--Thought I would reply to this bit that caught my eye, by the way, did you write all of that, or is it an outside article?
"It was concluded in the 1960s that the earth's primitive atmosphere was derived from volcanic outgassing, and consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. With most of the hydrogen being lost to space, there would be nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, so methane and ammonia could not have been major constituents of the early atmosphere." --I found it as a bit of a 'possible', inconsistancy with the process of geologic and volcanic cycles within marine geology. Knowing this cycle, gases being volatiles are I believe produced as a consequence of subduction, a basic plate-tectonic phenomenon. Being of such an origin, I would wonder what came first, the atmosphere, or the oceans? Seeing that this process is what it seems is required for an atmosphere to be created, thereby requireing an ocean. Or am I wrong on gases in the earths asthenospheric mantle. Also, if this is the process that is required for gases to be an origination from volcano's, the genesis of the earth itself in the Solar system's evolution may be flawed. That is, the theory that the Earth was once a molten mass. If the earth ever was a liquid molten mass, gasses would easilly escape out of the earth, viscosity being of a much higher magnitude. Anyways, this is just a thought.
Hey no problem, but in all truth, I guess I was refering to your quote along with Quetzal's entire article, its very extensive for a single post I would think so my suspition was arroused. I think I bring up a valid point for discussion, though who am I to know as if it is entirely valid myself, being the producer of its question. Its just one of those many many questions I think of when I read textbooks on the subject that seem to have niches in them along the way with theoretical implications of a various explination in terms of the old earth. Also in the same order, it is analogous to say that when reading something in that nature I find that new information entirely supportive of the YEC view.
"An autocatalytic cycle......" --Well ofcourse it had to have been an autocatalytic reactive. Meiosis and mitosis are simply chemical reactions replicating the cell, though with a pre-designed direct influence. Its quite easy to say the basic mechenism, its another thing to explain how this mechenism contributes to a probable event. Abiogenesis isn't as simple as photosynthesis for instance being a cyclic continuum (even though photosynthesis is in still vastly complex).
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-27-2002]
"Try this in 1861 Butlerov described the formose reaction in which a solution of sugars and formaldehyde formed more sugars...." --formaldehyde is the most primative aldehyde, also, I think that it takes a bit more than sugars to get life started off, you must end up with enough cyclic reations to take place in an alotted time before your moledules tend to dissipate. You must have a phase in which there is replication, thus an evolutionary process.
"Given that one of the problems with the primordial soup theory is the low ammounts of ribose sugar formed in the Urey-Miller experiments and given that formaldehyde was produced in large quantities in those experiments this would allow an autocatalytic cycle that would bring the concentration up to the required levels....." --Required levels for what, whats the next reaction? Also we should take into account the defectives in Millers experiment.
":Isen't it kinda like saying that a few cancer cells prove that people use to live 900 years and one lion eating vegetation means that the whole cat kind used to live on this diet?" --The problem with your analogetic phrase (besides it being greatly inaccuratly examined), is that I have something to work with, a 'single' mutation for that matter, you dont' even have a mutational effect untill you get your series of nucleotide chains to connect, have the ability to replicate and go through a process of transcription and translation. I think that if you would like to deal with a principal of probability, you've trapped yourself in a corner, and I think I know what the probability favors.
"The formose reaction is an indication of the POSSIBILITY of Abiogenesis...Since when do you have a problem with POSSIBLE theories...or are they only good when they serve YOUR side of the equation?" --Who ever said it wasn't possible? What you have to do is show it as probable, as I have with my 900 year life-spans, and a great variability in a supposed strict carniverous species. I hope you can grasp those probabilities at least. I would have to calculate the probability of abiogenesis happening to the degree that is needed, ie, replication by transcription, not to mention all the 'cyclic reactions' needed in the life-time to construct a multe-macro-molecule with this ability within a suitable environment. 10^60,000+ is my best estimate, but hey, if you had eternity to work with I might reduce it to 10^90.
"LUD:I'm not saying that the formose reaction solves anything here. I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be bothered only by question of probabilities and improbabilities when they are aplied to arguments directed AGAINST YEC. I for one do consider the theory of ID to have some merits,mainly because it does not contradict evolution in any way and does not support YEC nonsense" --Would you say ID and IC are the same, or in what way do they correlate?