CompuServe Messages

>>While the rarity of pre-Cambrian oil and the chirality argument leave me mainly convinced petroleum is biological in origin, I cannot resist tossing in a stink bomb: carbonaceous chondrite meteorites<< Hi, Doug, thanks for jumping in — Well, I would consider this good news, bad news; mainly not actually adding much, re: the bio/non-bio debate. here's why I think this: These are still relatively simple compounds you have enumerated, relative to something like porphyrins and optically active stuff. Furthermore, the "how much WAS it" argument applies here, too, undoubtedly to the end that a meteorite may have gone through so much (atmospheric and god knows what else) "processing" that the likely-trace amounts of organic compounds found only add a curious side show to the direct question (i.e., nobody has a hope of showing how much "oil reserves are in the asteroid belt", if any, at this point in time, so it's moot). I don't think anyone doubts that trace or maybe even a little more than trace amounts of organic compounds could have arisen from non-bio means. The question is, though, what could have produced the vast *quantities* found underground, and for this we need more than the simple demonstrated ability (from the meteorites) that it is possible for them to form, even extraterrestrially ("E.T., phone Mobil?"). I don't think anyone is debating "qualitative", we're debating "quantitative", and for that "proof of mass quantities" has to be a part of it. Actually, in a more "art than science" kind of way, I might consider the absence of oil in pre-Cambrian to be more an indicator that it might *be* bio origin than the other way, due to inverted logic — while one might expect bio activity to correlate with oil quantities using a biogenic theory, conversely, one would also expect "smooth" production of oil from a non-bio theory over time, which would, too me, be even more harmful relative to a non-bio theory, since bio stuff is more complex and labile relatively speaking than geo stuff (we're talking eons here), and bio could conceivably have had more reason why no oil was produced even though life was ongoing, whereas there is less that might be able to affect something like geo processes. Is anyone following this? Any, this is purely handwaving since it's one way or the other; obviously something as-yet-unknown occurred, any way you slice it, and one or both theories are just wrong. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it appears to refute both theories. Whatever, enough talk. Unrelated to all this, I think even something approximating buckeyballs have been found in nature (bio origin — some kinda fungi growing in a rock crevice or something??). What a wacky world – Mike