Seems, no one gets high...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No problems, I accept that...the universe/space/time did though evolve to what we know today. [A shame though you still ignore the substance of my claim] Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The usual Pot. kettle, Black hypocrisy syndrome we often see from the God botherers! C'mon q-reeus, you can do better then that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You to...and I have and already did...had a good one that is!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And what does that mean? You want high energy fusion or low energy combination? Before recombination, all of the electrons were free. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! After recombination, the electrons and protons formed atoms. http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/recombination.htm#: The beginning of evolutionary processes, culminating in Abiogenesis. See the list in Post #562 !
Scientists make many assumptions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and then proceed as if those reasonable assumptions are correct. We assume the homogenous and isotropic nature of the universe/space/time. Theories, like assumptions are taken as true, until something more encompassing and better descriptive comes along.
Question: "Recombination Era" IMO that is a complete misnomer. There was no hydrogen before the "Combination Era"! All of the hydrogen ? What hydrogen? "Recombination" suggests a prior existence of hydrogen, which is misleading. That should read after "combination" Therefore , no recombination, just combination, a non-trivial distinction re; Abiogenesis, or, for that matter; "irreducible complexity".............Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because it's irrelevant. Although, since it is also false (it rests on unsupported assumptions about the nature of the replicating entities involved, the location of the "filter", etc), if it didn't involve pages of extra typing to force the recognition of the earlier quick references to replicating clays and crystals and so forth, it could be handled fairly easily.
Feeling the itch, the need to shit stir again? You misinterpret my intent and focus, probably intentionally. And just lie. This article is useful as antidote: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwin-doubting/ Begin about half way down, where the topic changes from Darwinian evolution issues to prebiotic issues. The first two paras (but read all the rest): READ THE REST. Committed materialists like yourself will never allow any doubt about your mainstream fantasy of unguided appearance of cellular life from simple prebiotic chemicals, but at least you will be confronted with challenges to that fantasy.
OK, I am one of them. When was that Miller-Urey experiment? 70 years ago? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Racemic mixture Experiment In a 1996 interview, Stanley Miller recollected his lifelong experiments following his original work and stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[8] [/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment The M-U experiment involved 1 location, 3 basic simple compounds, 1 element, and 1 week of exposure on the beach. The result yielded five amino acids present in the solution: glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine were positively identified, while aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid (AABA) were less certain, due to the spots being faint, which proved to be more than 20 different amino acids, by later, more sophisticated analysis. Now, based on some obscure statements by some unknown researcher, you want to draw a conclusion that renders the entire hypothesis of abiogenesis false, from an opinion voiced about that single experiment, ignoring the fact that the entire earth is a laboratory, with an enormous wealth of available basic elements and simple compounds, over a time span of 3+ billion years of electrical bombardments and climate changes offering an enormous range of natural variable environmental conditions. How can anyone make any kind of comparison between a single artificially created experiment and 3+ billion years of planetary chemical activities which, according to Hazen, yielded some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion = 2 x 10^54 chemical reactions. Come on......you call that article a serious challenge to a mainstream scientific "fantasy"? You cannot be serious..........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! p.s. Your Discovery Institute is a not a Scientific Academy or publication, it's an advocate and propaganda machine for Intelligent Design . https://www.discovery.org/id/
The buffalo canters down to muddy the waters. Strange that you emphasize racemic mixtures re result of Miller-Urey experiment. That highlights the biological inefficacy of that experiment. And of numerous follow-on variants to this day. Oh and btw the starting assumption of Miller-Urey was a reducing atmosphere which is now known to be wrong. So in reality a double disaster for you and ilk. As for those 'huge' numbers re total numbers of chemical reactions on Earth over 3+ billion years, it's also doubly misleading. For starters, the time frame for first appearance of life is far less, but most relevantly, the implicit assumption that each reaction was 'a unique experiment' is hopelessly wrong. In fact, a relative handful of uniquely different reactions would simply repeat ad infinitum (absent ID). None of these correctives will stop True Believers like you from persisting in promoting your unworkable fantasy with as usual shouting text.
Are we talking about polymerization or the appearance of life? Wrong again. This was an exponential process. Expand your horizons! Let me repeat a previous quote; Glossary of chemical formulae. Just have a peek! This complements alternative listing at inorganic compounds by element. There is no complete list of chemical compounds since by nature the list would be infinite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chemical_formulae Oh, how you torture logic.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Believer ; Oxford Dictionary. I raised my voice in the hope you were hard of hearing, but I understand now that it is merely a refusal on your part to listen to logical reason in favor of an infantile "fantasy", which of course is the mark of a True Believer......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are (ignorantly) claiming an out of control chemical chain reaction! Link to any reputable article backing that absurd statement. What you carefully excluded from responding to is telling. I'm pretty sure you couldn't be bothered actually reading the article I linked to. Remain in ignorance of the real issues then.
The 'gaps' are in reality impassible chasms for your mainstream fantasy. I can bet you also are too lazy to read the article I posted. Remain comforted with the supposed wondrous abilities of blind Nature.
Clearly you do not understand the "exponential function". I would suggest you read prof. Albert Bartlett; Views on population growth Bartlett made statements relating to sustainability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett When I see that an article is written in a religious publication I stop reading. I prefer science magazines over Comic fiction, such as ; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of Pandas & People (School-level textbook promoting intelligent design) Wiki Of Pandas and People: A Brief Review The Fossil Record https://ncse.ngo/pandas-and-people-brief-review btw, who is Dr. Joseph Kuhn? A Bariatric surgeon, a Nephrologist, a Family Medicine Dr? Just cannot seem to find a reference to molecular biology in a person by that name.
For example? As far as I can tell: You posted a claim that the inability of "naked replicating entity" to filter enantiomers was significant. I quoted it. I then pointed out that the claim was both irrelevant (evolutionary sequences do not require "naked" replicating entities to filter enantiomers) and false (we see naked clays and crystals - as mentioned several times now - filtering enantiomers, and many proteins etc crystallize or form complex shapes that react much differently to different enantiomers). Where's the lie? The part you quoted was completely familiar, just as your earlier claims and quotes have been - part of a muddled and long debunked approach that still exists mainly to support a few Creationist charlatans in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. I'll just take your word, and your quotes, for it. Besides: Somebody who thinks the universal chirality of the genetic code (a solid and persuasive indication of common descent) is in itself evidence against Darwinian evolutionary development is hardly worth reading in depth - the first requirement of any argument against an evolutionary explanation is that the arguer has to understand Darwinian evolutionary theory. That's no fantasy of mine - where is this "mainstream"? Who's in it? Immaterialists like myself think that cellular life probably emerged over millions of years on a planet covered with trillions of very, very complex combinations of biotic chemicals, assemblages and interactions that met many of the requirements of "life". If you have to tell other people what they think in order to disparage it there's probably something wrong with your assumptions, no? - - - - That appears to be the actual foundation for every creationist argument - it's what all the bullshit "probability" calculations appear to have been invoked to support, what all this crap about "naked replicators" and some alleged problem with chirality breaks down to, and so forth.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Imppasible chasms???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But your omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing IDer, whoever he or she maybe is within your realism of possibility? Thank Christ though that the vast majority of educated reputable scientists agree with me.
No the misunderstanding is all yours. I realized you meant exponential growth, and applied to prebiotic world chemistry it's absurdly out of place. But you are too vain to concede.
You are ignorant then that peptide chains growing in a racemix mix of amino acids will themselves have racemic chirality precisely because chirality is unimportant for simple chain growth. There is no 'filtering' in such an environment. It is however vital for there to be homochirality in any biological setting. Inexplicable via blind Nature. Your clays are of no practical use in altering that. Point to a single instance in the literature where clays or other inorganic 'templates' have enabled homochiral long molecular chains. Which (nonexistent) feat would still be very very far from achieving cellular life. Since among many other things, such chains would be devoid of specified information which is at the heart of biological processes.
