Problems of Planetology, Cosmochemistry and Meteoritica
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: Dennis R
Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: Dennis R. Venema A Reply to Meyer Dennis R. Venema Weizsäcker’s book The World View of Physics is still keeping me very busy. It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. Dietrich Bonhoeffer1 am thankful for this opportunity to nature, is the result of intelligence. More- reply to Stephen Meyer’s criticisms over, this assertion is proffered as the I 2 of my review of his book Signature logical basis for inferring design for the in the Cell (hereafter Signature). Meyer’s origin of biological information: if infor- critiques of my review fall into two gen- mation only ever arises from intelli- eral categories. First, he claims I mistook gence, then the mere presence of Signature for an argument against bio- information demonstrates design. A few logical evolution, rendering several of examples from Signature make the point my arguments superfluous. Secondly, easily: Meyer asserts that I have failed to refute … historical scientists can show that his thesis by not providing a “causally a presently acting cause must have adequate alternative explanation” for the been present in the past because the origin of life in that the few relevant cri- proposed candidate is the only known tiques I do provide are “deeply flawed.” cause of the effect in question. -
Bayesian Analysis of the Astrobiological Implications of Life's
Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life's early emergence on Earth David S. Spiegel ∗ y, Edwin L. Turner y z ∗Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540,yDept. of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ 08544, USA, and zInstitute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, The Univ. of Tokyo, Kashiwa 227-8568, Japan Submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Life arose on Earth sometime in the first few hundred million years Any inferences about the probability of life arising (given after the young planet had cooled to the point that it could support the conditions present on the early Earth) must be informed water-based organisms on its surface. The early emergence of life by how long it took for the first living creatures to evolve. By on Earth has been taken as evidence that the probability of abiogen- definition, improbable events generally happen infrequently. esis is high, if starting from young-Earth-like conditions. We revisit It follows that the duration between events provides a metric this argument quantitatively in a Bayesian statistical framework. By (however imperfect) of the probability or rate of the events. constructing a simple model of the probability of abiogenesis, we calculate a Bayesian estimate of its posterior probability, given the The time-span between when Earth achieved pre-biotic condi- data that life emerged fairly early in Earth's history and that, billions tions suitable for abiogenesis plus generally habitable climatic of years later, curious creatures noted this fact and considered its conditions [5, 6, 7] and when life first arose, therefore, seems implications. -
(M = Ca, Mg, Fe2+), a Structural Base of Ca3mg3(PO4)4 Phosphors
crystals Article Crystal Chemistry of Stanfieldite, Ca7M2Mg9(PO4)12 (M = Ca, Mg, Fe2+), a Structural Base of Ca3Mg3(PO4)4 Phosphors Sergey N. Britvin 1,2,* , Maria G. Krzhizhanovskaya 1, Vladimir N. Bocharov 3 and Edita V. Obolonskaya 4 1 Department of Crystallography, Institute of Earth Sciences, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya Nab. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] 2 Nanomaterials Research Center, Kola Science Center of Russian Academy of Sciences, Fersman Str. 14, 184209 Apatity, Russia 3 Centre for Geo-Environmental Research and Modelling, Saint-Petersburg State University, Ulyanovskaya ul. 1, 198504 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] 4 The Mining Museum, Saint Petersburg Mining University, 2, 21st Line, 199106 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 May 2020; Accepted: 25 May 2020; Published: 1 June 2020 Abstract: Stanfieldite, natural Ca-Mg-phosphate, is a typical constituent of phosphate-phosphide assemblages in pallasite and mesosiderite meteorites. The synthetic analogue of stanfieldite is used as a crystal matrix of luminophores and frequently encountered in phosphate bioceramics. However, the crystal structure of natural stanfieldite has never been reported in detail, and the data available so far relate to its synthetic counterpart. We herein provide the results of a study of stanfieldite from the Brahin meteorite (main group pallasite). The empirical formula of the mineral is Ca8.04Mg9.25Fe0.72Mn0.07P11.97O48. Its crystal structure has been solved and refined to R1 = 0.034. Stanfieldite from Brahin is monoclinic, C2/c, a 22.7973(4), b 9.9833(2), c 17.0522(3) Å, β 99.954(2)◦, 3 V 3822.5(1)Å . -