Marxist
Senior Member
All evidence supports it.
Origin of life Thread: Chemistry of seabed's hot vents could explain emergence of life
- Thread starter orogenicman
- Start date
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.
Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance.
Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html
News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how boring Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?
Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”
More below the fold.
- Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution
- Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time
- DNA Double Take
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
How can someone know what the universe would look like after a big bang if you live within it? It's not like there are mini big bangs to pull examples from that we can view. Pure speculation.
Marxist
Senior Member
You fail to understand how the universe works..
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
You fail to understand that scientists claim facts when their knowledge and point of view is so limited. You're all sheep following the master minds you believe in. The truth is, they're just people like you. If they were as smart as they claimed to be, they would invent life changing technology but instead they insist on useless speculation and radical theories.
Marxist
Senior Member
Then you fail to understand how science works.. Scientists examine the evidence and form theories based on the available evidence, their point of view is "limited" if you want to call it that. Sheep following the masters mind? We can look at the evidence for ourselves, it's all published and available. They do invent life changing technology, all the time. Radical theories? Get your head out of your ass.
- Banned
- #87
Quite clearly, you feel threatened and intimidated by what you don't understand and because you feel your religious beliefs are challenged.Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.
Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance.
Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html
News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how boring Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?
Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”
More below the fold.
- Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution
- Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time
- DNA Double Take
Yours is a typical reaction from religious zealots. You get angry and emotive when new discoveries in science peel away the fears and superstitions you choose to live in the shadow of.
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA
By Matt Young on December 9, 2014 7:53 PM | 10 Comments
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA - The Panda s Thumb
In a nutshell, a team at the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry in Prague used a laser that can produce up to 1 kJ in a 300 ps pulse,** irradiated the suspension, and produced adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil, which are the bases of the RNA molecule. And apparently not a drop of thymine, one of the bases of DNA. The experiment is supposed to simulate the bombardment of the early Earth by comets and presumably supports the hypothesis that an RNA world came first.
Read the article. Note that the results of the study were published in Science magazine for peer review. That's in contrast to your false and fraudulent claim that "these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts."
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
It's hard to argue with sheep who follow so strongly. Open your eyes to the world. You still think communism is a viable way of life...
Show me an angry/emotive post? Stating that you don't have a basis for the beginning of life is not angry or emotive. It also doesn't challenge my way of life in any way. I would live the same regardless of whether scientists could create life.Quite clearly, you feel threatened and intimidated by what you don't understand and because you feel your religious beliefs are challenged.Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.
Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance.
Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html
News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how boring Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?
Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”
More below the fold.
- Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution
- Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time
- DNA Double Take
Yours is a typical reaction from religious zealots. You get angry and emotive when new discoveries in science peel away the fears and superstitions you choose to live in the shadow of.
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA
By Matt Young on December 9, 2014 7:53 PM | 10 Comments
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA - The Panda s Thumb
In a nutshell, a team at the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry in Prague used a laser that can produce up to 1 kJ in a 300 ps pulse,** irradiated the suspension, and produced adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil, which are the bases of the RNA molecule. And apparently not a drop of thymine, one of the bases of DNA. The experiment is supposed to simulate the bombardment of the early Earth by comets and presumably supports the hypothesis that an RNA world came first.
Read the article. Note that the results of the study were published in Science magazine for peer review. That's in contrast to your false and fraudulent claim that "these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts."
The connections without facts is that just because all the random dead particles can be created that they would suddenly form together to make life. That's the gross assumption that they make.
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
An alternative to the science fiction you choose to believe. I guess both may be considered fiction?
- Banned
- #91
It's pretty clear your angry and emotive. Your denials are boilerplate for religious zealots who feel threatened by science knowledge.It's hard to argue with sheep who follow so strongly. Open your eyes to the world. You still think communism is a viable way of life...
Show me an angry/emotive post? Stating that you don't have a basis for the beginning of life is not angry or emotive. It also doesn't challenge my way of life in any way. I would live the same regardless of whether scientists could create life.Quite clearly, you feel threatened and intimidated by what you don't understand and because you feel your religious beliefs are challenged.Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.
Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance.
Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html
News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how boring Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?
Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”
More below the fold.
- Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution
- Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time
- DNA Double Take
Yours is a typical reaction from religious zealots. You get angry and emotive when new discoveries in science peel away the fears and superstitions you choose to live in the shadow of.
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA
By Matt Young on December 9, 2014 7:53 PM | 10 Comments
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA - The Panda s Thumb
In a nutshell, a team at the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry in Prague used a laser that can produce up to 1 kJ in a 300 ps pulse,** irradiated the suspension, and produced adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil, which are the bases of the RNA molecule. And apparently not a drop of thymine, one of the bases of DNA. The experiment is supposed to simulate the bombardment of the early Earth by comets and presumably supports the hypothesis that an RNA world came first.
Read the article. Note that the results of the study were published in Science magazine for peer review. That's in contrast to your false and fraudulent claim that "these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts."
The connections without facts is that just because all the random dead particles can be created that they would suddenly form together to make life. That's the gross assumption that they make.
SUPERMAN1929
Senior Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 1,356
- 57
- 50
You're taking me all wrong. I don't want to take away your crutch of a belief. If it makes you happy and allows you to live a more fulfilling life then go ahead and believe it. I don't judge people that believe in magic.It's pretty clear your angry and emotive. Your denials are boilerplate for religious zealots who feel threatened by science knowledge.It's hard to argue with sheep who follow so strongly. Open your eyes to the world. You still think communism is a viable way of life...
Show me an angry/emotive post? Stating that you don't have a basis for the beginning of life is not angry or emotive. It also doesn't challenge my way of life in any way. I would live the same regardless of whether scientists could create life.Quite clearly, you feel threatened and intimidated by what you don't understand and because you feel your religious beliefs are challenged.Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.
Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance.
Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html
News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how boring Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?
Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”
More below the fold.
- Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution
- Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time
- DNA Double Take
Yours is a typical reaction from religious zealots. You get angry and emotive when new discoveries in science peel away the fears and superstitions you choose to live in the shadow of.
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA
By Matt Young on December 9, 2014 7:53 PM | 10 Comments
High-power laser hints at origin of RNA - The Panda s Thumb
In a nutshell, a team at the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry in Prague used a laser that can produce up to 1 kJ in a 300 ps pulse,** irradiated the suspension, and produced adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil, which are the bases of the RNA molecule. And apparently not a drop of thymine, one of the bases of DNA. The experiment is supposed to simulate the bombardment of the early Earth by comets and presumably supports the hypothesis that an RNA world came first.
Read the article. Note that the results of the study were published in Science magazine for peer review. That's in contrast to your false and fraudulent claim that "these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts."
The connections without facts is that just because all the random dead particles can be created that they would suddenly form together to make life. That's the gross assumption that they make.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
We have excellent records of individual species evolution, and even class evolution. Here in Oregon, the evolution of horses is traced for 40 million years in the John Day fossil beds. In South Africa, the Karoo has fossils that show the evolution of mammalia. Now those in denial will not accept any evidence of evolution, no matter how clear. No use argueing with them.
Same for abiogenesis. No matter that we have seen several avenues in nature for the development of chirality, no matter that we are finding more and more ways that nature constructs the basic building blocks of life, not just in Earth environments, but even on comets in space. But those in denial will ignore all evidence and even deny it exists. When they succumb to time's inevitable hand, one hopes there will be no replacements for their willfull ignorance.
Same for abiogenesis. No matter that we have seen several avenues in nature for the development of chirality, no matter that we are finding more and more ways that nature constructs the basic building blocks of life, not just in Earth environments, but even on comets in space. But those in denial will ignore all evidence and even deny it exists. When they succumb to time's inevitable hand, one hopes there will be no replacements for their willfull ignorance.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,480
- 78,782
- 2,645
Billions of years vs a numbers with 6,000 zeros for it to work as you suppose means you run out out years after only lets be very generous and say the reaction happens once a second over a billion years, you run out of time after knocking off only 16 zeros. Say the exact set of chemical hit together every 1/10th of a second, wow 17 zeros. 17 out of 6,000!
Do you understand why your theory must fail?
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
- Thread starter
- #96
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
The origin of life what we know what we can know and what we will never know Open Biology
Abstract
Interesting article for discussion. Basically, it says that there is a continuum between inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, simple life, and biological evolution, directed by the need for dynamic kenetic stability (DKS). Think of it this way. Living things are low-entropy and energy-consuming, so they are unstable in the thermodynamic sense. Nevertheless, they can still be remarkably stable in the sense of persisting over time. Some replicating populations (certain bacterial strains, for example) have maintained themselves with little change over astonishing periods – millions, even a billion, years. And, like entropy, DKS turns out to be driven by the simple, powerful mathematics of exponential growth.
It works like this. Suppose you start with a dollar. Double it every week, then double it again and again, and in under a year, you’ll be the world’s richest person. Keep going for another five years and you’ll have more dollars than there are atoms in the observable universe. Self-replicating molecular systems can, in the right circumstances, start off on the same explosive path. But there’s a catch (there always is) - when they do, a new chemistry emerges. Ultimately, it is this new chemistry that leads to what we term biology.
How could such a transformation come about? Why do replicating molecules give rise to replicating cells? In a word: evolution. It boils down to these terms - replication, variation, competition, and selection.
The origin of life what we know what we can know and what we will never know Open Biology
Abstract
Interesting article for discussion. Basically, it says that there is a continuum between inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, simple life, and biological evolution, directed by the need for dynamic kenetic stability (DKS). Think of it this way. Living things are low-entropy and energy-consuming, so they are unstable in the thermodynamic sense. Nevertheless, they can still be remarkably stable in the sense of persisting over time. Some replicating populations (certain bacterial strains, for example) have maintained themselves with little change over astonishing periods – millions, even a billion, years. And, like entropy, DKS turns out to be driven by the simple, powerful mathematics of exponential growth.
It works like this. Suppose you start with a dollar. Double it every week, then double it again and again, and in under a year, you’ll be the world’s richest person. Keep going for another five years and you’ll have more dollars than there are atoms in the observable universe. Self-replicating molecular systems can, in the right circumstances, start off on the same explosive path. But there’s a catch (there always is) - when they do, a new chemistry emerges. Ultimately, it is this new chemistry that leads to what we term biology.
How could such a transformation come about? Why do replicating molecules give rise to replicating cells? In a word: evolution. It boils down to these terms - replication, variation, competition, and selection.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,480
- 78,782
- 2,645
Thank you for TRYING to contribute with your vast knowledge in creation "science" little Frankie
It sucks that the math destroys your theory.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Each protein has a specific function, so even if the Magical Theory of Evolution worked and created random proteins, in order to work they would have to align themselves EXACTLY and function PERFECTLY with their new neighbors. You see how mathematically impossible a task this is if these cell components organized by chance. You'd have to be a Cell Complexity Denier to believe that chance was responsible.
- Banned
- #98
Sorry Frank, But it's a shame you're an accomplice to fraud. Your "quote mine" is standard creationist drivel. I'm surprised (well, not really surprised), that you bothered to "quote-mine" an out of context "quote" used by one of the most notoriously fraudulent creationist warehouses on the planet.
Thank you for TRYING to contribute with your vast knowledge in creation "science" little Frankie
It sucks that the math destroys your theory.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Each protein has a specific function, so even if the Magical Theory of Evolution worked and created random proteins, in order to work they would have to align themselves EXACTLY and function PERFECTLY with their new neighbors. You see how mathematically impossible a task this is if these cell components organized by chance. You'd have to be a Cell Complexity Denier to believe that chance was responsible.
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month July 2006
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
- Thread starter
- #99
Thank you for TRYING to contribute with your vast knowledge in creation "science" little Frankie
It sucks that the math destroys your theory.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Each protein has a specific function, so even if the Magical Theory of Evolution worked and created random proteins, in order to work they would have to align themselves EXACTLY and function PERFECTLY with their new neighbors. You see how mathematically impossible a task this is if these cell components organized by chance. You'd have to be a Cell Complexity Denier to believe that chance was responsible.
But proteins are not rigid lumps of material. They can have moving parts whose mechanical actions are coupled to chemical events. It is this coupling of chemistry and kinetics that gives proteins the extraordinary capabilities that underlie the dynamic processes in living cells.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,480
- 78,782
- 2,645
Thank you for TRYING to contribute with your vast knowledge in creation "science" little Frankie
It sucks that the math destroys your theory.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Each protein has a specific function, so even if the Magical Theory of Evolution worked and created random proteins, in order to work they would have to align themselves EXACTLY and function PERFECTLY with their new neighbors. You see how mathematically impossible a task this is if these cell components organized by chance. You'd have to be a Cell Complexity Denier to believe that chance was responsible.
But proteins are not rigid lumps of material. They can have moving parts whose mechanical actions are coupled to chemical events. It is this coupling of chemistry and kinetics that gives proteins the extraordinary capabilities that underlie the dynamic processes in living cells.
But the proteins only function as part of the cell, they switch on at specific times and perform specific tasks! Its like having a box of parts to a swiss watch and shaking it in the hopes it will assemble itself properly
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Black chicago mayor admits he prefers hiring black people
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 1
-
-
African Coaltan, Gold, Platinum, minerals are going to be fought over in future war.!!?$$
- Started by 52ndStreet
- Replies: 1
-
