Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
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.
Interesting, though the relevance seems to be as elusive as the scientific evidence.
Is there any specificity, or is the randomness of generality your specialty?
I am a molecular biologist, in general, like biology, astrophysics, and much more! It's a hobby, but I can find the necessary literature and now I can recognize manipulation. Here, for example, "black holes" of general relativity and the "Black Star Laplace" - it was interesting to me. I realized that the so-called "Black holes "of general relativity - is a clever manipulation, which deliberately ignored the kinetic energy! It turns out that the approach to the singularity of the density requires an infinite energy! And because there is nowhere to take it, then this state is not achievable. So there is only "Black Star Laplace".
Do I take it to mean that you consider the Miller-Urey experiments and other like ones to have answered the question as to how life originated, or did you mean that these experiments demonstrated the opposite?
Could you clarify please.
Raises the experiment of Stanley Miller back in the 1950’s.
I am not sure what his view actually is regarding the results, I await his clarification.
However his experiment and indeed succeeding ones did show one clearly noticeable feature.
Robert Shapiro had a comment on this in the edge event I have referred to before.
He recounts a meeting he had with Stanley Miller.
The above is on a video clip here. (scroll about half way down to locate it)
The rest of his comment is transcribed below and is available in pdf form on the same site from page 90.
The point that Shapiro is making, and he is an evolutionary scientist, is this.
Investigators design their own atmosphere that has nothing to do with the reality of prebiotic conditions.
They prepare their designs to try to achieve the result they are seeking. That is the start and end of it.
With these atmospheres that are cooked up in a lab, has any serious thought been given as to how that particular atmosphere could have naturally developed?
Of course not, because no theory can account for it.
Their atmospheres are specifically designed to produce the result they wish.
In the genesis narrative that is precisely what is stated. The atmosphere was specifically designed to accommodate the life that was to come.
Of course a materialist view says you can’t have an outside agency designing because science can only deal with natural processes.
The irony that seems to escape this type of thinking is that the very processes they are denying, they actually use to prove – what?
That the prebiotic atmosphere can only come about by design.
I though you are an engineer, but obviously not in chemistry, right? So you have no education in related fields whatsoever, but you will complain all the time.
Nevermind, the point is, that oxygen is quite reactive and thus it reacts with the other elements and forms other compounds. If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know, that getting oxygen from SiO2 is really hard task.
Furthermore, there are other planets where there is oxygen in some compounds, but it is not in the atmosphere as O2 and this is no speculation. So why should we assume that the early Earth was different?
And how did the oxygen arise? Well, from the organisms, obviously.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Where did I say that oxygen formed from Quartz or Feldspar?
It didn’t and that is my argument. Please read what I am writing.
The oxygen must have been around in the compounds that formed the rocks according to the theory of accretion.
For it not to be around after the rocks formed must mean that all the oxygen was used up with no remainder, for any atmosphere. That was what I said.
Now is that realistic?
Because that is the theory of a pre-biotic atmosphere.
Therefore the question is where did the oxygen come from?
So a simple question now
What organisms are you referring to.
Now think before you respond, as I have no desire to see you digging a bigger hole for yourself.
And I'm saying, that it's basic inroganic chemistry, which tells us that.
So, where do you think does the oxygen come from if not from the rocks?
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
I am finding it very difficult to understand why you appear to not appreciate the obvious. Maybe it is a language problem
So may I try again
In my post that you refer to I stated
If the accretion process from material that was rich in O2 formed the rocks and water all of which are themselves rich in oxygen, why is it claimed that the atmosphere lacked oxygen?
What is the physics or chemistry that justifies this claim?
I said there is none.
So for my education as I am obviously unacquainted with chemistry, can you explain a physical or chemical process controlling accretion that does, on the one hand make use of the oxygen rich material to produce the rocks and water, but on the other not leave any free O2.
You need to explain this if you are to state that there was no O2 in the prebiotic atmosphere, and even more bizarrely that “organisms” produced the O2.
I am saying quite clearly, with my limited understanding of chemistry, that if this process of accretion which so clearly assumes a material mass rich in O2 is correct, then this very same process would have had some remaining O2 as a constituent part of the atmosphere.
I hope that is clear enough
the thing is, that the materials such as sillicates are so stable, that they do not release oxygen, similarly other elements react quickly with oxygen to form oxycompounds. These are mostly stable, definitely more than free oxygen.
By the organisms, I mean of course the evolved bacteria. There are plenty of articles, which track the level of oxygen in the past. I'm sure, you will find some, since you're so great with the resources
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Oxygen could get into the atmosphere once, 4 billion years ago when crossing the plume from the central galactic hyper-astroid Laplace in a place where centrifugal force is born spiral arm of the Galaxy. Nitrogen, by the way, too, like gold, and many other things! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14827624
http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxonimage/id81 ... nid=125696 Wow! mushrooms ... http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=4349 I wonder what they were then, a billion years ago?
(Off the top, sorry!) my daughter (13 years) now decides to do after school to learn. Here, in Kiev - is expensive, the U.S. - far and definitely not, in England - too expensive, and that in Prague? Maybe it's time to start teaching her to Czech?
In other words you don't know.
Now you are getting really careless in asking me to find your resource articles.
Do you really wish to be even more embarrassed?
However you have had a stab at what you refer to as "evolved bacteria" as the organisms that produced the oxygen.
So may I remind you what the chemistry involved is. The process your “evolved bacteria” would need is photosynthesis. The popular hypothesis that this “evolved bacteria” is cyanobacteria..
I explained all this to Leopol a little while ago,
by scottie » Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:05 pm
However lets try again.
Our current atmosphere contains about 21% Oxygen.
Now in the process of photosynthesis 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 therefore must have been 21% Carbon dioxide in the early earth atmosphere.
Therefore what effect do you think an atmosphere containing 21% CO2 would have on life.
May I suggest fully absorb the reference to Venus’s CO2 enriched atmosphere and then consider how your “evolved bacteria” could have survived let alone got started.
Please stop looking for “fairies at the bottom of your garden” they are not there.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests