Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 234 of 314 (420013)
09-05-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by jar
09-05-2007 10:12 PM


Re: On how it is done.
jar:
If there is a natural method that explains what is seen, then that is accepted. Otherwise it goes into the unknown folder.
But it doesn't explain what is seen...
I explains what is not seen...
Hence the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 09-05-2007 10:12 PM jar has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 235 of 314 (420014)
09-05-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Chiroptera
09-05-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCI
Chiroptera:
He's moved. This was supposed to be, "See? It's impossible!"
Now it's, "But it's only theoretically possible!" Which still prevents the Argument from Incredulity from even getting off the ground.
Actually it is only a rewriting of the intial OP question:
What evidence is there that raw energy is able to catalyze biological processes?
Is evidence neccessary for credulity?
I think so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Chiroptera, posted 09-05-2007 10:06 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:20 PM Rob has replied
 Message 247 by Chiroptera, posted 09-05-2007 10:55 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 238 of 314 (420018)
09-05-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by kuresu
09-05-2007 10:20 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCI
Kuresu:
you've been given the evidence.
Theory is not evidence Kuresu. Theory is the theroy that you must cohere with the evidence to = emperical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:20 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:31 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 240 of 314 (420020)
09-05-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by kuresu
09-05-2007 10:02 PM


Re: Behe's Balderdash II
Kuresu:
We can't directly observe the past. But we can recreate it to the best of our knowledge. Why isn't this good enough?
Because you have no evidence... it's all hoelessly metaphysical.
So will you now answer mine?
Why do you assume that there were prebiotic organisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:02 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:28 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 243 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 10:32 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 245 of 314 (420025)
09-05-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by molbiogirl
09-05-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Evidence, Comin' Right Up!
Thermophiles:
Here's what I said in the OP:
Molbiogirl and Doddy were both suggesting (presupposing) that biological function had a precursor to fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. But there is no such precursor found in the fossil record or anywhere else that I am aware of.
They and Matt P, had been referring to self replicating enzymes that rely on these systems of energy conversion and other cell processes for which they exist, and are therefore not self replicating. I made the point to molbiogirl that they are not self anything...
In message 190 you were talking about thermosynthesis, i.e. free energy gain from thermal cycling. Now that I'd like to see.
Now you're being revisionist, and invoking respiration that is still ATP dependant, and also in need of andenine for it's usual biological DNA and catalyitic functions?
Slow down... you always latch on to a response too soon. First it was self replicating DNA, and then it was viruses, then adenine was adenosine, and now this?
Stop smoking those prebiotic chemicals.
As I said to jar ealier... who cares what the source of energy is?
Your example is hardly prebiotic. But it is the best example as far as biological life goes, since it is the simplest.
You know, I really want to express my love for you guys, and that of the truth, but you've forced me to be quite adament. You're not very nice...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 10:25 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:04 PM Rob has replied
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:19 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 246 of 314 (420026)
09-05-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by kuresu
09-05-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCI
Kuresu:
You do realize that all those articles that have been cited aren't theories?
Yes, absolutely...
They are real research... done on real theories. But not real evidence. And the research done cannot itself be the evidence.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:31 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 11:04 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 250 of 314 (420031)
09-05-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by molbiogirl
09-05-2007 11:04 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCIII
Molbiogirl:
Dear. Anaerobic sulphate reduction is not respiration.
Oh dear... now what'l I do?
Many of the hyperthermophiles Archea require elemental sulfur for growth. Some are anaerobes that use the sulfur as an electron acceptor during respiration instead of oxygen.
( Thermophile - Wikipedia )
Cell respiration is a process that arose early in the evolution of life. The first cells that experienced respiration lived in an environment void of oxygen. Some of these first organisms were called thermophiles
( Yahoo )
Molbiogirl... is your Phd in molecular biology? Or do you even have one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by anglagard, posted 09-05-2007 11:26 PM Rob has replied
 Message 256 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:30 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 251 of 314 (420032)
09-05-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by kuresu
09-05-2007 11:04 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCI
Rob:
And the research done cannot itself be the evidence
Kuresu: Why?
Because I could do researrch on how the pink unicorn created the universe and call it evidence. And lo and behold... I could make it internally coherent too!
They would buy it by the millions....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 11:04 PM kuresu has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 253 of 314 (420034)
09-05-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by molbiogirl
09-05-2007 11:19 PM


Molbiogirl:
Starting to get the picture, precious?
I saw it a long time ago...
Let me know when it's more than a model (ie. when you actually have the picture).
But there's no doubt you're a believer!
You look at proposals as though they are evidence!
ps. I didn't bother to highlight the relevant words like proposed and such...
...and don't call me precious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:19 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 255 of 314 (420036)
09-05-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by anglagard
09-05-2007 11:26 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCIII
Never claimed to have one...
I admitted a long time ago that I am a truck driver; 37yrs old, 3 kids, married, high school degree (from a continuation school), 10th grade biology was as far as I went.
Never cared much for school. Always got the impression they thought they knew more than they actually do...
I've moderated that attitude some. I found that there are some people who actually tell the truth. So I joined!
You gotta point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by anglagard, posted 09-05-2007 11:26 PM anglagard has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 257 of 314 (420038)
09-05-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by molbiogirl
09-05-2007 11:30 PM


Re: That's Dr. Molbiogirl To You
Perhpas this would be a good time for some of you to actually look at evidence.
Proven evidence!
Just click the play button on the guy writing on the chaulkboard: Abiogenesis
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 11:30 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by molbiogirl, posted 09-06-2007 12:24 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 258 of 314 (420039)
09-05-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by kuresu
09-05-2007 11:04 PM


metaphysical...
Richard Lewontin (b. 1929) PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything.
( “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181 )
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
( Lewontin "Billions and Billions of Demons" )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 11:04 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 11:50 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 261 of 314 (420045)
09-06-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by jar
09-05-2007 11:56 PM


Re: metaphysical...
jar:
He also has been shown that those quotes were pulled out of context and misapplied.
What a bunch of crap!
http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
I read your little link: Quote: Richard Lewontin ) and lewontin said nothing about those quotes.
If you and Kuresu want to pander to the mods for action, at least be honest about it. It has to do with some Jehovah's Witness...
The quotes I gave are quite relevant considering that lewontin is a staunch believer in evolution. At least he is honest about why... Or should I say, that he understands why?
Now put up or shut up!
Do you guys believe in abiogenesis (chemical evolution) or not?
There's certainly no evidence of any prebiotic organisms...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 09-05-2007 11:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 09-06-2007 12:21 AM Rob has replied
 Message 265 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2007 12:26 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 263 of 314 (420047)
09-06-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by kuresu
09-05-2007 11:50 PM


Re: metaphysical...
Kuresu:
Your point?
That someone disagrees? Wow, there's always somebody who disagrees.
Now then, what the hell does this have to do with the topic, which I believe you made about how "raw" energy can catalyze biological reactions?
Even in your own thread you can't stay on topic. Amazing.
It has everything to do with it...
What raw energy that can catalyze biological reactions?
As lewontin said, it is hopelessly metaphysical...
And he's an evolutionist!
At least he's honest Kuresu... and not following his faith blindly!
Think...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 11:50 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2007 12:30 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 266 of 314 (420050)
09-06-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by jar
09-06-2007 12:21 AM


Re: metaphysical...
jar:
If there are natural explanations we go with them. If we have no explanation it goes into the unknown folder.
Natural explanations of what jar? What evidence do you have of abiogenesis that can be explaned naturally since before you can explain it, you must show it!
jar:
Metaphysics and Supernatural are irrelevant, unimportant and have NOTHING to do with the topic.
What?
That's what abiogenesis is; metaphysical, as Lewontin said...
jar:
No I do not believe in either abiogenesis or chemical evolution. The evidence is absolute that abiogenesis happened.
Need I say a word?
Unfortunately yes!
What evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 09-06-2007 12:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 09-06-2007 12:33 AM Rob has replied
 Message 270 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2007 12:38 AM Rob has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024