Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
46 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,611 Year: 16,647/19,786 Month: 772/2,598 Week: 18/251 Day: 18/23 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7066
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 121 of 281 (675979)
10-18-2012 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2012 3:30 AM


Re: Counterpoint The Surrealism Of The Underlying Metaphor
Here, borrow one of mine...


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 122 of 281 (675983)
10-18-2012 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 4:31 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Your guess is that it was abiogenesis. Fine. Mine is that it was pre-existing life arriving on rocks and comets. Face it, your guess is as good as mine.

So you beleive panspermia is the best option for where life on Earth originated from.

Why could you not have just stated that clearly many, many long winded, meandering, self absorbed, meaningless post ago?

I would have said 'fair enough'.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 4:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 7:28 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 123 of 281 (675994)
10-18-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 11:00 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Hi Alfred,

If you think something Shapiro has to say is relevant to the thread's actual topic then go ahead and tell us about it.

The rest of your post pretty clearly has nothing to do with the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 11:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 124 of 281 (676009)
10-18-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 5:18 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
That they were putting out oxygen is no indication of a much greater simplicity you postulate.

The lack of any complex multicellular organisms does indicate greater simplicity. Also, the presence of oxygen and the lack of fossils also demonstrates that life can exist without a direct fossil record.

It is actually only an indication of presence.

You did contest it, mockingly calling them "ghosts".

We are not talking about how modern species came together. The topic is the first ones to appear on earth and the relative complexity of their bits and pieces.

So what was the complexity of the first life? Did it have a ribonuclease protein like that described in the opening post? If we are not talking about how modern species came together then why are people using proteins from modern species to calcuate the odds of abiogenesis? Why are people using the complexity of modern organisms to argue against abiogenesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 5:18 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 5:47 PM Taq has responded
 Message 142 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 12:51 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 125 of 281 (676011)
10-18-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 9:19 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I am not saying that those who believe that life on earth originated through abiogenesis should stop doing their research in that direction. It's just that I see the insistence that this must have been the case by all means to be very foolish and hardly scientific.

I don't really see how abiogenesis research is limited to Earth. If panspermia is true then life originated somewhere through processes that would have been the same as those on Earth, or the same as on meteors/comets in our own solar system. The field of abiogenesis is really only trying to find possible routes of how life could originate, not how life could originate on Earth and Earth only.

I don't think it is that much of a stretch to suppose that life could have originated on an Earth-like planet elsewhere. Water makes an obvious medium in which abiogenesis would occur. Heat would make a very good source of energy to drive thermodynamically unfavorable reactions. Rocks and soils make for very good solid substrates for catalyzing reactions and collecting those products. So studying how life could originate on Earth is also a study on how life could originate on any Earth-like planet.

But most of all, this is not inert matter. Far from it. This is reactive matter. It chemically combines and recombines to create new and interesting molecules. Time and again you use very poor descripters of what you are talking about. You describe organisms who die as death avoiding machines. You describe reactive matter as inert matter. Why is that?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 9:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 1:36 AM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 126 of 281 (676061)
10-18-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taq
10-18-2012 11:11 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Whatever is the case none of it is any indication that the first proteins belonged to systems any simpler than a modern virus and its bacterial host. There is a bottom limit to living complexity. It has to be no simpler than what allows it to remember itself. What is exactly the simplest possible chemical and mechanical configuration that is that limit?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 10-18-2012 11:11 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 6:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 10-18-2012 6:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 281 (676062)
10-18-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 5:47 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
What is exactly the simplest possible chemical and mechanical configuration that is that limit?

Perhaps you could answer that question.

Oh, wait, no you can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 5:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-19-2012 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 128 of 281 (676063)
10-18-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 5:47 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
What is exactly the simplest possible chemical and mechanical configuration that is that limit?

No one knows, which is why every creationist attempt to calculate the probability of abiogenesis is a steaming pile of bullshit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 5:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 129 of 281 (676064)
10-18-2012 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 11:00 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I'll find the exact words of Kelvin or Helmholtz and then I'll post them.

But why would you bother? Has there not been about 105 years' worth of scientific investigation, including that into things like relativity, in the time that both of those gents have been in the grave?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 11:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 8:03 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 130 of 281 (676065)
10-18-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Coragyps
10-18-2012 6:28 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Sorry, Gyps, you might not be aware of that but in the meantime the relativity has been high-jacked by the bigbangism that restored back the naive idea of the universal calendar and is creationist geocentrism in disguise. So Kelvin's ideas may be far more advanced and reasonable in comparison to this pre-Copernican concept which is currently the monopoly consensus-nonsensus view in cosmology. The view is highly pernicious to science in general since it puts constraints on other disciplines such as biology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 10-18-2012 6:28 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 9:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 281 (676067)
10-18-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 8:03 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Sorry, Gyps, you might not be aware of that but in the meantime the relativity has been high-jacked by the bigbangism that restored back the naive idea of the universal calendar and is creationist geocentrism in disguise.

This may possibly be the stupidest single sentence ever written.

Should we congratulate you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 8:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 9:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 132 of 281 (676068)
10-18-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2012 9:05 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Inadequate, let's face it. Ascribing an age to the existence as a whole is a silly fallacy. Minkowski and Einstein did not dream of committing such a stupid mistake. You, on the other hand, defend in a public forum the category error the bigbangism is founded upon. So who looks stupid, you or I? Why do you do that? You are a university prof or something and since all other profs around you do the same, you just can't do otherwise. Simple. Take the mirror and face it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 10:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 10-19-2012 11:06 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 133 of 281 (676072)
10-18-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 9:45 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
AM writes:

So who looks stupid, you or I?


It is definitely you.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 9:45 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-19-2012 12:29 AM Panda has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 134 of 281 (676077)
10-19-2012 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
10-18-2012 10:27 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Panda's Thumby, bare assertions little impress the feline. Unless you want to join the dumb club you need to explain to the moggy what is so intelligent about attributing age to time and the universe. Come on, give it a try at least. What is the age of time is an idiotic question.. It is asking what is the length of a ruler. 13.7 billion years is a stupid answer to that stupid question. Not any science or philosophy. You do not have to be Einstein to understand that.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 10:27 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Panda, posted 10-19-2012 6:03 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 10-19-2012 8:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 135 of 281 (676084)
10-19-2012 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-19-2012 12:29 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
AM writes:

Unless you want to join the dumb club...


I do not want to join your club.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-19-2012 12:29 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-19-2012 6:59 AM Panda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019