Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 151 of 213 (206865)
05-10-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 5:16 PM


do you have your answer now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 5:16 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 152 of 213 (206955)
05-11-2005 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-10-2005 7:40 PM


I get my numbers from past research and the literature, of course, and this is fairly old science. And remember what the subject was, the polymerization of proteins from amino acids of the type that comprise organisms.
This occurs through condensation reactions. Also as I have preciously stated, it is not difficult to calculate enthalpy change as dipeptides form from amino acids. This has been done by Hutchens [1] and is shown to be 5-8 kcal/mole.
Technically I would debate both of the above paragraphs. The nature of the reactions as the occur in situ may be very different than how we have to study them in the lab. But I'll skip addressing some of the specifics of how they work in the lab above to deal with the more obvious issues (and the ones I was driving at) in the comments below...
Obviously, work has to be done on this system for a polypeptide to form and in organisms, this work is provided by the organism. But since we are talking about pre-biotic conditions, where did this work come from?
Yes, the question of where did this work come from is a valid question. The valid answer is for scientists to explore various conditions, environmental conditions, which would have provided the necessary work. I am unsure if it must specifically be peptides or if there could have been precursors to that, but the idea is the same.
So, you seem to be claiming that you have found out where the work came from. Okay, where? Or if it is just that you have ruled out all in situ possibilities, I would like to see those example calculations, and the bases for them.
Telling me we know of lab experiments that did not work, or only a certain selection which did work but do not mirror possible environmental conditions is not enough.
Work must be performed on these systems in order that more complex molecules can form to support life. This is just common sense to one who has studied chemistry. They do not form by Darwinian magic.
First, I do not know what Darwinian magic is, but perhaps you can compare that to Designer magic? As far as I can tell they are both concepts which describe an as yet unknown or undefined process which we are seeking... correct? Only the latter involves two unknown components, while the first involves only one. Occam's razor eliminates the latter.
Second, while work must be done, I am uncertain why that excludes natural (unintelligent) systems from providing the work? Hydrocarbons trapped within a "plastic" membrane and exposed to solar or geothermal energy, would be having work done on them, right? And that could include multiple iterations of condensation reactions, almost like a reflux apparatus, right?
Oh by the way, at the beginning you stated that you were not talking about mathematical models. Where did you generate the statistical results of probabilities of formations then? That would have to be from a model as far as I understand.
Enthalpies and such of formation are not models, that is true, but probabilities are model based.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-10-2005 7:40 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:25 AM Silent H has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 213 (206973)
05-11-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


quote:
Yes, the question of where did this work come from is a valid question. The valid answer is for scientists to explore various conditions, environmental conditions, which would have provided the necessary work. I am unsure if it must specifically be peptides or if there could have been precursors to that, but the idea is the same.
They have. Think of Miller for one.
quote:
So, you seem to be claiming that you have found out where the work came from. Okay, where? Or if it is just that you have ruled out all in situ possibilities, I would like to see those example calculations, and the bases for them.
No, science never proves anything therefore no one schooled in science ever KNOWS anything. We just lean toward conclusions. Boil this down to the simplicity it really is. Since the laws of chemistry are against chance formation of these complex molecules that make us up, what are the other possibilities, perhaps design by something? How credible would we be to consider this as an option? I mean it certainly works for weed eaters and tables.
quote:
Telling me we know of lab experiments that did not work, or only a certain selection which did work but do not mirror possible environmental conditions is not enough.
I didn't give any experiments that didn't work. They worked just fine and I was just sharing the results of them with you.
quote:
First, I do not know what Darwinian magic is, but perhaps you can compare that to Designer magic? As far as I can tell they are both concepts which describe an as yet unknown or undefined process which we are seeking... correct?
Now. I'm an aggressive debater and I'm going to call this like it is, this doesn't mean I'm picking on you personally:
Darwinian magic: Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas; ape-like critters start giving birth to men in violation of the species definitions in science; pakicetus carves his legs into flippers, poofs up to a giant 100 times as big as he was, bellies off into the ocean and morphs into a whale; reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals.
Designer magic: I do understand that some may view quantum mechanics as magic, but I can assure you it is really science.
quote:
Only the latter involves two unknown components, while the first involves only one. Occam's razor eliminates the latter.
Occam shaves for my side, I'm afraid. Begin with an amoeba, end at a man (if you like), use the process described above in the Darwinian magic paragraph, spell out those poofs a couple of billion times as we consider all the speciations it would have taken to get men from amoebas. A rather complicated scenario, don't you think?
Which is simpler, all of that, or that a designer designed man pretty much as he is today? Occam's razor says pick the simplest option and you will be right 83% of the time.
quote:
Second, while work must be done, I am uncertain why that excludes natural (unintelligent) systems from providing the work?
Like what? If this is credible you are going to have to come up with some scenarios that could form a homochiral protein from amino acids. If you can't, it's just a daydream.
quote:
Hydrocarbons trapped within a "plastic" membrane and exposed to solar or geothermal energy, would be having work done on them, right? And that could include multiple iterations of condensation reactions, almost like a reflux apparatus, right?
True in that case but it's not the same concept. La Chateliers principle is a law of chemistry that forbids the type of reactions we were discussing. What do you think could have happened in nature to overcome both this principle and the second law of thermodynamics?
quote:
Oh by the way, at the beginning you stated that you were not talking about mathematical models. Where did you generate the statistical results of probabilities of formations then? That would have to be from a model as far as I understand.
Enthalpies and such of formation are not models, that is true, but probabilities are model based.
Well, if you want to consider probability math as a model, I suppose you can. We just use the term differently.
Edited for clarity
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-11-2005 07:53 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 160 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:46 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 213 (207007)
05-11-2005 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 7:25 AM


May I ask a question here? Is it possible to exist an environment (which may change through time) which would be conducive for the formation of life?
I ask because I look at these probability calculations and they seem to be saying "Assume all molecules are uniformly distributed throughout the universe and the universe is totally uniform in all aspects...the chances of the right molecules bumping into one another is astronomical!"
Is that how the maths is arrived at? I mean, the chances of CaSiO[sub]3[/sub] spontaneously forming is probably quite low. However, given the right environment (blast furnace), its a guarantee. So, the equations to demonstrate the possibility of life should be a range. It should say "A worst case scenario would leave us to believe that life forming is impossible. A best case scenario would have us believe it to be inevitable." A useless equation, right?
My question essentially is this: How have you calculated that the environments in the universe were universally such that it was imossible in all cases for it to form? Did you start at Planck Time and work from there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:25 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:03 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 155 of 213 (207017)
05-11-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:47 AM


Thank you modulous, you are asking the exact same question that I am. Perhaps together we will get an answer.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:47 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 156 of 213 (207018)
05-11-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-10-2005 7:40 PM


Re: the point
Work must be performed on these systems in order that more complex molecules can form to support life. This is just common sense to one who has studied chemistry. They do not form by Darwinian magic.
Given your definition of Darwinian magic as being:
quote:
Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas
Then the entire world agrees with you. Obviously you are not proposing that 'Darwinian magic' is the same as descent with modification, since you would be clearly deluded and certainly not qualified to argue Darwin's ideas. However, if the latter is the case, the armed forces are looking for an engineer to design mock enemies for training purposes. If you believe that an amoeba transforming into elephant is descent with modification and that you can attack the argument in such a manner then you should sign up fro the army job...you have a skill at constructing very easily killed straw men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-10-2005 7:40 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:43 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:49 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 213 (207040)
05-11-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:47 AM


quote:
May I ask a question here? Is it possible to exist an environment (which may change through time) which would be conducive for the formation of life?
Not one I can think of. Can you? What environment could possible cause homochiral proteins to form our of a racemic mixture of amino acids against the laws of chemistry?
quote:
I ask because I look at these probability calculations and they seem to be saying "Assume all molecules are uniformly distributed throughout the universe and the universe is totally uniform in all aspects...the chances of the right molecules bumping into one another is astronomical!"
No, I'll even give you a concentrated flask of racemic amino acids. You still cannot form life out of that or come up with any credible scenario of some way it can happen. This would be just pipe-dreaming, wouldn't it?
quote:
Is that how the maths is arrived at? I mean, the chances of CaSiO[sub]3 spontaneously forming is probably quite low. However, given the right environment (blast furnace), its a guarantee. So, the equations to demonstrate the possibility of life should be a range. It should say "A worst case scenario would leave us to believe that life forming is impossible. A best case scenario would have us believe it to be inevitable." A useless equation, right?
No, it's not useless at all because this is not the same thing. At some point some work guided by intelligence is going to have to come into the picture to separate all the Ls from the Ds in order that only L polypeptides can form from them. There is no environment one can conceive without intelligence in it to cause this.
quote:
My question essentially is this: How have you calculated that the environments in the universe were universally such that it was imossible in all cases for it to form? Did you start at Planck Time and work from there?
No. Nor would I because this is irrelevant to the discussion.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:47 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 10:42 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 168 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 11:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 213 (207042)
05-11-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
05-11-2005 9:05 AM


Re: the point
quote:
Then the entire world agrees with you. Obviously you are not proposing that 'Darwinian magic' is the same as descent with modification, since you would be clearly deluded and certainly not qualified to argue Darwin's ideas. However, if the latter is the case, the armed forces are looking for an engineer to design mock enemies for training purposes. If you believe that an amoeba transforming into elephant is descent with modification and that you can attack the argument in such a manner then you should sign up fro the army job...you have a skill at constructing very easily killed straw men.
Ahhh....but I did not say how quickly they 'poofed,' now did I. But Darwinism does propose a 'poof' here and there.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 9:05 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 05-11-2005 9:46 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 10:50 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 159 of 213 (207043)
05-11-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:43 AM


Re: the point
But Darwinism does propose a 'poof' here and there.
Where exactly?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:43 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:54 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 160 of 213 (207044)
05-11-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 7:25 AM


They have. Think of Miller for one.
Miller is definitely an example. And there are more specific examples. The point is that they are hardly exhaustive of the potential ranges of chemicals/environmental conditions/and time required for products to form.
Thus appealing to the failed experiments do not get us closer to knowing what the actual probabilities of formation are, other than they are not high under the few conditions tested.
Since the laws of chemistry are against chance formation of these complex molecules that make us up, what are the other possibilities, perhaps design by something? How credible would we be to consider this as an option? I mean it certainly works for weed eaters and tables.
But the laws of chemistry are NOT against the chance formation of these complex molecules. They are against the chance formation UNDER SPECIFIC KNOWN conditions. The probabilities are not known given many volumes of conditions.
While someone appearing and creating these things is a possibility, there are still unexhausted avenues of formation from natural mechanisms. Thus jumping to the more complex answer is a bit premature.
As far as weed eaters and tables go, unlike life they do not reproduce themselves, and they both have functions beyond themselves. Living things reproduce and change over generations (even if you don't believe in speciation I assume you recognize this fact), and are useful for themeselves and have no inherent function for someone else.
I didn't give any experiments that didn't work. They worked just fine and I was just sharing the results of them with you.
This is a tad disengenuous don't you think? The experiments may have worked as experimentd, but what they did not work as is environments where probability of formation were heightened. That is what we were discussing after all.
Darwinian magic: Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas; ape-like critters start giving birth to men in violation of the species definitions in science; pakicetus carves his legs into flippers, poofs up to a giant 100 times as big as he was, bellies off into the ocean and morphs into a whale; reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals.
Well I don't know anyone advocating that explanation except for you. Especially as you have used magic within the definition of magic. What do you mean by magic?
I mean this seems all very strange that you'd keep using "magic" and "supernatural" in any of your descriptions as if it is something that Darwin appealed to, or that evolutionary theory espouses.
Designer magic: I do understand that some may view quantum mechanics as magic, but I can assure you it is really science.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting some quantum mechanical manifestation is responsible for abiogenesis and speciation?
Occam shaves for my side, I'm afraid. Begin with an amoeba, end at a man (if you like), use the process described above in the Darwinian magic paragraph, spell out those poofs a couple of billion times as we consider all the speciations it would have taken to get men from amoebas. A rather complicated scenario, don't you think?
Yeah that would be complicated, but what has that got to do with evolutionary theory? Here's what I learned about evo theory:
1) We can see that living organisms change during reproduction from one generation to the next,
2) Certain conditions can affect the ability for members of a generation to breed and so have characteristics pass to the next generation,
3) There does not appear to be any barrier for change in an entire population given time and consistent conditions,
4) We see fossil evidence of previous life starting as simple and moving to more complexity with time,
5) We have no evidence of an entity which lived back then directly interfering with the natural reproductive cycles.
Given those facts, it is rather simple to argue that the same generational cycles we see today, produced the speciation which we have seen over time, rather than positing that an unknown entity we have no evidence of nor explanation for having designed each species and thus intentionally create the speciation.
Which is simpler, all of that, or that a designer designed man pretty much as he is today?
Yes, your strawman is more complex than the oversimplified version of your own theory and thus Occam would pick that. However as I noted above, Occam would accept the evolutionary theory over one of postulated designer creating unknown numbers of designs.
Although I would have to ask, even in your simplified version, why the designer created so many manlike things, and how you can tell the difference between a manlike thing he created which did become us, and a manlike thing he created which didn't?
If this is credible you are going to have to come up with some scenarios that could form a homochiral protein from amino acids. If you can't, it's just a daydream.
No, its an unknown. Before they showed that urea could be produced through nonbiological means it was believed that only living bodies could produce it. That is a rather commonly taught example in chemistry, cautioning chemists from making the mistake that unknown mechanism means impossible mechanism.
And of course what this means is that there is more work to be done before drawing any conclusions.
On the flipside perhaps you can come up with a scenario regarding the formation of your designer, as well as its ability to interact with stages of life across billions of years and over large geographic areas without leaving a trace beyond the pristine appearance of a new life form.
La Chateliers principle is a law of chemistry that forbids the type of reactions we were discussing. What do you think could have happened in nature to overcome both this principle and the second law of thermodynamics?
Okay, I have absolutely no idea how what you just said actually impacts what I just said. You threw in a name and a thermodynamic law, and simply asserted they go against the reactions I was talking about... how and why? Actually unpack your argument.
As far as I can tell you simple stated two things which control reactions, and asserted they stand against an as yet unknown reaction from occuring.
And again, your reference to the 2nd law is troublesome to me. That applies to closed systems. In the specific case I mentioned the sun and earth would have been pouring in energy, which could be absorbed and stored within chemical cycles.
Well, if you want to consider probability math as a model, I suppose you can. We just use the term differently.
Probability calculation requires a model, right? How else can you calculate odds unless you have a model of how X functions?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:25 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 10:23 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 161 of 213 (207046)
05-11-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
05-11-2005 9:05 AM


Re: the point
If you believe that an amoeba transforming into elephant is descent with modification and that you can attack the argument in such a manner then you should sign up fro the army job...you have a skill at constructing very easily killed straw men.
A little long on the build up, but pretty funny. I may steal that for later use.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 9:05 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 213 (207049)
05-11-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by jar
05-11-2005 9:46 AM


Re: the point
quote:
Where exactly?
I suppose one could pick one of several billion speciations, each or at least most more complex than its predecessor species over a massive period of time. Isn't that poofs?

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 05-11-2005 9:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jar, posted 05-11-2005 10:13 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-13-2005 9:25 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 163 of 213 (207059)
05-11-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:54 AM


on the arrival of Poofs.
On reflection, no response is warranted.
This message has been edited by jar, 05-11-2005 09:14 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:54 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 213 (207064)
05-11-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Silent H
05-11-2005 9:46 AM


quote:
But the laws of chemistry are NOT against the chance formation of these complex molecules. They are against the chance formation UNDER SPECIFIC KNOWN conditions. The probabilities are not known given many volumes of conditions.
While someone appearing and creating these things is a possibility, there are still unexhausted avenues of formation from natural mechanisms. Thus jumping to the more complex answer is a bit premature.
You are just going to have to start naming these conditions. I'm afraid your insistence there ARE conditions is not a very strong argument. What are they?
quote:
This is a tad disengenuous don't you think? The experiments may have worked as experimentd, but what they did not work as is environments where probability of formation were heightened. That is what we were discussing after all.
You seem to be repeating yourself. There are no conditions where the probabilities are heightened. What would those be? You guys seem to want to ignore the obvious here.
quote:
I'm sorry, are you suggesting some quantum mechanical manifestation is responsible for abiogenesis and speciation?
No. Just design.
quote:
1) We can see that living organisms change during reproduction from one generation to the next,
2) Certain conditions can affect the ability for members of a generation to breed and so have characteristics pass to the next generation,
3) There does not appear to be any barrier for change in an entire population given time and consistent conditions,
4) We see fossil evidence of previous life starting as simple and moving to more complexity with time,
5) We have no evidence of an entity which lived back then directly interfering with the natural reproductive cycles.
Given those facts, it is rather simple to argue that the same generational cycles we see today, produced the speciation which we have seen over time, rather than positing that an unknown entity we have no evidence of nor explanation for having designed each species and thus intentionally create the speciation.
And you think that is a simpler concept than just suggesting the organism was designed?
quote:
Yes, your strawman is more complex than the oversimplified version of your own theory and thus Occam would pick that. However as I noted above, Occam would accept the evolutionary theory over one of postulated designer creating unknown numbers of designs.
He would? How did you ask him this?
quote:
Although I would have to ask, even in your simplified version, why the designer created so many manlike things, and how you can tell the difference between a manlike thing he created which did become us, and a manlike thing he created which didn't?
What on earth are you saying here, Holmes? What is a man-like thing, maybe a hominid?
quote:
No, its an unknown. Before they showed that urea could be produced through nonbiological means it was believed that only living bodies could produce it. That is a rather commonly taught example in chemistry, cautioning chemists from making the mistake that unknown mechanism means impossible mechanism.
And of course what this means is that there is more work to be done before drawing any conclusions.
There is no word in science called impossible. Nor do we base theories on unknowns. We have to go with what seems likely.
quote:
On the flipside perhaps you can come up with a scenario regarding the formation of your designer, as well as its ability to interact with stages of life across billions of years and over large geographic areas without leaving a trace beyond the pristine appearance of a new life form.
Oh, it leaves a trace all the time. Virtual particles form from zero-point energy back and forth all the time. But quantum mechanics were formed in the big bang along with the rest of our universe. I don't think anyone is sure yet what caused the big bang unless you know something I do not.
quote:
Okay, I have absolutely no idea how what you just said actually impacts what I just said. You threw in a name and a thermodynamic law, and simply asserted they go against the reactions I was talking about... how and why? Actually unpack your argument.
As far as I can tell you simple stated two things which control reactions, and asserted they stand against an as yet unknown reaction from occuring.
Well sheeze....I assumed you knew what I was talking about because I have covered it in great detail HERE. In fact, that post was to you.
You cannot name any conditions that would overcome Le Chatlier's principle, can you? If you can, what are they?
quote:
And again, your reference to the 2nd law is troublesome to me. That applies to closed systems. In the specific case I mentioned the sun and earth would have been pouring in energy, which could be absorbed and stored within chemical cycles.
NO, this is not correct. 2LOT applies to open, closed and isolated systems.
quote:
Probability calculation requires a model, right? How else can you calculate odds unless you have a model of how X functions?
Now, I thought we covered this; are we going back to models again?

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 10:53 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 175 by Silent H, posted 05-12-2005 5:29 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 165 of 213 (207070)
05-11-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:40 AM


Not one I can think of. Can you? What environment could possible cause homochiral proteins to form our of a racemic mixture of amino acids against the laws of chemistry?
Did it have to happen in the way you propose? If it is so certainly against the laws of chemistry then all the chemists who are working on doing it are wasting their time? Perhaps they missed the relevant lecture at college and nobody has thought to tell them about it since. I just thought, I guess the people that fund this research weren't told that it was against the laws of chemistry. I think you should probably fire a few emails off and tell the universities about this gross lapse.
No, it's not useless at all because this is not the same thing. At some point some work guided by intelligence is going to have to come into the picture to separate all the Ls from the Ds in order that only L polypeptides can form from them. There is no environment one can conceive without intelligence in it to cause this.
Are you sure this procedure is necessary? Do you know how life has to have formed? I think, once again, some emails should be fired off here. You could get a huge grant.
Essentially what you are saying is it is impossible for life to have formed according to the laws of nature. That's great, we're getting somewhere here. Of course, I would be a fool to take your word on this, so you will of course provide me with relevant papers to back this up? My chemistry is a little sketchy, but I'm willing to have a go, and if you post them, perhaps another chemist here can discuss it with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:40 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024