Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I was simply stating that ID proponents argue that way. You do not share that view.
You say that science supports your view, they say it supports their view also.
Fight it out among yourselves, it has nothing to do with me.
May I suggest you read what I have said and not attribute statements to me I have not made.
I am not writing any paper nor have I requested any suggestions.
I find the wikipedia defination of design quite adequate.
As to why the genome is not a designer— well because it is the product of design that is intended to accomplish certain goals.
If you wish to believe the genome designed itself, then go ahead and believe it.
I don’t know, why are you?
Once again may I remind you to attribute my statements to me, not those of someone else. May I suggest you check my postings more carefully so that you understand more clearly what I am actually writing and therefore not confuse me with anyone else.
Am I to understand that Matrix/DNA Theory is one that you have developed?
If it is then try and get it peer reviewed and published so that you may add credibility to your work.
Btw the quotes you have attributed to me are from by chilipanda » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:35 pm
Well well!!, now you have got me doing your homework for you.
In the beginning …
So begins the account in Genesis.( I will return to this later)
There is also another “In the beginning..” narrative
So goes the account in EARTH SCIENCE The Story of O2 Richard A. Kerr June 2005
What does chemistry tell us?
We have rocks, made up of granite. Granite consists of different amounts of Quartz (SiO2) Feldspar of which there are three kinds (KAlSi2O2, CaAlSi2O2, and NaAl2Si2O2), and Mica (every Mica molecule contains 12 Oxygen atoms (O2).
Limestone and Marble contain copious amounts of oxygen atoms as well.
So there is plenty of oxygen atoms in rocks.
Water contains oxygen (H2O)
Now stellar evolution tells us that accretion was the process that formed the Galaxies Stars and planets. The process consists of the collision of microscopic dust (the elements) and then sticking together. Let’s assume this is correct.
So the hypothesis is that all these, rich in Oxygen compounds, formed the rocks and water but without a remainder O2 for the atmosphere.
What is the physics or chemistry that can confirm this? There is none.
So why is it so emphatically stated that the early earth had no oxygen?
Is there a reason?
Why yes but it’s not a scientific one.
Oxygen cannot be in the atmosphere because if it were amino acids for instance could not form. Therefore no peptide chains. If there were none of these molecules then we don’t have proteins, therefore no robosomes etc etc.
In other words life could not begin. (the other assumption of course, is that life is simply a coming together of biological molecules in a certain way.)
So an atmosphere devoid of oxygen has to be a given, in order for life to get
There is no science behind this concept of no initial oxygen in the atmosphere, just speculation because of a philosophy. May I repeat.
This “given” is a philosophical view and has nothing to do with science.
Of course this “given” piles on even more philosophy.
For the account then goes on. “.. and life arose from nonlife”. ( just like that!!! as a famous comedian would announce when comically doing his magic tricks)
However, there is more to this tale, because today the atmosphere contains about 21% oxygen.
If there was no oxygen to begin with where then did all the oxygen come from?
"In the satellite (Europe) is present thin atmosphere composed mainly of oxygen."
- And where there is oxygenation? It is also possible on Earth as it formed, as on Europe:
"The limited surface of the atmosphere is formed by radiolysis (the decomposition of molecules by radiation) . Solar ultraviolet radiation and charged particles (ions and electrons) from the face of Jupiter's magnetosphere with the icy surface of Europa, splitting water into its components - hydrogen and oxygen. These chemical components are adsorbed and then "sprayed" into the atmosphere. Further components under the influence of the same radiation leaving the surface, and the balance of these two processes form the atmosphere . Molecular oxygen - the most dense component of the atmosphere, because it has a long period of life after return to the surface it does not settle (frozen), a molecule of water or hydrogen peroxide, but, rather, again knocked out by radiation from the surface. Molecular hydrogen is never settles on the surface, leaving it as it is light enough and at such a low gravity disappears in space  . "
Thanks Leopol, however, how does this apply to earth?
Without any more boring details of chemistry, the current consensus is that photosynthesis, initially from cyanobacteria produced the oxygen.
Now it takes one CO2 molecule (Carbon Dioxide) to produce one carbon atom and one O2 (oxygen gas) molecule.
So if there is 21% oxygen in the atmosphere now then there must have been 21% Carbon dioxide in the early earth atmosphere.
The current carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 388.5 parts per million which 0.0388%.
It has been calculated that prior to the industrial revolution, around 1750 CE, the atmospheric concentration was 280 parts per million, ie 0.0337%.
So the rise in CO2 concentration over this period amounts to 0.0051% and this rise in concentration is causing immense concern by many Climatologists, over it’s effect to life on this planet.
What effect therefore would an atmosphere containing 21% CO2 have on life, let alone getting it started.
The planet Venus has an atmosphere rich in CO2. Go here to examine it’s effects.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl ... earth.html
Here is what it says
So is all this hype about an early earth atmosphere being devoid of oxygen really based on science, or are these musings ( I am trying to be polite here) simply the result of a pre conceived philosophy of abiogenesis.
The conditions that actually would destroy life are the same conditions that got life started. Does that really make any sense?
When life began the atmosphere of the earth was essentially no different than it is today.
Is this view scientifically plausible or implausible?
Here is my theory. It is just a theory, but I think it makes some valid points:
http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/201 ... gin-birth/
Initially, the Earth as a planet and all, had a higher hydrogen atmosphere with small amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon. Then there was the dissipation of solar wind hydrogen. Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon remained, and the hydrogen is moved farther - to the giant planets, which gradually adsorbed. Venus has an obvious deficiency of hydrogen, so there is nothing to do water ocean! But on Jupiter's moon - Europe - more water than all the oceans of the Earth!
Your speciality appears to be random ramblings.
My advice would be to stick to what your good at, not that you have to follow it.
However if you do then less ignorance of science would be displayed.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, as you seem to be making the same point that the lecture I referred to makes.
The lecture concludes with this point.
My point is that questions 2 and 3 that relate to the earth, are not being adequately addressed by evolutionary theorists.
Accretion theory that you and the lecture clearly are referring cannot answer these questions, therefore the answer must lay elsewhere.
The view that photosynthesis (mainly from cyanobacteria) was the answer lacks scientific credibility simply because the amount of CO2 that would have been required to generate the oxygen we have in the atmosphere would have prevented life from even getting started. That then raises the question as to how the cyanobacteria even got started?
There is also another problem with this idea of photosynthesis.
Recall the increase in concentration of 0.0051% in CO2 since about 1750.
This is telling us that all the photosynthesis currently occurring today has not been able to absorb just this small percentage of CO2.
How much vegetation can we imagine would have been required to absorb all the 21% CO2?
This whole idea is fundamentally flawed.
All this goes to buttress my argument that an outside agency was involved.
That is why the genesis narrative (without all the bells and whistles that creationists attach to it) makes sense.
There are none of these chicken and egg situations we continually find in materialist explanations.
Well water - hydrogen and oxygen, and, two moles of hydrogen per mole of oxygen. With Venus hydrogen dissipated due to the solar wind, so the oxygen contacted with carbon. The result was the CO2 and CO.
The theory of accretion, I do not like. I believe that all the planets, stars, the so-called "Main Sequence" - were released in the form of fragments from the end sleeves Central galaxy's hyper-astroid. It's such a huge Laplace-black-star in the center of galaxy, weight - how many millions of solar masses. From two opposite-facing spindle-shaped elevations on the equator of the object under the influence of centrifugal forces are constantly torn plume material, which is fragmented into pieces of various sizes, with the Coriolis force, give them the time of rotation. Since are formed spiral arms of galaxy.
Oxygen was first associated with the whole hydrogen due to an excess of hydrogen. But after the dissipation of most of the hydrogen started radiolysis of water in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen remained, and hydrogen - dissipated. Later, when the Earth moved in from outer space holders nano-molecular peptide nucleic technology, the situation began to change. Apparently, these first settlers were stored after photosynthesis in the form of oxygen, peroxides, and hydrogen - in the form of hydrocarbons.
But if by the time of colonization of these intelligent ancestors of bacteria in the atmosphere and hydrosphere have been a lot of oxygen - oxygen store in the form of peroxide was not necessary ...
But if, in the hydrosphere, or anywhere else would be an excess of hydrocarbons ... Wow! ! It's on Titan! That's where the bacteria stockpile peroxide instead of carbohydrates! Yyess, it also goes in my sci-fi story!
I know we are going off subject a bit but it does have some relevance.
I agree about accretion theory. It creates more questions than it provides answers, but it is a poplar theory and that is why I cited it.
However the Laplace Black star model also has it’s problems.
By defination a Laplace black star has an escape velocity that is greater than light speed.
Any matter leaving it will be moving at less than light speed. Therefore it will return to the star as gravitation pulls it back.
It therefore cannot escape to form planets etc unless it travels at a greater velocity than the black star’s escape velocity.
I am not aware of any accretion mass that has been known to travel at above light speed.
However this is all really quite academic, because whether the atmosphere contained either CO2 or O2 it would not matter. Either way metabolic pathways could not get started.
The theory of photosynthesis is fundamentally flawed.
As I have stated before there is no scientific reason to conclude that the current atmospheric breakdown was any different to when life first started..
btw have you been in touch with James Cameron yet
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests