Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 137 of 216 (423156)
09-19-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Back to self-replication then ...
Nuclear fission can follow natural processes
Change that from "can" to "does" and you'd be right.
Nuclear bombs only exploit that ability
Didn't I already tell you to be careful with your word choice? Nuclear fusion is a one of the bomb types, and we find that in stars (and look at the energy released in there. Be specific and say "nuclear fission bombs".
As to nuclear bombs not being natural, read this:
All fissionable and fissile isotopes undergo a small amount of spontaneous fission which releases a few free neutrons into any sample of nuclear fuel. Such neutrons would escape rapidly from the fuel and become a free neutron, with a half-life of about 15 minutes before they decayed to protons and beta particles. However, neutrons almost invariably impact and are absorbed by other nuclei in the vicinity long before this happens (newly-created fission neutrons are moving at about 7% of the speed of light, and even moderated neutrons are moving at about 8 times the speed of sound). Some neutrons will impact fuel nuclei and induce further fissions, releasing yet more neutrons. If enough nuclear fuel is assembled into one place, or if the escaping neutrons are sufficiently contained, then these freshly generated neutrons outnumber the neutrons that escape from the assembly, and a sustained nuclear chain reaction will take place.
A nuclear fission bomb is a bomb that uses a sustained nuclear chain reaction.
The only reason Oklo didn't meltdown is because the neutron moderator (water, in this case) would boil away, slowing down the reaction. But it was, too, a sustained nuclear chain reaction.
Nuclear bombs (both fission and fusion) are natural.
they are not however the result of natural processes.
Actually, they are. All you have to argue against this is personal incredulity. And a tired argument of "well, it was originally directed by us, so it can't be natural!!"
The only difference is that in the rock analogy we put the rock on top of the cliff. But a rock can fall on its own. So how is one not natural and the other is if the outcome is the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 138 of 216 (423157)
09-19-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:18 PM


Re: Good science
satellites do not exist in nature.
Um, oookay. I guess the earth, or the moon, or venus, or any of the other planets and their respective moons don't exist.
I also suppose this means that GPS satellites don't exist.
Because they do exist in nature.
What you should have said (since this would at least follow your tradional argument) is that those things are not natural. But you'd still be wrong, because the planets and the moons are natural. A satellite is simply something that orbits something else.
Glad to see you're finally careful with the word "nuclear fission bomb" (as opposed to simply "nuclear bomb").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:18 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 147 of 216 (423169)
09-20-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
09-20-2007 12:22 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Hot Hcl systhesis is not only high in pH
That would actually make it very basic.
Hydrochloric acid has a very low pH. It all depends on the concentration and what else is mixed though. Your stomach has a pH of 2, roughly.
A 10% concentration of HCl has a pH of -.5
That would make it at least 100 times stronger than what's in your stomach. (pH is a logarithmic scale, where each shift of one point is equal to ten times (or ten times less) the previous. So a pH of 6 is ten times more acidic than a pH of 7, while a pH of 8 is ten times less acidic (or ten times more basic) than a pH of 7.
Hydrochloric acid - Wikipedia
I have to do some digging to see if there are some more errors here (I'm thinking some possibility exists in you describing their solution as 95% formic acid, given that such a solution would be classified as an R35--capable of causing sever burns. Something with a pH of 8 would not cause severe burns).
ABE: your average sea water has a pH of 7.7-8.3. Hand soap has around 9.0 to 10. Can these materials really cause severe burns?
ABE2:
yeah, there is an error in your statement that they are using a "95% solution of formic acid". They used one mL of 95% formic acid solution. So they got a pH of 8, that is not even acidic--that's basic.
So here's the final problem, since I can't follow your line of reason (and it's probably this problem that is causing this).
You state in message 134:
higher acidity, faster hydrolysis and higher decomposition
you follow that up with
but the only problem is that it takes a great deal of time to hydrolyze adenine at a lower pH
in message 143.
A low pH is something with higher acidity. So you say high acidity leads to faster hyrdolisis of adenine but then you say that high acidity leads to slower hydrolosis of adenine.
So just what is your argument?
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:22 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:55 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 150 of 216 (423174)
09-20-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rob
09-20-2007 12:55 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Low concentration, low pH
Uh, no. Higher concentration of an acid in a solution, the lower the pH.
Look at the pH chart for different concentrations of HCl.
Hydrochloric acid - Wikipedia
Notice the HCl concentration of 38%. It has a pH of -1.1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:55 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 1:11 AM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 151 of 216 (423175)
09-20-2007 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rob
09-20-2007 12:58 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Um, try actually reading the article.
Here's what they say:
quote:
We have also investigated the hydrolysis of the supernatant at pH 8, which is a more reasonable model of primitive oceanic conditions, and found that the adenine yield is comparable to that obtained with acid hydrolysis (approximately 0.1%).
This means that they did a hydrolosis at pH 8 for adenine, and the adenine yield (how much they got) at this pH was comparable to the amount of adenine they got when performing the hydrolosis with an acid solution of .1%.
So no, it does not take a 95% formic acid solution to hyrdolize adenine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 12:58 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 1:16 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 154 of 216 (423182)
09-20-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Rob
09-20-2007 1:16 AM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Does the part where they state that a pH of 8 yielded a comparable amount of adenine to the higher acidic solution they were using confuse you?
That is, they state:
pH of 8 = comparable yield
lower pH (higher acidity) = ~ 0.1% yield
You're right with the the percentage being yield instead of acid concentration.
Also, the abstract states that shorter hydrolytic periods give higher yields of adenine (less time for adenine to be degraded) if done with a solution that has high acidity (such as with 6 N HCl).
With a pH of 8, longer hydrolytic periods do not appreciably decrease the yield because adenine is more stable.
In that sense you may be right. However, cut down the period of hydrolosis (in a solution with high pH, of course) and you can get higher yields than either the solution of ph 8 or the short period of hydrolosis.
By the way, if you're going to quote my single misspelling, at least misspell it properly. I typed "hyrdolize", not "hyrdrolize".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Rob, posted 09-20-2007 1:16 AM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 157 of 216 (423294)
09-21-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rob
09-21-2007 2:11 AM


Re: Problems with Murchison extractions...
How long was the sample exposed to the very low pH level associated with a 95% solution concentration of formic acid, while it was mixed, sealed, and before being placed in the heating block?
Can you not read? Once they put the extract in the test tube and sealed it it went straight into the incubator. By the way, there was no mixing.
they leave out the fact, that adenine synthesis is independant of temperatures between -80C and 100C
More reading comprehension problems. Tell me, is 100C the same as between -80C and 100C? No, it's not. 100C is just outside that range. The key word here is between. This means that yield of adenine is independent of tempurate when T is -79 to 99 degrees centigrade. So far, no problem. {ABE: actually, there is a problem. See following post by Percy explaining the difference between HCN and NH4CN /ABE}
Your next statement is a little odd.
The amount of time in question here{of placing the mixture in the test tube, sealing it, and placing it in the incubator}, must be known, if the results are to be thoroughly peer reveiwed.
It is known. As soon as the sample was prepared, it was placed into the incubator. Now then, since time of hydrolosis and pH are the only variables at this stage (before being placed into the incubator), and given that we know that short periods of hydrolosis actually increase the yield, what else could the result be but a potentially higher yield of adenine (though this would be very slight, if at all, due to the lack of time from when the mixture was prepared to when it was placed in an incubator. I'd say 2 minutes max, probably less to put all the pieces together).
By the way, you're quoting the wrong study by Miller. What you have is something from 99. This is the study my Miller that they cite:
Just a moment...
Just a moment... (pdf full text)
Or does it take a truck driver with a high school education, to do a thorough and objective job of moderating the work of men with 'doctorates'?
And that's your problem. Rob--this stuff is mostly above my head. I've had more education on this that you have. I can get a hell of a lot more education if I really wanted to. So what makes you think that you can really challenge these people? How can you be sure you aren't screwing things up? And you have, remember? Like when you said a high pH was an acid, or that high concentrations lead to high pH levels (or something similar), or like when you claimed satellites don't exist in nature (which would remove the earth and the moon from existence, and yet here they are). Just in this post you have several mistakes--you quote the wrong source (though you have the right paper later on, oddly enough), and you claim the sample was mixed, when there is nothing in that paper to suggest they were mixed.
Was this paper peer reviewed?
Any review you do wouldn't qualify as peer review. Review, yes, peer, no.
I'll leave the rest of this (and more of the same, no doubt) to RAZD.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 09-21-2007 2:11 AM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 209 of 216 (423954)
09-24-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Rob
09-24-2007 9:08 PM


Re: The acid test.
doh! you did it again:
I was never arguing for pure empiricism or pure rationalism. I was always making the case that they must be combined if truth is to be found.
I have always invoked rationalism as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a rational basis.
Do you see that you are still using rationalism and its derivatives incorrectly?
You argue that you aren't using rational(ism) in the sense of the philosophy. Only in the sense of philosophy (or logic, depending on your need at the time).
Then you state that you were never arguing for a pure version of empiricism or rationalism.
Then you quote yourself making the argument that the two must be combined. But its clear that you are using rationalism in the sense of the philosophy for one reason. You are arguing for the combination of the two. Since empiricism already has a rational (that is, logical, not the Rationalism of Descartes) basis, that leaves only one other option--that you are using rationalism to mean Rationalism, the philosophy of Descartes.
Thus you are equivocating in the paragraph quoted.
Thus you are positing a contradiction--that the philosophy of apriori and aposteriori knowledge should be combined when they are largely exclusive. If you have one stating that knowledge is gained solely through reasoning (a priori) and one stating that knowledge is gained solely through experience (a posteriori) you cannot combine the two. You must leave out crucial elements of these philosophies in order to combine them. At which point, you should stop using the labels "empiricism" and "Rationalism" because they no longer are such.
And a hint--if you are arguing that empiricism must be combined with logic, well, guess what? Logic has been at the basis of empiricism since the beginning. Try reading Locke's treatises and tell me how they are not logical. Then move on to Berkeley. And next, that guy you so love to quote and hate, Hume. You'll note that all use logic. The point is that logic is a part of empiricism and has been since Locke (at least).
Javaman never invoked Rationalism as a substitute for philosophy. He invoked Rationalism as the Rationalist Philosophy of Descartes. He makes that clear.
Empiricism is a philosophy.
Rationalism is a philosophy.
rational(ism) is not a philosophy.
We see the words coming out of your fingers--a bunch of nonsensical sentences confusing the meanings of rationalism and Rationalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 9:08 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 11:09 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 211 of 216 (423960)
09-24-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rob
09-24-2007 11:09 PM


Re: The non debate...
Here's the problem with your use of rationalism, which you just can't seem to get.
When you juxtapose it to empiricism, it can only mean the philosophy of Rationalism. Do you see why?
So if you are arguing correctly, this means you'd be arguing that logic and empiricism must be combined--which, as I stated, it has been since the start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 11:09 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 12:16 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 213 of 216 (423968)
09-25-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
09-25-2007 12:16 AM


Re: The non debate...
Thend do you mind answering one final point?
Javaman claims you are a Rationalist, and clearly defines what a Rationalist is.
In your response, you agree to be a rationalist and that science is (or at least, should be).
Do you see the equivocation and/or the contradiction? Further, do you realize the non-sensical statement that results if we replace the words with what you meant?
Does it become:
I have always invoked rationalism as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a {philosophical} basis.
or:
I have always invoked {philosophy} as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a {philosophical} basis.
If it is the latter, do you see that you never answered Java's claim that you are, indeed, a Rationalist? After all, a Rationalist is just as much a philosopher as an Empiricist is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 12:16 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 10:12 AM kuresu 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