|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Thanks Percy and molbiogirl... my head is spinning... Have a barbeque to go to.... Can't go on...
I am however looking forward to engaging calm and reasoned discussions when I get my concentration back. At the moment, I feel I am in the middle of some great and disastrous fillabuster. I'll respond later...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I feel I am in the middle of some great and disastrous fillabuster. Well, you don't have to respond to each and every post. And you certainly don't have to respond to each and every post within three minutes after they are posted. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
With my digital internet chemistry set?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Crash:
With my digital internet chemistry set? Certainly there is an article on the subject you could post a link to... Or... not! It's a real problem Crash... don't get so wound up. We can look at it objectively together if we try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
Well, you don't have to respond to each and every post. And you certainly don't have to respond to each and every post within three minutes after they are posted. Thanks...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Let's take a day or so to think and settle down.
Crash: And let me remind you again - biochemists aren't $%^&* morons, so the idea that they've never thought of how early organisms would come to have an energy economy based on phosphating ADP is just ludicrous on its face. As I said in the Op: I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias. Molbiogirl spoke of a theoretical explanation for the problem of energy conversion. And I must confess that it is probably internally coherent, but there is no external evidence to support or test it. I want to discuss the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Certainly there is an article on the subject you could post a link to... Rob, you know perfectly well there is an explanation at http://EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) -->EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds). Do you want to go over the ATP question again? Or do you want to discuss pre biotic chemistry in general? You need to clarify your question. Which of these steps ... simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein world ... do you want to discuss?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Rob writes: As I said in the Op: I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias. What do you find so odd, Rob, about scientists looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and assuming the likelihood of such explanations? Considering the experience of the last few centuries, when loads of natural explanations for natural phenomena have proven to be true, and very useful in advancing human knowledge, and absolutely no non-natural, unnatural, or supernatural explanations have proven to be either true or useful to anyone for anything, then isn't it reasonable that they should take this approach? Methodological naturalism is not some grand philosophy (that would be metaphysical naturalism). It's just plain common sense. And a related point. As you claim to believe in an undesigned reality, why do you want scientists, who study material reality, to consider design when it comes to the origin of life? And what does considering design mean? Should they sit in their laboratories for four hours each day meditating on invisible, inaudible intelligent designers, and then spend the other four hours doing real science based on natural explanations of natural things? Do you think anything practical would be achieved by such an approach?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Looking at the chemical makeup of ATP, AMP and ADP I don't see anything particularly exotic or surprising. None of them are particularly complex molecules, and the conversions back and forth between the various molecules is pretty straightforward.
If we look back at hyperthermophiles like Archea we even find that they use sulphur instead of oxygen as the electron acceptor during respiration and so would have thrived in earlier oxygen deprived, sulphur rich environments. The important point though is that in all cases what is seen is simply chemical reactions. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
molbiogirl:
Rob, you know perfectly well there is an explanation at http://EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) -->EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds). You're not serious are you? Doddy could not have made it more clear that his formula was completely theoretical. Feel free to read through that whole thread again if you want... I found Doddy to be very reasonable. he seems to understand the questions I am asking and their relevance, even though he believes that there is a natural explanation. I'd love to have him participate in these dicussions. molbiogirl: Do you want to go over the ATP question again? Or do you want to discuss pre biotic chemistry in general? You need to clarify your question. Which of these steps ... simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein world ... do you want to discuss? I am questioning the entire premise... What catalytic polymers? What abiotic metabolism? What RNA world? You act as though these things are realities... they are assumed theoretical explanations for what actually exists today. The evidence is the fossil record and living species, neither of which give any indication at all of the entities mentioned above existing in any known state other than being completely dependant upon a larger biological system in which they are only a part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
Looking at the chemical makeup of ATP, AMP and ADP I don't see anything particularly exotic or surprising. None of them are particularly complex molecules, and the conversions back and forth between the various molecules is pretty straightforward. If we look back at hyperthermophiles like Archea we even find that they use sulphur instead of oxygen as the electron acceptor during respiration and so would have thrived in earlier oxygen deprived, sulphur rich environments. The important point though is that in all cases what is seen is simply chemical reactions. That's all fine and good jar, but the energy source is not the issue (fermentation, photosynthesis or respiration as you brought up here). Hyperthermophiles like Archea be damned... you still need ATP. And even though ATP appears to be relatively simple, the way it is made isn't simple; a multitude of functions are involved ( http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/...farabee/BIOBK/BioBookATP.html ). molbiogirl and I discussed this here http://EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) -->EvC Forum: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) The exchange ended this way: Rob: The source of energy for these reactions is stuff like ATP and GTP. Molbiogirl: Nope. Today's organisms use three types of energy sources: fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. None of these energy sources has been linked directly to the origin of life. A fourth energy source, ”thermosynthesis,’ free energy gain from thermal cycling, was proposed in a theoretical model for the emergence of the chemiosmotic machinery ... Rob: Pardon me, you are correct. However, my point was that those processes only convert raw energy into the form necessary for complex nucleotide synthesis. Molbiogril: Of course modern ATP synthase didn't exist back then. Nobody's claiming it did. Except you, I mean. Rob: What could I claim did exist back then, without moving into hypothetical wonderland? Are you suggesting something did exit that is not materially emperical? Whatever the answer, it appears miraculous (I'll spare you the quotes from evolutionists who agree on that point). Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Here is Doddy's post in full:
Doddy writes: You do have a point Rob - the conditions that chemists can create are likely to be far more favourable to the creation of life than was present primordially. I once read that it was like a golfer putting a golfball into the hole, then surmising that wind, rain, tornadoes and earthquakes could have done the same, given enough time. However, it isn't especially likely that life originated in this manner. Not only are these steps quite probably not the ones that occurred, but a ribozyme might not even be the first sort of life (if the RNA world isn't true). But then, a few humans have only looked at this problem for a few dozen years, whereas there were billions of years and billions of planets for this to occur randomly. I don't care how smart you think humans are, or how dumb you think chemical reactions are - I have no problem believing that this would have happened. You then answer:
Rob writes: The smallest self replicating system that is emperical already exists. You reject out of hand that any of this ... simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein world ... happened. Little problem with that approach, Rob. This ... simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein world ... has happened. In vitro. Are you willing to admit that it has happened in vitro?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
molbiogirl:
Are you willing to admit that it has happened in vitro? As in... artificial insemination? Talk about assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain. Not to mention guided by intelligent agents...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
And even though ATP appears to be relatively simple, the way it is made isn't simple; a multitude of functions are involved. Don't start up with this crap again, Rob. ATP was formed the way Doddy outlined in the first 12 posts of the ribozyme thread. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024