Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 103 of 314 (419492)
09-03-2007 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rob
09-02-2007 11:57 PM


Re: ATP Synthase Did Not Exist 3.5 bya
Rob writes:
But wasn't Doddy specifically describing the theoretical making of these materials in a laboratory?
Ok, it was theoretical. I wasn't following along in my Erlenmeyer.
Also, I was hardly going to wait half a billion years to see if I had the correct environment and concentrations. That's why you have to guide the reactions along by providing the best catalysts you can find and the optimum environments. Of course, nobody can (yet) physically make ATP like you would out of Lego (join this atom to that atom...), so the reactions done by the organic chemists that I cited still have to show self-assembly. All they did is provide the optimum conditions.
Take golf as an example: You seem to imply we are driving the ball into the hole, but rather we are just accelerating the relevant powers of the wind, water and earth to see if they will do it. If we didn't, it would take billions of years, and few research agencies will fund that.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 11:57 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 11:39 AM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 140 of 314 (419599)
09-03-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rob
09-03-2007 5:30 PM


Re: a la Behe
Rob writes:
And to touch on the thermodynamic problem which is always evaded with assurances of invalidity because we live in an open system; the energy to build the system must be directed. Water cannnot flow up hill simply because it flows in a thermodynamically open system. But you can use the available energy in an open system if it is converted and harnessed to create a water pump. But it is an intelligently designed system.
Rob, care to tell me how all the water gets up on top of the mountains for it to run back down again in a river?
Rob writes:
It has yet to be shown (though it is extravegantly suggested and theorized) that non-intelligent guidance and simple repetative physical laws (informationally) can be a cause and origin for this peculiar form of information that is shown emperically to be caused by intelligence elsewhere.
You know, Rob, that it has also yet to be shown that there is an intelligence elsewhere. Unless, like Ray Kurzweil, you consider evolution to be a pseudo-intelligent process (literally a 'blind watchmaker'). But that is beside the point.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:30 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 7:48 PM Doddy has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 159 of 314 (419628)
09-03-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
09-03-2007 7:48 PM


Re: a la Behe
Rob writes:
Evaporation and convection...
Intelligent forces?

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 7:48 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 10:13 PM Doddy has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 163 of 314 (419634)
09-03-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
09-03-2007 10:13 PM


Re: a la Behe
But you acknowledge, Rob, that convection and evaporation can get water to the top of a hill? Without an intelligent pump?
It addresses the thermodynamics example you brought up earlier, not life.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 10:13 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 10:52 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 167 by jar, posted 09-03-2007 10:56 PM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 191 of 314 (419785)
09-04-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rob
09-04-2007 10:06 AM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
Rob writes:
For example, can any living organism live without relying upon either fermentation, photosynthesis, or respiration to get it's supply of ATP?
None are fueled directly by any form of energy other than ATP.
Yes, but they've all grown up. Cells became dependant on nucleotide triphosphates because it makes things so easy. Just every business now depends on computers to function. It doesn't mean you can't have a functioning business without what now seems like a key element, but just that if you do, it won't be as big or productive as with computers. Which is why the little businesses without computers are either adopting it or dying. And that means we won't see business with abacuses and pen and paper. It's much the same with energy storage molecules - the evidence has been lost to natural selection.
Rob writes:
And how many thousnads of individual parts does just a simple prokaryotic cell membrane contain in it's 3 dimensional glory.
While I will concede that for anything to be called an organism, it must be separated from the environment by a membrane, the actual membrane is pretty simple. Phospholipids, like all surfactants, form layers, even bilayers, at certain concentrations in solution. They self-assemble. Likewise, a protein with many hydrophobic amino acids like glycine or leucine on one end will attach to the membrane. That sort of stuff is easy to stumble upon by accident, and what we see in living things today is just the evolved version of those accidents.
Rob writes:
No unwhole parts will do... just as my truck won't self assemble if I put all of the thousands of parts in the garage and wait. I need a mechanic. And my truck is crude and primitive technology compared to these systems
This analogy falls over, because macroscopic systems don't compare with microscopic ones. Your truck parts won't be floating around your garage, bumping into one another, but biological molecules will. If the truck parts that are fit together bump into one another, they won't usually stick without a bolt or rivet to stick them, but biological molecules fit together because of their intrinsic properties. No truck part has electrostatics and van der Waal forces to worry about, as those are tiny forces, but very real on the scale of biological molecules. In most ways, the truck is much harder to build than a biological system. In part, this is why I get so fed up with the IDists calling flagella 'outboard motors' and so forth, because an outboard motor is way harder to see self-assemble.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 10:06 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 12:20 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 198 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 1:40 AM Doddy has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 210 of 314 (419871)
09-05-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by molbiogirl
09-05-2007 3:08 AM


molbiogirl writes:
Adenosine IS adenine...
...with a ribose attached to it.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 3:08 AM molbiogirl 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