Login

Join for Free!
118823 members


Theories - Origin of Life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby LeoPol » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:35 pm

scottie
I think those ancient reasonable membranoids in Venus would create a special way of photosynthesis. They would have done such a super-heat-resistant catalytic process in which energy of absorbed photon was spent on a separation of CO2 - C + O2. Moreover, both components would be stocked in separate granules and vacuoles! And this technological structure would require the presence of special membrane rhizoids, which would look in the substrate compounds containing hydrogen - for exothermic synthesis of water! Energy would be allocated, by the way, can also be used for CO2 - C + O2!
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:14 pm

Leopol

The BBC love this type of headline grabber and treats reports such as this as fact.

The Nature article concludes with this acknowledgement by the authors.
We speculate that both observations can be explained if late meteorite bombardment triggered the onset of the current style of mantle convection.

Willbold, M., T. Elliott, et al. (2011). "The tungsten isotopic composition of the Earth/'s mantle before the terminal bombardment." Nature 477(7363): 195-198.

Btw these researchers are basing their ideas on Accretion Theory that you don’t agree with

"membranoids" ---- Not my type of music :)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby LeoPol » Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:17 am

scottie
Well, actually, I'm not against accretion. Central hyper-astroid initially formed from the stars - the white giants that - the main population of elliptical galaxies. Such stars - pure hydrogen-helium white giants, as these galaxies formed by accretion (in my opinion). And later in the centers of these galaxies after falling stars on the growing star-monster appears hyper-astroid and stretched in the equatorial plane in a giant rotating spindle, which is detached from any planetoids and stars type "Main sequence". :mrgreen:

Well, me, my "music" is quite suitable. Because this is my way to solve that problem, now called the crisis of the genre in molecular biology. Now the question is, what can explore methodological complex nano-phenomena in the cell membrane to describe it, "consciousness" of the cell - the "Active membrane model of the World on ... Spirit? Continuum?" - Oh, what's the difference? 8)
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev


Postby LeoPol » Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:43 am

scottie
So. Posted by Mr. Dawkins, another message. In my opinion, he does not read them.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6433 ... ins?page=2
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:11 pm

Jackbean

May I put this to you.

You have a sincere belief in the evolutionary hypothesis and I understand that and respect it.

However unless you can establish those views have a scientific basis, then it is only a belief system like any other.

In order to get life started, for evolution to get going you have to believe that the early atmosphere lacked oxygen.

So an atmosphere lacking oxygen had to be designed to test out the view.

That design, whatever the combination of gases,is confronted with major problems.
1) Many experiments involving an oxygen free atmosphere have produced amino acids, the basic molecules in living organisms. However the energy that created these molecules also destroys them. That is why Miller and others had to get them out of the system once created. What natural process could have done that? (The problem has not even been addresses as far as I know)
2) All the experiments produce both left handed and right handed amino acids in more or less equal quantities. The life processes use only the left handed ones. Right handed ones are toxic. What natural processes are able to differentiate between them?
3) If life did evolve in, say an ammonia/methane environment, that organism had to evolve into one that breathes oxygen. How did that happen? Again there is no plausible explanation that has been offered.
4) How did the oxygen free atmosphere become an oxygen rich atmosphere? There have been a few attempted explanations, here is a statement on the subject of photosynthesis that you have referred to.
Perhaps most importantly, how did the oxygen produced by photosynthesis get incorporated into the continents? This could not have occurred by direct oxidative weathering because that is contradicted by the persistence of detrital uraninite and pyrite in Archean sediments.

Science, Kasting, Vol. 293, 3 August 2001, “The Rise of Atmospheric Oxygen”, page 819
5) How did the genetic code evolve? Koonan for example refers to this as an intractable problem

Here we have a clearly designed atmosphere that has proved not to be correct simply because for the past 60 years or so all attempts to surmount these problems I have mentioned above have failed.
Clearly no natural explanation has proved plausible. That is not in doubt.

When I suggested that the only plausible answer was that the atmosphere was clearly designed correctly with it’s O2 content right at the start of life that is also designed all those problems go away.

Yet you responded this way
You're using stupid logic. Just because we can create something, doesn't mean, it must be created by someone.

Now forget that I am using stupid logic as you put it, would you like to rephrase the second half of your statement because it makes no sense to me.
I simply do not know what you mean.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby JackBean » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:34 am

You know, I'm tired of arguing with you. That's problem of all of you, anti-evolutionists, you rather beat your opponents by writing lots of long posts, which may sound nice (how else would you get followers, right?) than by true arguments.
You are trying to look clever, but the least mistake you're doing is mixing origin of life and evolution. You should make it clear for yourself first, what are you talking about.

Regarding the oxygen, I know there are some articles, I have read some, but I'm not much willing to spend time searching them now (yeah, I'm sorry, but my memory is not that good to remember every article I've read years ago). But you're obviously using only these facts, which are usufull for you.

The fact, that we can create something is not proof that it must be created by someone and it cannot "evolve".
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:48 am

In other words you only believe what you think you know, but can't be bothered to actually find out if it is correct.

That's fair enough, belief based on emotion is a very difficult thing to combat, why should you want to change your comfort zone for the real world. :)

Hope this post is short enough.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby oldman » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:21 pm

Jackbean (and other participants in this thread).
It`s a mystery to me why you all encourage this pseudoscientific monologue to go on and on and on. Your arguments are only adding fuel to the fire. And you should know it. It`s like debating holocaust- deniers. You can newer answer all their shoe box questions and their citing of known and unknown historians. So you don`t do it. You know their motives and you know their tactics and you don`t invite them into an arena of honest and open thinking. It`s not about censorship, but about decency, really. On a biology forum I would not expect creationists given free space to prove their point that science can`t agree on the basics of life on earth. This thread serves to verify the“fight” inside the science community, which we know is false, but nevertheless demonstrated here. Science is about placing evidence before conclusion, not the other way around, like creationists do. Yes, I took this forum to be a science forum. But this never ending stream of modern day creationism proved me wrong. It`s a pity.
oldman
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:14 pm

Nice bit of rhetoric, but as you say,
I took this forum to be a science forum.


So where is your science.

See another short post :)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby LeoPol » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:28 pm

scottie
Hmmm. Well, actually, personally, I do study at first, and then concluding, moreover, my idea - not creationism. I criticize creationism and criticize distorted evolutionism that creationism is a giveaway. So this is Mr. Oldman's not about me!
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:59 am

Leopol
So this is Mr. Oldman's not about me!

Absolutely correct.
I thoroughly enjoy your posts

I am sorry you thought I was referring to yourself. I was simply responding to the rather bizzare outburst from oldman.

To my knowledge since he registered in June he has contributed just twice to this forum.
On both occasions he has directed his rather tribal fire at me personally. No science, just vitriol.
I suppose he needs to regularly vent his spleen as his frustration builds. :)
His statement
On a biology forum I would not expect creationists given free space to prove their point that science can`t agree on the basics of life on earth.


Well it speaks for itself. " Dissent will not be tolerated" mein Furheur :)

I will consider myself quite fortunate if I don't get anymore blasts of this nature.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby LeoPol » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:17 pm

scottie
In the Soviet Union was such a terrible time - Stalinism, and then was biology - Lysenkoism. Then the right was declared dogma Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, certain, and everything else - was considered the machinations of world imperialism. Then anyone who did not agree with the dogmas of Lysenko either shot or sent to concentration camps for life. Well, now we have some new trends on a global scale! .. The scientific controversy - administrative arguments. All learn to get version of evolutionary theory "from simple replicators to evolutionary crown of creation" and to ban argue with that! And anyone who does not agree - to declare "creationists" and "excommunicated", that is only true of the "admin-science"! And the fact that the opponents of the theory of creationism and does not smell - it does not matter. It remains to arrange the world "cultural revolution" with the Red Guards of Mao on the script - and ... Hello, Sunset Civilization! :wink:
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests