It’s not about being untouched by the mud.
It’s about doing the work anyway.

We don’t choose the conditions we work in. But we can choose how we respond.

Even when the environment is murky—politicised, underfunded, resistant—our role is to keep going. To stabilise what we can. To improve what’s possible.

Science is persistence. Quiet, consistent, and grounded in purpose.

shocking!

if true— we have jumped from 1.3 to 1.5 C of long term warming in just 2-3 years. that's INSANE.

that's 100x faster than natural warming events in Earth's history.

🧪

this is concerning but still up for debate as there have been 2 papers recently asserting this.

for a reminder, long term warming is defined in the IPCC as the warming over 20 years— so a single year breach of 1.5C is NOT the Paris Agreement failing

apparently they have LEMON flavoured ones now???? oh the joys of modernity

bout to chow down on them fish oil pills brb 🧪

found a paper: www.santafe.edu/research/res...

in STEM one is typically discouraged from using anything from more than 5-6 years ago.

this is not about literature or qualitative work where age doesn't matter.

old news. and none of those are functional

the theory of CAS in abiogenesis is that that these proto-proteins were able to "remember" ideal configurations and then evolve faster based on this knowledge. this takes out the "randomness"

we don't know how they did this. i think Sante Fe Institute has looked into this; will try to find a read.

haha challenging norms is always difficult but necessary to be a better scientist.

i just learned about this about four months ago. up until then, as a biologist, I thought miller-urey got it nearly perfect.

shocking but also beautiful to know that there are still big things left to explore

@alowemackenzie.bsky.social !!

completely agree! the element of time is just a striking way to visualise that there is still some mystery to abiogenesis we need to uncover.

enjoy this newer paper making the same argument. scholar.google.com/scholar?as_y...

miller urey can't explain complex protein formation on its own. there are other processes at play.

check the math. and countless others have done variations on this theme.

not sure why you are so besotted w Miller Urey.

Mitchell Waldrop’s book "The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" explores how self-organization shapes the universe.

It highlights why Miller-Urey falls short—random chance alone can’t explain life’s emergence. Complexity science offers a deeper view. 🧪

#ComplexityScience

not an "anti-science nut".

simply in favour of complex adaptive systems being a better understanding of abiogenesis.

scientists don't all hold a singular, panacea-like view, you know.

“On the probability of the emergence of a protein with a particular function” by P. Erbrich, addresses this issue.

He argues that the vast number of possible amino acid sequences makes the random formation of a specific functional protein highly improbable.

🧪: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3923746/