Comments like 'Volcanoes evolve' and 'The fluids are flustrated' actually have a scientific meaning... it's hardly my fault you don't know that.
With regards to chirality, this is only an issue if the spontaneous formation of proteins is required by the model (organic synthesis will select for chirality by default). As the prior formation of proteins is not suggested in any current model that I am aware of, it is a non-issue.
As I've told you before, 'current intro bio textbooks' are not at the forefront of research, and should not be used as if they were.
All Miller-Urey showed was that simple precursors to life can form under suitable conditions. I'd prefer to discuss the link I gave you, but I doubt you'll put the work in to try and understand it.
Yes, this theory does have some predictions. Such as the entire atmosphere and hydrosphere of the planet boiling into space. And the rheology of the mantle being entirely different from that observed today. And all the seafloor being the same depth regardless of radiometric age.
I know the creationist position. It's called lie, evade, build strawmen, never make predictions that can be tested, take quotes out of context, and generally try to decieve the gullable and misinformed.
Well, if you packed protons and neutrons together and used proton=1, neutron=0, you could get about 6 x 10^26 bits in a square inch. Not the puny 2.5x10^11 that they claim..
The science that is taught is schools is rarely if ever at the cutting edge, for the simple reason that this would require school textbooks to be ten times the size and updated evey few months. School science teaching is intended to give an outline rather than a complete description of science, due to the size of the field. However, if you want to start actually questioning the theories behind this, you are expected to learn about them first.
No one involved in Abiogenesis research makes this assumption. Since proteins to not store information or act as templates for their own replication, they are not serious candidates for being present at the start of abiogenesis.
and at near its current level of complexity
In the absence of competition, there is no reason for this to be a requirement. Indeed, even placing a divide between a complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction and 'life' gets pretty arbitary when looking at abiogenesis
And I said 19 chiral and one non-chiral, that's a total of 20 amino acids.
Who says you need 20 ammino acids?
If some form of life existed (Terran or otherwise) with a different basis, where's the evidence?.
There is some indirect evidence - RNA enzymes would be a good example. We are talking about 3.8-3.9 billion years ago here.
If you wish to insert a supernatural entity instead, of course, then you should first show the existance of such an entity. Scientists have to use processes that are known to exist.
Some measurements actually indicate cooling. The latest "global warming" statistic also claimed temps were up a little...but would have been up a lot more if the planet hadn't actually been cooling
Well, I wouldn't expect actual temperature measurements to be conclusive for at least the next 20 years. On the other hand, once things take off, there's precious little we can do to stop it.
Look up the term "Little Ice Age". We've been warming up since medieval times...because European weather was unusually cold then.
Yes there is natural variation in the weather. Which shows that the climate does undergo changes in response to small forcing factors (i.e. minor changes in solar output). Which strongly indicates that the extra carbon dioxide will cause problems
Look at the planet's temperatures over millions of years. We're usually warmer than this -- and we had an Ice Age recently enough that parts of the planet are still rising now that the weight of the ice is gone (making ocean level measurements way too much work).
Yes, the planet IS usually warmer than this. That's a major part of the problem; the very large scope for temperatures to increase.
It's obvious that we are emitting gases which cause over 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Actually, in recent decades our cars have been spewing out even more of this greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Water vapour cannot act as a forcing factor as it is always in close equlibrium - it can only ever respond. Which means it'll tend to magnify any trend that crops up - if it didn't, then it would be hard to imagine the earth's climate ever changing.
We've been collecting carbon that's been leaking upward through the crust and making use of it, instead of letting it eventually reach the surface and make tar pools or catch fire. Testing of these surface leaks is how engineers knew the types of materials which could be found in oil deposits.
You'd do well to think before you wrote things like this, esepcially if an ex-oil industry geologist happens to be looking. Surface seeps of oil do happen, but their volume is vastly less than the amounts pumped out (or we wouldn't need to pump...). Surface seeps have usually spend enough time near the surface to have undergone bacterial degredation and fractionation, and are hence a poor indicator of subsurface oil composition. In a steady state oil field, where all traps are filled, the volume of surface seeps should loosely approximate to the oil production rate - which is always much less than the extraction rate, since the refilling of reservoirs is rarely even a consideration in commercial oil extraction.
I find the large scale usage of fossil fuels by the west - and the poor rates of investment in long term alternatives like nuclear fusion - appallingly short sighted even *without* factoring in the cost of environmental change. It puts our economies in the hands of middle eastern zealots; the fuels will run out anyway; and our cities will be polluted.
About those cultures: There are also Eskimos, who eat very large amounts of animal fats, and they never got heart disease until they started getting refined sugar.
This is always the problem - in western countries especially, high-animal fat and sugar consumption are often highly correlated, which leads to much of the argument.
As I'm sure you know, Dr Atkin's heart atack was caused by a bacterial infection, not artery blockage. Quite rare, but not unknown.
The basic principal behind the Atkins diet - namely that humans have only been eating bulk carbohydrate as a major part of the diet for 5000 years max, and refined sugar for 100 years max (as opposed to other types of food, which go back several million years to forever), and are therefore ill-suited to them, is sounder than any other diet that I've seen.
Here's a challenge: Find a study which shows that a diet that is high in dairy and animal fats, but low in sugar and refined carbohydrate, increases heart disease.
The curent theory of moon formation is that when Earth has about 90% of it's current mass (~4.5 billion years ago, or 50ma after the start of the solar system), a planetoid about the size of mars hit at a glancing angle. This gave us an enhanced metal core (original core+core of the other planet), blasted enough rock vapour into space to create the moon, and melted the entire planet.
It's safe to say that if you were on the surface of the earth prior to this, watching the incoming planet, you'd probably need a change of underwear.
But C14 dating is not the technique used here... Attacking this method is irrelevent to the topic.
It's not so much 'raising the anti-creationist flag' as 'just wanting people to go and learn the basics of how radiometric dating is done - including the error checking involved before they start ranting on about it'.
For instance, your statement on the randomness shows that you don't understand the stastics of random events happening to very large numbers. But that's not going to stop you posting it, is it?
You can look at the response of the climate in the past to relatively small pertubations. As has happened many times in the past. This does have the advantage of effectively running a full scale real time experiment, the only difference being the nature of the forcing factor.
People who argue against global warming invariably fail to discuss paleoclimate. Or fail to have any knowledge of the subject.
Carbon dioxide does warm the earth. If this were not the case, you would currently be sitting under several hundred meters of ice. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the earth; the question is how much and how quickly.
a) Any person suggesting that global warming is going to happen is a chicken little.
b) Chicken littles have been wrong before.
c) Hence global warming is not going to happen.
This is what is known as a circular argument, and it completely fails to address things like facts and data, which some might find important.
Besides, given no human input into the climate, we could easily be going into an ice age within the next 1000 or so years. But global warming is a big enough pertubation to make all bets off on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting that you should pick out one paper...
Never mind.
For the recession veloicity (current anomalously high at 4 cm or so a year):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
The current theory for the origin of the moon puts it as a collision between the proto-earth and a mars-sized planet about 4.5 Billion years ago.
Abiogenesis does not, as far as I know, require tides. Some early models did, but that was a while ago.
Volcanoes: 110 million tonnes CO2/year
Man: 10 Billion tonnes CO2/year...
Given that many deposits of Archean age show evidence of being deposited in a reducing environment - the oxidation states of iron, for example.
s es sion_182.htm
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001ESP/finalprogram/
*how* reducing, and for how long, is another matter. This is called 'an area of scientific research'.
More like 5...
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
Comments like 'Volcanoes evolve' and 'The fluids are flustrated' actually have a scientific meaning... it's hardly my fault you don't know that.
With regards to chirality, this is only an issue if the spontaneous formation of proteins is required by the model (organic synthesis will select for chirality by default). As the prior formation of proteins is not suggested in any current model that I am aware of, it is a non-issue.
As I've told you before, 'current intro bio textbooks' are not at the forefront of research, and should not be used as if they were.
All Miller-Urey showed was that simple precursors to life can form under suitable conditions. I'd prefer to discuss the link I gave you, but I doubt you'll put the work in to try and understand it.
I merely gave you the link to show how your probability calculations were way out.
/ 20 01/menu.htm
The spontaneous formation of all proteins for life did not happen, and no one apart from creationists ever suggests that this is what happened.
Abiogenesis reasearch is ongoing. Here's one example:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html
Yes, this theory does have some predictions. Such as the entire atmosphere and hydrosphere of the planet boiling into space. And the rheology of the mantle being entirely different from that observed today. And all the seafloor being the same depth regardless of radiometric age.
I know the creationist position. It's called lie, evade, build strawmen, never make predictions that can be tested, take quotes out of context, and generally try to decieve the gullable and misinformed.
Well, if you packed protons and neutrons together and used proton=1, neutron=0, you could get about 6 x 10^26 bits in a square inch. Not the puny 2.5x10^11 that they claim..
1.5x10^19 DVDs. Hmmm.
The science that is taught is schools is rarely if ever at the cutting edge, for the simple reason that this would require school textbooks to be ten times the size and updated evey few months. School science teaching is intended to give an outline rather than a complete description of science, due to the size of the field. However, if you want to start actually questioning the theories behind this, you are expected to learn about them first.
I'm assuming life started based on proteins
No one involved in Abiogenesis research makes this assumption. Since proteins to not store information or act as templates for their own replication, they are not serious candidates for being present at the start of abiogenesis.
and at near its current level of complexity
In the absence of competition, there is no reason for this to be a requirement. Indeed, even placing a divide between a complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction and 'life' gets pretty arbitary when looking at abiogenesis
And I said 19 chiral and one non-chiral, that's a total of 20 amino acids.
Who says you need 20 ammino acids?
If some form of life existed (Terran or otherwise) with a different basis, where's the evidence?.
There is some indirect evidence - RNA enzymes would be a good example. We are talking about 3.8-3.9 billion years ago here.
If you wish to insert a supernatural entity instead, of course, then you should first show the existance of such an entity. Scientists have to use processes that are known to exist.
Some measurements actually indicate cooling. The latest "global warming" statistic also claimed temps were up a little...but would have been up a lot more if the planet hadn't actually been cooling
Well, I wouldn't expect actual temperature measurements to be conclusive for at least the next 20 years. On the other hand, once things take off, there's precious little we can do to stop it.
Look up the term "Little Ice Age". We've been warming up since medieval times...because European weather was unusually cold then.
Yes there is natural variation in the weather. Which shows that the climate does undergo changes in response to small forcing factors (i.e. minor changes in solar output). Which strongly indicates that the extra carbon dioxide will cause problems
Look at the planet's temperatures over millions of years. We're usually warmer than this -- and we had an Ice Age recently enough that parts of the planet are still rising now that the weight of the ice is gone (making ocean level measurements way too much work).
Yes, the planet IS usually warmer than this. That's a major part of the problem; the very large scope for temperatures to increase.
It's obvious that we are emitting gases which cause over 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Actually, in recent decades our cars have been spewing out even more of this greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Water vapour cannot act as a forcing factor as it is always in close equlibrium - it can only ever respond. Which means it'll tend to magnify any trend that crops up - if it didn't, then it would be hard to imagine the earth's climate ever changing.
We've been collecting carbon that's been leaking upward through the crust and making use of it, instead of letting it eventually reach the surface and make tar pools or catch fire. Testing of these surface leaks is how engineers knew the types of materials which could be found in oil deposits.
You'd do well to think before you wrote things like this, esepcially if an ex-oil industry geologist happens to be looking. Surface seeps of oil do happen, but their volume is vastly less than the amounts pumped out (or we wouldn't need to pump...). Surface seeps have usually spend enough time near the surface to have undergone bacterial degredation and fractionation, and are hence a poor indicator of subsurface oil composition. In a steady state oil field, where all traps are filled, the volume of surface seeps should loosely approximate to the oil production rate - which is always much less than the extraction rate, since the refilling of reservoirs is rarely even a consideration in commercial oil extraction.
I find the large scale usage of fossil fuels by the west - and the poor rates of investment in long term alternatives like nuclear fusion - appallingly short sighted even *without* factoring in the cost of environmental change. It puts our economies in the hands of middle eastern zealots; the fuels will run out anyway; and our cities will be polluted.
About those cultures: There are also Eskimos, who eat very large amounts of animal fats, and they never got heart disease until they started getting refined sugar.
This is always the problem - in western countries especially, high-animal fat and sugar consumption are often highly correlated, which leads to much of the argument.
I find that Salmonella works best of all - I managed to lose 20lbs/8kg in 1 and a half weeks!
Do you have links to research showing an excess of kidney damage in Atkins patients who previously had no kidney problems?
As I'm sure you know, Dr Atkin's heart atack was caused by a bacterial infection, not artery blockage. Quite rare, but not unknown.
The basic principal behind the Atkins diet - namely that humans have only been eating bulk carbohydrate as a major part of the diet for 5000 years max, and refined sugar for 100 years max (as opposed to other types of food, which go back several million years to forever), and are therefore ill-suited to them, is sounder than any other diet that I've seen.
Here's a challenge: Find a study which shows that a diet that is high in dairy and animal fats, but low in sugar and refined carbohydrate, increases heart disease.
How about a universe where Uranium-235 replaced hydrogen..
The curent theory of moon formation is that when Earth has about 90% of it's current mass (~4.5 billion years ago, or 50ma after the start of the solar system), a planetoid about the size of mars hit at a glancing angle. This gave us an enhanced metal core (original core+core of the other planet), blasted enough rock vapour into space to create the moon, and melted the entire planet.
It's safe to say that if you were on the surface of the earth prior to this, watching the incoming planet, you'd probably need a change of underwear.
>>
But C14 dating is not the technique used here...
Attacking this method is irrelevent to the topic.
It's not so much 'raising the anti-creationist flag' as 'just wanting people to go and learn the basics of how radiometric dating is done - including the error checking involved before they start ranting on about it'.
For instance, your statement on the randomness shows that you don't understand the stastics of random events happening to very large numbers. But that's not going to stop you posting it, is it?
You can look at the response of the climate in the past to relatively small pertubations. As has happened many times in the past. This does have the advantage of effectively running a full scale real time experiment, the only difference being the nature of the forcing factor.
People who argue against global warming invariably fail to discuss paleoclimate. Or fail to have any knowledge of the subject.
Carbon dioxide does warm the earth. If this were not the case, you would currently be sitting under several hundred meters of ice. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the earth; the question is how much and how quickly.
So your argument goes:
a) Any person suggesting that global warming is going to happen is a chicken little.
b) Chicken littles have been wrong before.
c) Hence global warming is not going to happen.
This is what is known as a circular argument, and it completely fails to address things like facts and data, which some might find important.
Besides, given no human input into the climate, we could easily be going into an ice age within the next 1000 or so years. But global warming is a big enough pertubation to make all bets off on that.