|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What is a viable enzyme, Taq? Viable means able to survive. Survive implies being alive. From what I understand about the living I conclude that an enzyme by itself is no more alive than a hammer. Just one tiny element in a network of death escaping machines. My point was that life is not known to exist other than in such a network. Which is the most simplest network that is viable is another question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Does Alfred M remind any other old timer of Brad?
I can't make head or tail of either's posts. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
What is a viable enzyme, Taq? One that catalyzes a reaction.
From what I understand about the living I conclude that an enzyme by itself is no more alive than a hammer. However, enzymes are crucial to life and would have been important in the process of abiogenesis which is the topic of the thread.
Just one tiny element in a network of death escaping machines. From what I can tell, organisms die all of the time.
My point was that life is not known to exist other than in such a network. I don't disagree. However, tornados in a junkyard is a very poor model/analogy for how chemistry works. That is my point. Showing how random arrangements of nucleotides can produce functioning enzymes is a step towards understand how those networks develop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
So, Percy, could you specify for the cat your beliefs as to how exactly the first proteins came about and what they were? What kind of a death escaping machine were they the building blocks of? What kind of a system that death escaping machine was a part of? Or was the machine alone or in company of just a few of the same kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Alfred Maddenstein writes: So, Percy, could you specify for the cat your beliefs as to how exactly the first proteins came about and what they were? While there are some conjectures and hypotheses, we don't really know. But one thing we're fairly sure of is that the molecules of life, including proteins, did not form by way of all the necessary atoms and molecules just happening to come together all at once in the right order by chance. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Does Alfred M remind any other old timer of Brad? Sort of, but not really. Brad seemed to want to get his point across but simply was unable to do it. Alf seems to want to obfuscate his point in his attempts to discredit knowledge. Both result in not making any sense, but Brad lacked the malicious intent that Alf gives off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What exactly in the cat's explanation keeps the pair of you so deep in the dark? Where is the obfuscation exactly? Now, mind you, the very same stuff is expressed by other people using all kinds of functions, manifolds, hyperspheres, Petrosian radii, wavelengths, arcseconds and radians and suchlike exotic stuff you might have difficulties with.
The feline keeps it all down to the very essence a nine year old whose brain is not washed thin by the lifelong exposure to the bigbangism should be able to grasp. Just simple triangles and most basic assumptions: light speed is constant throughout with no fancy exceptions whatsoever. Due to that space and time are two interchangeable measures of distance. Direction is relative. A meter of time is the interval it takes light to cover that distance in that direction. A second of space is the distance light crosses in a standard second. So anyone standing five meters to your left strictly speaking is five meters into the relative past, any one standing five meters to the right is in the past too but that is not exactly the same past since time is a strictly local measurement relative to an arbitrary location. Light departs into the future only and arrives only from the past. The three of you do not occupy the same location so are not simultaneous. Not in the same past from one another's perspective. That is just five common-or-garden meters so the effect is infinitesimal. Not zero though, as the radiation signal is not instantaneous. Now when talking about the wide cosmos the same negligible delay becomes mind-bogglingly huge. In every direction and not just one single way for the whole of existence like the idiotic metric of Friedmann would love you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wut?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What exactly in the cat's explanation keeps the pair of you so deep in the dark? What exactly in the cat's explanation is pertinent to the discussion at hand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Can't you please just talk like a normal person? Please.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
What always makes me laugh, is when people (like you) have no comprehension of how their posts look.
They appear incapable of understanding just how bat-shit crazy their posts sound. Instead, they cry "What is wrong with my posts??", completely oblivious to the obvious. I expect that you think it is normal (and not even slightly deranged) to refer to yourself in the third person and as a cat.I suspect that before you retired, you mainly worked on your own... "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Aren't you a naive panda's thumb? The cat is just charitable on you mice. He gives you lot a lot of cover to concentrate on so that you can ignore the book and its deadly claws with perfect ease you desire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
AM writes:
As expected. Aren't you a naive panda's thumb? The cat is just charitable on you mice. He gives you lot a lot of cover to concentrate on so that you can ignore the book and its deadly claws with perfect ease you desire. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay, probably a mistake but gotta ask.
What book? What deadly claws? What does the book have to do with the topic? What do claws have to do with the topic?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Larn, you can't produce a virus whereas the latest research inclines the cat to believe that the virus was being instrumental in producing you from a different type of ape. Hence the viral memory and intelligence must be ultimately superior to yours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024