critics were thrown to lions for sport (that I know of).

Josephus survived and prospered by making one deal with the Romans, and another deal with the Jews. He took a Roman name complementary to the local military commander, and allowed the Romans to edit his Greek text. Josephus kept his Jewish identity among the Jews, and allowed them to edit his Hebrew text. So the first round of tampering occurred at the very beginning, and with approval of Josephus.

What you asked for of Roman evidence is in the Greek version of Josephus without the disputed Testimonium. It still mentions Jesus as a person in a passage that is only disputed by one Christian.

There is a need for better education on scholarship and the nature of evidence.

Political speeches are not a good place to get proof about antiquities.

Becky, I greatly enjoy your homor and satire. We should do this more often.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
*bows* I enjoy your articles as well!

Nazareth is a word of Greek origin, modified for West Asian use, and as such is an oddity in the Christian writings. Other locations were given their common names. From the text it appears to be code name they created for a place the writers didn't want to identify..

The best translation sounds like a hill top fortress that is only occupied in war time.

Several towns claim to be the Nazareth of Jesus. There is along argument about that.

The most favored location had other names before the Christian era. It had a long history of settlement and many previous towns existed there, but was a small village in the first century. The hill top fortress did exist at one time, but was largely destroyed at an earlier date, and was in ruins during the first century.

The name Jesus is also of Greek origin, another oddity in Christian writings. If the name is translated into Aramaic and then into Hebrew, and back again, it could appear more like the name Joshua, and claims of that type have been made.

So if you really want to get technical, the person Jesus probably did not use that name during his life time, and a lot of Christian scholars would agree.

He might have been called Joshua Ben Joseph , but more likely it was Yesuha Ben Josef.

The threat of torture and execution was a good incentive to conceal identities.

Politicians from the 17th century missed their chance, because of poor scholarship. Now they are quoted as proof.

I find humor in that.

Becky,

Did I neglect to mention 10 semesters of college history?

Is there a point penalty for that?

Or is it a time out?

Becky Jungbauer's picture
No, I'd say a tip of the hat, depending on whether it was actual work or just an easy A class. :) I had history every semester as part of my honors course (history was incorporated into every semester depending on its theme, e.g. Renaissance, ancient Greek, etc) and I really liked it - I think knowing context helps lessons crystallize better.

My crystal ball says:

You are around 30 or under.

Your Messiah's name is Obama.

You church is the Nanny State and AGW.

Your income derives from a government grant.

You decided to go into journalism after failing the PhD prelims.
(which makes you smarter than most journos)

And last, but not least ...

You could improve your attitude by going hunting with Dick Cheney.

;-D

Stellare's picture
No need to use so many words and space to describe Becky. This is how it is done:

Becky Rocks! ;-)

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I like your description way better. :)

Becky Jungbauer's picture
You're 1 for 6; your crystal ball needs a little Windex. :)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.