|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
And do you realize you are only quoting the abstract to the whole article? Kuresu, I'll tell you why Rob hasn't moved beyond the abstract. He's too cheap to register with the publisher.
Rob writes: Where'd you get the adenine? That comes in my next response... Read Orgel's article! Or don't you have $32?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
He said, if it was formed prebiotically... Do you know wahat the word if means. Or is it like the word is that some folks in high positions seem to have trouble with? eee hee hee! Yeah, Rob, I know wahat (sic) "if" means. That the best you got?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Do any of you have one shred of evidence of a prebiotic organism that is not totally theoretical ie. non-existent?
And theorized evidence is not evidence... I mean evidence in the real world, (emperical) ie. the fossil record or discovered elsewhere, for any form of prebiotic organism? I ask, because there is an earthload of evidnce for biotic organisms. And they're not made the way all of these masses of data and theoretical research assume and predict that prebiotic organisms were made. What good is a 'scientific' prediction (theory) that cannot be tested? And you know the best part...? I don't have to say, 'if these bilogical organism were able to synthsise ATP or adenine or any other structure or enzyme et al... then perhaps it was a result of this or that bla bla bla...' No, I don't have to say that... Because they actually exist! And they do synthesize this and that, and we have evidence of that, and that, and that, and that, bla bla bla bla etc. And you know what else... it's proven science. It's not tentative. Science is a search for proof. We start with theory and evidence. We then seek to find a match. All you have is theory. No evidence and no match. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Well, he can afford to be cheap. The article that I found for him, and the orgel article, cna be read for free. All you need is adobe.
http://www.springerlink.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Is your argument just a version of "if we can't see it, it didn't happen"?
And you know something? We can't know which specific path is the one that ended up happening when you go so far back into the past. However, we can come up with possible paths that do work. Other people can test to see if these possible paths do work. And they do. We can't directly observe the past. But we can recreate it to the best of our knowledge. Why isn't this good enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
s your argument just a version of "if we can't see it, it didn't happen"? He's moved. This was supposed to be, "See? It's impossible!" Now it's, "But it's only theoretically possible!" Which still prevents the Argument from Incredulity from even getting off the ground. I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sheesh Rob.
Did you even read Message 157, Message 164 or Message 171? The issues pointed out in those messages are applicable in this as well. If there is a natural method that explains what is seen, then that is accepted. Otherwise it goes into the unknown folder. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
The question is...'Why do you assume prebiotic organisms to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
If there is a natural method that explains what is seen, then that is accepted. Otherwise it goes into the unknown folder. But it doesn't explain what is seen... I explains what is not seen... Hence the lack of any evidence whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
He's moved. This was supposed to be, "See? It's impossible!" Now it's, "But it's only theoretically possible!" Which still prevents the Argument from Incredulity from even getting off the ground. Actually it is only a rewriting of the intial OP question: What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes? Is evidence neccessary for credulity? I think so...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I asked you a question.
You do not answer a question with a totally different (even a different subject) question. Answer my question, I'll answer your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you've been given the evidence.
Only to respond with complaints about how science papers use "if", "may", "possibly", and many other tentative words. You also bring up false counterpoints, and shown how they are false. And you still claim no evidence has been brought forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Kuresu:
you've been given the evidence. Theory is not evidence Kuresu. Theory is the theroy that you must cohere with the evidence to = emperical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Sulphate metabolism among thermophiles and hyperthermophiles in natural aquatic systems, A.N. Roychoudhury, Biochemical Society Transactions (2004) Volume 32, part 2
Thermophiles, a class of extremophile that has a temperature optimum for growth at around 70 C or higher [3], are of particular interest. Within the domains Archaea and Bacteria, thermophiles are among the most deeply branching organisms on the phylogenetic tree, based on 16 S rRNA. Thus they are the most primitive group of organisms known on this planet and possibly are closely similar to the common ancestor. Although clear evidence of autotrophic CO2 fixation into the biomass by 3.8 bya ago is present in the sedimentary record, the specific metabolic pathways employed by the archaic organisms are still unclear. Sulphur isotope studies have provided the earliest evidence of a specific metabolic pathway - sulphate reduction - from a 3.47 bya- old barite mineral. In order for the nascent life to sustain and proliferate, metabolic energy is essential. Therefore, to reconstruct the history of life on Earth, an inquiry of possible respiration pathways utilized by thermophilic organisms is required ... Prevalence of sulphate respiration among modern thermophiles and hyperthermophiles is now well known [13-18]. Microbiological results further suggest that it is possible that sulphate reduction was prevalent even before the divergence of the three domains of living organisms [19]. The kinetic data from hydrothermal environments suggest that the thermophilic sulphate reducers respond to the environmental determinants in a similar fashion to the microbes found in less hostile modern aquatic environments. In other words, if it is assumed that archaic microbes were similar to thermophiles in modern hydrothermal systems, then they were well advanced in adapting to environmental extremes and were capable of surviving and proliferating by utilizing sulphate respiration as one of the metabolic pathways. Sulphate reduction. Hmmmmm. The Bacteria of the Sulphur Cycle [and Discussion], N. Pfennig, F. Widdel, J. R. Postgate, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 298, No. 1093, Sulphur Bacteria (Sep. 13, 1982), pp. 433-441
The bioenergetics of sulphate reduction have been shown to be quite different in the two most extensively studied genera of these basteria, Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum. The major enzymes, ATP sulphurylase, adenylyl sulphate (APS) reductase, and bisulphate reductase, and intermediate bisulphite, APS and PPi are shown: H2 + SO4 --> S + 4H2O ATP. Now where could I get my hands on some prebiotic ATP? More cites to come!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Kuresu:
We can't directly observe the past. But we can recreate it to the best of our knowledge. Why isn't this good enough? Because you have no evidence... it's all hoelessly metaphysical. So will you now answer mine? Why do you assume that there were prebiotic organisms?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024