|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science rejects Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Hey - Matt's back!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Hey Bart - are you John Musselwhite or Arthur Biele?
Because, the funny thing is, I found a bunch of what you wrote here - verbatim - on other web sites. So, you are either one of those two chaps, or you are presenting someone elses words as your own. Not a good way to begin a discussion board tenure....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
"Bart":
quote: Shamelessly stolen from a post by Tim Thompsonhere:http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi f47d3adcffff;act=ST;f=26;t=443 Racemic amino acids from the ultraviolet photolysis of interstellarice analogues Nature 416: 401-403, March 28, 2000 Max P. Bernstein, et al. Abstract: The delivery of extraterrestrial organic molecules to Earthby meteorites may have been important for the origin and early evolution of life. Indigenous amino acids have been found in meteorites - over 70 in the Murchison meteorite alone. Although it has been generally accepted that the meteoritic amino acids formed in liquid water on a parent body, the water in the Murchison meteorite is depleted in deuterium relative to the indigenous organic acids. Moreover, the meteoritical evidence for an excess of laevo-rotatory amino acids is hard to understand in the context of liquid-water reactions on meteorite parent bodies. Here we report a laboratory demonstration that glycine, alanine and serine naturally form from ultraviolet photolysis of the analogues of icy interstellar grains. Such amino acids would naturally have a deuterium excess similar to that seen in interstellar molecular clouds, and the formation process could also result in enantiomeric excesses if the incident radiation is circularly polarized. These results suggest that at least some meteoritic amino acids are the result of interstellar photochemistry, rather than formation in liquid water on an early Solar System body. Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analoguesNature 416: 403-406, March 28, 2000 G.M. Muoz Caro, et al. Abstract: Amino acids are the essential molecular components of living organisms on Earth, but the proposed mechanisms for their spontaneous generation have been unable to account for their presence in Earth's early history. The delivery of extraterrestrial organic compounds has been proposed as an alternative to generation on Earth, and some amino acids have been found in several meteorites. Here we report the detection of amino acids in the room-temperature residue of an interstellar ice analogue that was ultraviolet-irradiated in a high vacuum at 12 K. We identified 16 amino acids; the chiral ones showed enantiomeric separation. Some of the identified amino acids are also found in meteorites. Our results demonstrate that the spontaneous generation of amino acids in the interstellar medium is possible, supporting the suggestion that prebiotic molecules could have been delivered to the early Earth by cometary dust, meteorites or interplanetary dust particles. Just to make the story complete, earlier studies on the stability ofamino acid molecules in space are encouraging. Once formed, they are subject to fairly rapid destruction by the same UV that made it possible, unless they are protected in ice mantles on interstellar grains, or in a dense cloud protected from UV (The photostability of Amino Acids in Space, P. Ehrenfreund et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 550: L95-L99, March 20, 2001). There is also evidence, as suggested in both papers, that if the UV impacting the ice is circularly polarized, the result could be a non-racemic product. There is some experimental evidence to support this view (Mechanism of pH-dependent photolysis of aliphatic amino acids and enantiomeric enrichment of racemic leucine by circularly polarized light, H. Nishino et al., Organic Letters 3(6): 921-924, March 22, 2001), and it is also evident that the necessary environment can be found in space (Astronomical sources of circularly polarized light and the origin of homochirality, J. Bailey, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 31(1-2): 167-183, Feb-Apr, 2001).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Well, when you find something I have presented as my own, yet can be found - verbatim - on other websites written by specific individuals, I'll let you know. I have to conclude then that you are a plagiarist. Plagiarism is dishonest. You have now set the scene for how your posts will be looked at in the future. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 09-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I don't believe I said you did. But you did steal the words of others, present them as your own, and not provide the sources. I did not say I read the papers, Indeed, My opening ("Shamelessly stolen form Tim Thompson...") should have made that clear.quote: Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title. He out-debated all those folks, huh? Did you see the debate? Who said he 'out debated' them? Him? Other creationists? I've seen a creation-evolution debate. They are not quite what they are made out to be by their creationist proponants. I suggest that you read some non-biased, intelligent sources. And re-read them. And keep re-reading them unitl you understand how ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist propagandists are. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 09-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
SLPx, said I copied from a "Thompson" fellow. Who are you claiming I copied from, Anne.?[/B][/QUOTE] Your reading comprehension is inversely proportional to your overconfidence. I never said any such thing, as I have reiterated and should have been obvious. I found several sentences from your original bombast in the posts of others made some time ago - verbatim. As should have been painfully obvious, I wrote that I had 'shamelessly stolen' Tim Thompson's words - that is, I made a blatant attribution to the original author of what I posted. Please at least re-read the posts in question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Wow. The overconfidence of the engineer creationist is matched only by its arrogance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
[B]Bart007 wrote: "In 1981 [A.E, Wilder-Smith] wrote "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". In 1993 he wrote: "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". I highly recommend you get these books ..." SLPx "Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title." Let us test whether or not the title of that 1st book I mentioned is, as you put it, "Asinine". You probably believe that science has established Evolution (i.e. all creatures extant and extinct share a common ancestry)as a fact. If you do not believe this, please set the record straight. If so, then you must know that science knows a lot about evolution and it is extremely affirmative. Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time. [/quote] Sure. Read my paper: Page, S.L., and Goodman, M. Catarrhine Phylogeny: Noncoding DNA Evidence for a Diphyletic Origin of the Mangabeys and for a Human-Chimp Clade. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Jan;18(1):14-25 One of the datasets used in that paper can be seen here: http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm The observable pattern of synapomorphy is indicative of descent. This is premised on a few extremely simple premises, two of which follow: Mutations happen, and are heritable. Patterns of inherited mutation can be used to infer relationships. The methodologies empoloyed have been tested on knowns and found to assurately reconstruct the relationships. I assume that molecular biology falls under the umbrella term "Natural Science"?quote: Have you written vanity press books targetted at scientifically illiterate like-minded individuals? Do you host a web site jam packed with disinformation? If not, then I was not referring to you, unless you consider yourself a creationist propagandist. Perhaps I hit too close to home? I can document some of what makes it easy to conlcude that what I wrote about creationist propagandists is true.quote: Well, I am gifted at ridicule, thank you very much. Oh - what sophistries did you have in mind? Maybe something like insisting evolution rises or falls on whether or not abiogenesis happened? Something like that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I have no intention of reading yet another creationist book that is beyond reproach. The same was said of Sarfati's, and Wells', and ReMine's, etc., and yet as I read each of those, I saw nothing but repeated assertion and shoddy scholarship.
Why should I expect this chap's to be any different? Of course, I a mnot the least bit impressed with the 'awe factor' of Jastrow or any other religious scientist. Nor do I believe that 'spontaneous generation' has any impact on evolution.
quote: Did some digging to find that perfect quote, I see... Well, let's see if this mined quote has any actual bearing on what I wrote:quote: Ah - as I suspected. No, it doesn't. You see, the creationist ALWAYS tries to spin their way into a direction that they think they can score some points on. You, being an engineer of some sort and not a biologist of any sort, failed to understand the real meaning of the 'trite' statement I gave. You see, I did not say whatthe mutations were. I did not mention good, bad, or indifferent. I had no need to. I was not referring to gains of function, body parts, or anything else. Sorry, barty, mutations do happen, and yes, they are heritiable, and yes, it IS that trite. Phylogenetic analyses do not care one way or the other as to the character of the mutations. I suspect that you have been reading too much of that pharmacist Wilder-Smith. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Barty?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024