Scientific Evidence for DNA spontanously forming from only sand and water in sterile environment

There are so many ways life forms could have gotten into the test tube...the only way to properly do it would be to seal the test tube shut as best as possible, then heat it and its contents to white hot...leave to sit...then check if life exists within the test tube...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

I don't believe in religions but that doesn't sound paranormal does it

There is a life force throughout the universe driving life like phyisics and chemistry driving the planets,it will be common knowledge soon i'm sure life just has to be

But what created these laws?





[edit on 8-8-2010 by eyeswilldeceive]

Exactly... because when you "Sterilize" sand with heat... it actually REMOVES all of the now dead microscopic organisms that WERE in it....

But you now think are no longer there.

Hmmm...

-Edrick

Beach sand contains all sorts of shell particles and various previously living things...

If you heat an old shell in this way I would assume you would get the constituents of DNA.

These evidence based claims by this scientist are fantastic.

If life is so easy to create then the universe may be absolutely littered with life of all types (I hope it's friendly).

Nice find S+F.

-m0r

By no means am I giving any credibility to the truthfulness of the OP. I think further research is required before I give my opinion on this subject. With that said, I must respond to Dj&I5's comment:

Originally posted by doctor j and inmate c5779
I`m no expert, but my gut is tellin me there`s something not quite right here. As I said before, life doesnt just pop up out of nowhere...

Sure it does. Otherwise, how did we get here? Unless you can show us the somewhere that we "popped out" of?

But if it were true then I guess that answers our questions about life in the universe.

No sir. If it were true, it would create a lot more questions than it answered.

If I am to understand this correctly, he is saying that this process is happening naturally in space? So then life would have landed on every planet by now, every moon. And in the space in between, too. But I really don`t know about this one. I think its more a testament to existing life`s ability to survive extreme conditions, if anything.

It appears you've contradicted yourself. If it's a testament to life's ability to survive extreme conditions, then why hasn't life "landed on every planet and every moon?" I suspect that it's more of a testament to life NOT surviving unless conditions are nearly perfect.

But again I`m no expert but it doesn't have the ring of truth for me, you`re all welcome to think what you want and I recommend you decide for yourself. But remember this has been known for almost 10 years supposedly...

Nor am I an expert, yet I respect your opinion. However, I recommend you research ALL of the information before coming to any conclusions. THAT is how real science is achieved.


Cheers,
Strype

Originally posted by Strype
By no means am I giving any credibility to the truthfulness of the OP. I think further research is required before I give my opinion on this subject.

I absolutely agree with this. I think its good to have a open discussion about this, and the reason I am posting it here is because i know there are some very knowledgeable people here.

Some of them will have the ability to view this with an open mind, and also have the ability to show others where their claims are wrong, leading to very interesting discussions (hopefully).



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Ok...so we have 3 possible explanations so far:

1) During the process living microbes unknowingly entered the test tube at some point in the process.

2) We are looking at crystal formations, not life.

3) We are looking at dead cells/microbes which were already dead or killed during the heating process.

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

Well I have heard Wilcock talking about this before.

I am on the fence, as they are some great claims.

I do believe Wilhelm Reich was very intelligent and figured out some very important things - especially because of how threatened the FDA and gov't agencies acted by imprisoning him and burning his books.

And, I think it is highly possible that the quantum medium or vacuum density can manifest in organized structures and geometry.

Zero-point cymatics.

reply to post by Copernicus


1.) Dna is not alive.

2.) Cells do not form in a few hours from sand. The materials are not there to create it.

How, if I dare to ask, dis you go from dna to fully operational cells?

Also, you do not need dna to form cells. Not to mention the chance of creating the same dna which we use is pretty low when it could form anything.

I highly doubt all this.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Copernicus

 

How, if I dare to ask, dis you go from dna to fully operational cells?

I had already asked that very same question in an earlier post and received no answer.
To get a fully functioning cell from the information encoded within the DNA requires an incredible amount of supporting organelles and structures e.g. mRNA, tRNA, mitochondria, etc, etc ... not to mention a readily available supply of raw material used to create the cells.

Sterilized sand and water in a hermetically sealed container is simply NOT going to be sufficient no matter what sort of pseudo-scientific explanations are produced.

reply to post by tauristercus


Not to mention that's assuming it develops along the same pathway our life forms did on Earth. There's just as likely a chance of silo-benzene dna or dextro-dna.

reply to post by eyeswilldeceive


Let's go deep left a second...

What if the entire universe was nothing more than the space occupied by a universe sized mind?
Could this pervasive double helix pattern be a continuous thought permeating that mind?

I wrote this...dunno if you'd call it a poem, I think it relates to the subject a little. Anyway here it is, for your appreciation or disdain...



"What Matters is Minds"

In the beginning, there was no time...
No state in which to perceive Something or Nothing...
All was/is...
No shape, weight or conception of such...

Nothing Mattered...

But! Something MUST Matter...

And so came Mind...
And suddenly, things Mattered...

"Well, This is wonderful! I must make more of this!"
And so, Mind set Matter to making more Minds...

And it has come to pass that "we" think this is wonderful too!

"From Minds comes Matter, and from Matter comes Minds..."

Okay, there it is.. No tomatoes please, I just bought this shirt.

On a quantum level wouldn't the observer cause an interaction that could in theory manipulate the contents of the test-tube to cause life to spontaneously form?

Observer-manipulated quantum emergence of some sort in which consciousness begets life?

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Copernicus

 

I agree, that's why I said these two statements.

"they make fun of the paper."

"As usual, the video and paper was labeled with the "WOO" word by sceptics."

Well... in the first place, the guy isn't a neurobiologist.

2. These experiments HAVE been done before (rigorously and frequently) by many others and life doesn't form.

3. The "proof" photos are actually a variety of things from both microscopes and electron microscopes. One of them shows crystals. Another shows what appears to be a common diatom (which you might find in sand, but it would already be there.)

4. The chemical components in DNA aren't to be found in sand (silicon dioxide), though some of them are found in water.

5. If we try to replicate the experiment (and make sure everything is sterile including the tube and the sand and water really ARE sterilized), we can run it many millions of times and no DNA will result.

6. None of the structures are DNA.

reply to post by DJM8507


That's an incorrect view of quantum mechanics. The viewer effects a reaction because the viewer's photons from his eyes hit things and effect them. Consciousness does not effect anything. It is the act of firing a photon at something to see it which causes observation to effect the reaction. You could literally be a brain dead vegetable. If you shoot a photon at it, it will change the outcome.

Life would not generate from this. Perhaps if a photon was strong enough to knock out an electron and cause a reaction then yes, but said reaction requires more than just sand.

Originally posted by Byrd
2. These experiments HAVE been done before (rigorously and frequently) by many others and life doesn't form.

5. If we try to replicate the experiment (and make sure everything is sterile including the tube and the sand and water really ARE sterilized), we can run it many millions of times and no DNA will result.

Please provide sources for this information. I hope you understand that lots of people here tend to claim things without backing it up.

Personally I have had difficulties locating further information about similar experiments.

Thank you.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Sand is not Deoxyribonucleic acid.

That's all the proof you need.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Copernicus

 

I agree, that's why I said these two statements.

"they make fun of the paper."

"As usual, the video and paper was labeled with the "WOO" word by sceptics."

Well... in the first place, the guy isn't a neurobiologist.

2. These experiments HAVE been done before (rigorously and frequently) by many others and life doesn't form.

3. The "proof" photos are actually a variety of things from both microscopes and electron microscopes. One of them shows crystals. Another shows what appears to be a common diatom (which you might find in sand, but it would already be there.)

4. The chemical components in DNA aren't to be found in sand (silicon dioxide), though some of them are found in water.

5. If we try to replicate the experiment (and make sure everything is sterile including the tube and the sand and water really ARE sterilized), we can run it many millions of times and no DNA will result.

6. None of the structures are DNA.

I just have one issue with your post.

How can you say Ignacio Enrique Ochoa Pacheco is not a neurobiologist?

Have you not seen his 1989 thesis from the Venezuelan Universidad de Los Andes which is at the last page 1 post?

He didn't get his degree from a fake university, but at a credentialed, certified and accredited university in Venezuela.

Titled as "Reconstrucción in vitro de la corteza motora de ratón".

Record at the university's cataloging system.

platon.serbi.ula.ve/librum/librum_ula/ver.php?ndoc=198872

Originally posted by jjjtir
To make my last contribution for a while, here is his thesis title, for those who might try the "correspondence diploma mill" or "pay for a degree".

His full name is "Ignacio Enrique Ochoa Pacheco".

He got his degree from Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela in the year 1989.

The university's website is www.ula.ve

Titled as "Reconstrucción in vitro de la corteza motora de ratón".

Thesis bibliography record here, from Universia, a well known spanish language academic website.

biblioteca.universia.net/html_bura/ficha/params/id/37758317.html

To finish, the thesis record is indexed at the university's own catalog.

platon.serbi.ula.ve/librum/librum_ula/ver.php?ndoc=198872

But when it's translated, it's
1 .- Title: Reconstruction in vitro in the motor cortex of mouse / Enrique Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco
Author: Ochoa Pacheco, Ignacio Enrique
Cota: R853 T58O2

Not the same paper.

Have no idea of what that means, just pointing it out.