What’s the best forum for discussing Origin of Life scientific issues? One that completely avoids creationists.
I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
mollwollfumble said:
One that completely avoids creationists.
Is there such a beast?
mollwollfumble said:
What’s the best forum for discussing Origin of Life scientific issues? One that completely avoids creationists.I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
I’d suggest an academic journal….
after than maybe a respected science publication
after that then you could probably build your own web site
Here ?
We don’t brook no creationists
mollwollfumble said:
What’s the best forum for discussing Origin of Life scientific issues? One that completely avoids creationists.I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
Here, probably …
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.
So here and one other place?
mollwollfumble said:
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.So here and one other place?
As you aren’t looking for peer reviewed, not a forum as such, but maybe the Australian Skeptics magazine? Mostly it’s more scam watching stuff, but they have done useful things about drugs. And there was a long running “discussion” over several issues about using nuclear power some years ago. But you would have to be patient. Maybe contact them?
http://www.skeptics.com.au/the-magazine/
I read maybe probably none’t understand but would try
though bet’t full of math’n as goes i’m dysmathtic
did read climbin’ mount improbable ago was long time
were bit interestin’ I had to wake me third neuron
mollwollfumble said:
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.So here and one other place?
What?
No internet forum is going to be a good enough reference for a peer-reviewed journal.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.So here and one other place?
What?
No internet forum is going to be a good enough reference for a peer-reviewed journal.
Pretty sure he means that this stuff:
>I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
…is not good enough for a peer-reviewed journal.
Bubblecar said:
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.So here and one other place?
What?
No internet forum is going to be a good enough reference for a peer-reviewed journal.
Pretty sure he means that this stuff:
>I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
…is not good enough for a peer-reviewed journal.
I see.
Bubblecar said:
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
Not good enough for peer-reviewed journal.So here and one other place?
What?
No internet forum is going to be a good enough reference for a peer-reviewed journal.
Pretty sure he means that this stuff:
>I’ve got some new computed results from artificial life, as well as old computed results on abiotically-generated biochem, and an old proposal. These deserve a public airing.
…is not good enough for a peer-reviewed journal.
Ya. Exactly so. Peer review is a pain.
Four parts, in reverse order.
1. Conclusions from simulation of artificial life using cellular automata – maximum polymer lengths from a world seeded randomly are not long enough for nucleic acids but long enough for protein-based enzymes.
2. Numerical simulation of large organic molecules using a random growth algorithm. The algorithm produces asphaltene-like compounds but not regular polymers.
3. Gibbs free energy allows simultaneous quick calculation of the thermodynamic equilibrium of millions of organic prebiotic molecules simultaneously. The only real limitation is the lack of reliable data for the Gibbs free energy of large molecules, but this can in theory be calculated from the chemical formula.
4. A proposal for a large-science scale Miller-Urey experiment, optimised using accelerated testing to maximise the growth of prebiotic organic macromolecules.
Only the first of the above is new work, also in it I highlight the need to understand large numbers. When discussing the origins of life, 10^20 is so small that you may as well call it 1, but 10^80 is so large that you mays as well call it infinity. Estimates of the likelihood of the origin of life in the Drake equation almost invariably give “essentially one” and “essentially infinitesimal” results, but I suspect that the true answer falls somewhere between these extremes, and set out to show that an intermediate probability may be possible.