30 Jul 13
3 edits
http://phys.org/news184336191.html#nRlv
And a newer paper:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-life-arose-earth.html
The old critics of the primordial soup showed that without an energy source, reactions couldn't take place. This new work says the hydrothermal vents we see all over the ocean bottom today was there billions of years ago also and provided the energy and space to form membranes and ATP like molecules very early on, 4 billion years ago, only a half billion years after Earth coalesced from the dust of the solar system.
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI have only just read http://phys.org/news/2013-07-life-arose-earth.html for the first time and I think it is brilliant because it explains something that has been actually been personally puzzling me for some time which is the ridiculous way respiration works in nature.
http://phys.org/news184336191.html#nRlv
And a newer paper:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-life-arose-earth.html
The old critics of the primordial soup showed that without an energy source, reactions couldn't take place. This new work says the hydrothermal vents we see all over the ocean bottom today was there billions of years ago also and provided t ...[text shortened]... n years ago, only a half billion years after Earth coalesced from the dust of the solar system.
When I study how respiration works in modern life, it appears totally crazy and stupid to the extreme! It is so indirect and appears unnecessarily complex. Of course, we should expect evolution to often come up with stupid crazy arrangements like this! But, what kept bothering me about this is how ridiculously indirect and complex it is because I think, surely, it would have been vastly more likely that even evolution, totally blind as it is, would have much more likely have come up with something simpler and direct than this albeit still less than perfect? I mean, just look at the crazy way how respiration normally works: first sugar is oxidised and the chemical energy is converted into electrochemical energy in a form of a proton gradient across a membrane; then that electrochemical energy is converted BACK into chemical energy! -in the form of ATP in this case. Then that chemical energy, is use to drive metabolism and is even sometimes converted into other forms of chemical energy! In the case of nerves generating electrical impulses, that chemical energy is converted BACK into electrochemical energy! Each energy conversion comes at a cost -some energy is always lost in the conversion. Thus, with all else being equal, each unnecessary energy conversation you add, you are adding an addition source of energy wastage and inefficiency.
But now we have an explanation why this crazy arrangement evolved (from the link ) and it makes perfect sense! The first electrochemical energy stage evolved first. Then, because evolution cannot do a complete overhaul of the system and generally cannot go one step back to go two steps forward in a different direction, life was stuck with this electrochemical energy stage and evolution built on top of this stage instead of doing the intelligent thing which would be a complete overhaul that involves replacing it rather than just adding to it. I now think this hypothesis is almost certainly correct.
Respiration in nature appears to be one of evolution's big blunders. To my mind, that opens up an interesting future possibility: we could artificially design life to have an intelligently designed reparation that skips the ATP step and uses the chemical energy in sugar more directly and thus with greater energy efficiency.
31 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyAnd faster use of that energy to boot. Kind of kills the 'intelligent' designer idea, eh.
I have only just read http://phys.org/news/2013-07-life-arose-earth.html for the first time and I think it is brilliant because it explains something that has been actually been personally puzzling me for some time which is the ridiculous way respiration works in nature.
When I study how respiration works in modern life, it appears totally crazy and stupid to ep and uses the chemical energy in sugar more directly and thus with greater energy efficiency.
It sounds like we could even design this life form to use the same food we do.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything and is only concocting a grand fairy tale and calling it science to make fools of those people who will fall for it.
http://phys.org/news184336191.html#nRlv
And a newer paper:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-life-arose-earth.html
The old critics of the primordial soup showed that without an energy source, reactions couldn't take place. This new work says the hydrothermal vents we see all over the ocean bottom today was there billions of years ago also and provided t ...[text shortened]... n years ago, only a half billion years after Earth coalesced from the dust of the solar system.
The instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI think we can safely say that whoever writes about Napoleon wasn't there when he lived, so they are just making stuff up.
I think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything and is only concocting a grand fairy tale and calling it science to make fools of those people who will fall for it.
The instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are on very dicey ground with "Grand Fairy Tale". Spontaneous production of acetyl thioesters in white smokers is a well documented phenomenon. There are plenty of these on the ocean floor, rather neatly providing all the conditions they need to test this idea.
I think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything and is only concocting a grand fairy tale and calling it science to make fools of those people who will fall for it.
The instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThey can not test anything that supposedly happened 4 billion years ago.
You are on very dicey ground with "Grand Fairy Tale". Spontaneous production of acetyl thioesters in white smokers is a well documented phenomenon. There are plenty of these on the ocean floor, rather neatly providing all the conditions they need to test this idea.
The Instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThey can see if it possible, which is a test.
They can not test anything that supposedly happened 4 billion years ago.
The Instructor
However, we can safely say that there was someone around when Napoleon lived to pass on information about him.
The problem is that the oldest writing, which isn't just accounting, dates from circa 3,600 BC, which is means that they had no way of writing down the biblical account of the creation. Incidentally, since no records would have survived the flood, you have a hard time accounting for the presence of records from before the flood - why don't we find clay tablets among dinosaur fossils, or for that matter human fossils among dinosaur fossils? If the antediluvians had no writing then the bible can at most have been oral tradition before and they wouldn't know which stories were true and which weren't, and any true stories would end severely garbled after a few hundred years retelling.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything and is only concocting a grand fairy tale and calling it science to make fools of those people who will fall for it.
The instructor
I think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything
Wow what an incredible moron you are. So science, despite the physical evidence, cannot tell us anything about what happened before humans existed because we weren’t there to observe it? But the Physical evidence of what happened in the past CAN be observed today by us and that physical evidence can prove many things about the past before our time.
For example, we know dinosaurs existed because we have their fossils but, obviously, no one alive today existed back then to observe them when they were alive. So, despite we have the fossils, according to your logic, we cannot know that dinosaurs once existed. Wow that is moronic logic!
We have physical evidence that indicates what early Earth was like and we have scientists that know a lot more about it than me or you that have the mental capacity to work out what probably happened from the clues. With your illogic, you cannot possibly have no valid opinion about any hypothesis put forward by them. Sorry, they CAN rationally judge what happened back then without having to be there.
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat is why the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses. Now we have one account that is correct and all the others are distorted.
They can see if it possible, which is a test.
However, we can safely say that there was someone around when Napoleon lived to pass on information about him.
The problem is that the oldest writing, which isn't just accounting, dates from circa 3,600 BC, which is means that they had no way of writing down the biblical account of the cr ...[text shortened]... eren't, and any true stories would end severely garbled after a few hundred years retelling.
The Instructor
Originally posted by humyIt depends on your worldview and how you interprest the evidence. By the way, dinosaurs used to be called dragons.I think we can safely say that whoever wrote that paper was not around 4 billion years ago to observe anything
Wow what an incredible moron you are. So science, despite the physical evidence, cannot tell us anything about what happened before humans existed because we weren’t there to observe it? But the Physical evidence of what happened ...[text shortened]... rd by them. Sorry, they CAN rationally judge what happened back then without having to be there.
The Instructor
31 Jul 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
It depends on your worldview and how you interprest the evidence. By the way, dinosaurs used to be called dragons.
The Instructor
It depends on your worldview and how you interprest the evidence.
Only if you are totally unobjective and a moron.
There is only one totally rational way to interpret any given set of evidence regardless of your “worldview”. The physical evidence shows whatever the physical evidence shows and that is independent of any “worldview”or illogic you have. For example, evidence shows that once dinosaurs existed because we have the fossils. I suppose if you had a religiuos reason to deny dinosaurs, you would deny this evidence saying it “It depends on your worldview and how you interprest the evidence” and would just call those fossils “swollen up lizard fossils” or even fake.
dinosaurs used to be called dragons.
How do you know this? according to your own moronic logic, dinosaurs, let alone dragons, couldn't exist because none of us living today have observed either because they are before our time. Also, the description of dragons doesn't match any known species of dinosaur in the fossil record. Dragons, according to the pictures, have wings and are huge and have huge heads etc and that set of characteristics is obviously not a match for any fossil. And dinosaurs didn't breath out fire because that's just really stupid.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by humyhttp://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-history.htmlIt depends on your worldview and how you interprest the evidence.
Only if you are totally unobjective and a moron.
There is only one totally rational way to interpret any given set of evidence regardless of your “worldview”. The physical evidence shows whatever the physical evidence shows and that is independent of any “worldview”or illo ...[text shortened]... tch for any fossil. And dinosaurs didn't breath out fire because that's just really stupid.
The Instructor
01 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is pure nonsense. Obviously, none of them saw dinosaurs (other than possibly fossilized ones of course) and you are a moron for believing such extraordinary stupid absurdity.
http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-history.html
The Instructor
Can you provide us with physical evidence that they saw dinosaurs other than the mere baseless hearsay of a creationist propaganda site?
And why is there not a single known dinosaur remains that we can date to be anything other than millions of years old but there ARE huge numbers of dinosaur fossils that, using more than one kind of scientific dating method, are ALL dated to be millions of years old and without a single exception?