The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 06:50 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your point? Photosynthesis is simple enough to have evolved very early.

My entire argument has been about abiogenesis. If photosynthesis was not available to pre-biotic or very early primitive life forms, it could not explain self preservation in those simple chemical systems.

That wasn't my point. The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit. And what is this 'self-preservation' you've invented?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-07-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Photosynthesis is far too complex to be part of abiogenesis. It could not have been available to the early primitive life forms described by abiogenesis.

(my bold)

(07-07-2016 06:13 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  Says who? You? And what might your qualifications be?
(07-07-2016 06:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life " http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434.full


Just spend 2 minutes googling and you'll find a boatload of evidence. Fo people who believe in natural aboigenesis, you sure don't know much about it. As a great philosopher once said, "When you belive in things you don't understand you suffer. Superstition aint the way"
Did you even read what you wrote? Your link contradicts your statement and you want to school me?

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TechnoMonkey's post
07-07-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 07:13 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Photosynthesis is far too complex to be part of abiogenesis. It could not have been available to the early primitive life forms described by abiogenesis.

(my bold)

(07-07-2016 06:13 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  Says who? You? And what might your qualifications be?
(07-07-2016 06:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life " http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434.full


Just spend 2 minutes googling and you'll find a boatload of evidence. Fo people who believe in natural aboigenesis, you sure don't know much about it. As a great philosopher once said, "When you belive in things you don't understand you suffer. Superstition aint the way"
Did you even read what you wrote? Your link contradicts your statement and you want to school me?
Abiogenesis describes the replicating initial molecule to initial primitive life.
Then evolution describes how life became complex. Photosynthesis clearly occurred after the initial primitive life. It was early on, but was clearly excluded from abiogenesis.

If you had read the entire article you would know that. Someone has to school you since even when you are spoon fed, you regurgitate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:50 PM)u196533 Wrote:  My entire argument has been about abiogenesis. If photosynthesis was not available to pre-biotic or very early primitive life forms, it could not explain self preservation in those simple chemical systems.

That wasn't my point. The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit. And what is this 'self-preservation' you've invented?
"The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit."
WOW.
I have mentioned Gibbs free energy multiple times and you said you understood it.

I didn't invent self -preservation. It is kind of a well understood fact. It keeps living things eating, fighting to stay alive and not committing suicide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 06:48 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Speaking of "garbage" .... still waiting for you to tell us exactly how molecules and atoms work differently in living systems. You said you had better higher level videos. Let's see them, now. You have debunked NOT one SPECIFIC thing Szostack said.

Since you don't read your own posts, I should not be surprised you don't read mine.

He proposed RNA in a permeable membrane evolved closely to a geothermal vents that could be cold and hot.
RNA cannot withstand the high temperatures of a geothermal vent as suggested.
RNA is very unstable. It uses ribose vs deoxyribose so it wants to react with water. It has to be shielded from water so the permeable membranes suggested won’t work.

He also proposes that the cell evolved over time from something simple to what we see today. However, all modern cell structures are remarkably similar within all species. There is no evidence that there has been evolution within a cell.

That debunks 3 specific things.

"exactly how molecules and atoms work differently in living systems"
I have described this close to 10 times. Living things extract energy from the environment in order to lower energy. That is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry (lower energy and increase entropy) and has never been observed in a non-living chemical system.

You have debunked nothing. You have made unsubstantiated claims.
Prove what you claim.
Where are you videos ?

As for you bullshit concerning living systems, the Krebs (Cytric Acid cycle) RELEASES energy. You know NOTHING about Biology.
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/00...iz_1_.html
You are a ignorant fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 08:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:48 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Since you don't read your own posts, I should not be surprised you don't read mine.

He proposed RNA in a permeable membrane evolved closely to a geothermal vents that could be cold and hot.
RNA cannot withstand the high temperatures of a geothermal vent as suggested.
RNA is very unstable. It uses ribose vs deoxyribose so it wants to react with water. It has to be shielded from water so the permeable membranes suggested won’t work.

He also proposes that the cell evolved over time from something simple to what we see today. However, all modern cell structures are remarkably similar within all species. There is no evidence that there has been evolution within a cell.

That debunks 3 specific things.

"exactly how molecules and atoms work differently in living systems"
I have described this close to 10 times. Living things extract energy from the environment in order to lower energy. That is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry (lower energy and increase entropy) and has never been observed in a non-living chemical system.

You have debunked nothing. You have made unsubstantiated claims.
Prove what you claim.
Where are you videos ?

As for you bullshit concerning living systems, the Krebs (Cytric Acid cycle) RELEASES energy. You know NOTHING about Biology.
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/00...iz_1_.html
You are a ignorant fool.

What I have stated it common knowledge to anyone familiar with abiogenesis. Since you don't have a clue, I'll try to find time to provide the specific evidence later.
All you need to do is spend a few minutes googling the stability of nucleic acids to find that they break apart at temps in the 90 F or greater. Therefore a geothermal vent could not be a possible site for its' origin.
Then google why RNA is unstable compared to DNA to find that it is hydrophilic. That makes it is clear that a permeable membrane that allows in water would not be a plausible explanation.
Then it is common knowledge that all cellular structures are remarkably similar. That should be pretty easy to validate.

We eat food (consume energy). That powers the Krebs cycle. For your sake, I truly hope you are faking this extreme stupidity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 09:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 08:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have debunked nothing. You have made unsubstantiated claims.
Prove what you claim.
Where are you videos ?

As for you bullshit concerning living systems, the Krebs (Cytric Acid cycle) RELEASES energy. You know NOTHING about Biology.
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/00...iz_1_.html
You are a ignorant fool.

What I have stated it common knowledge to anyone familiar with abiogenesis. Since you don't have a clue, I'll try to find time to provide the specific evidence later.
All you need to do is spend a few minutes googling the stability of nucleic acids to find that they break apart at temps in the 90 F or greater. Therefore a geothermal vent could not be a possible site for its' origin.
Then google why RNA is unstable compared to DNA to find that it is hydrophilic. That makes it is clear that a permeable membrane that allows in water would not be a plausible explanation.
Then it is common knowledge that all cellular structures are remarkably similar. That should be pretty easy to validate.

We eat food (consume energy). That powers the Krebs cycle. For your sake, I truly hope you are faking this extreme stupidity.

The fact that life may not have begun near a geothermal vent is no support for your garbage, gramps. Membranes are hydrophobic, and hydrophilic. Some are lipophilic and some are lipophobic. You bullshit is meaningless. There are other possibile mechanisms other than your one. Cellular structures are NOT "remarkably similar". They are remarkably DIFFERENT ... you know NOTHING about Biology. Gram negative cell walls are very different from gram positive cell walls. We do consume energy. The Krebs cycle transforms the food to useful energy, and makes it available, (releases) the energy from food. There is no "vital energy". The mechanisms of energy and chemical transformation are EXACTLY the same as non living reactions. You are too stupid to know what they are, and how they work. There is NOT ONE Biologist in the world that agrees with your crap, AND you are a hypocrite. You use the medical system ... the very system built on the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

Anything you claim requires experimental evidence to support it. Provide that, or get lost.
Where are your videos ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Hello again! Big Grin

(07-07-2016 06:50 PM)u196533 Wrote:  My entire argument has been about abiogenesis.

Yes

I do understand that.

So, please explain where the 'line' is between inorganic chemistry and 'Organic chemistry'?

Others have asked for you to explain this divide and I eagerly await your posts.

Sorry if I've missed your earlier reply to myself. Different time zones and life and such.

(07-07-2016 06:50 PM)u196533 Wrote:  If photosynthesis was not available to pre-biotic or very early primitive life forms, it could not explain self preservation in those simple chemical systems.

Wait? Why should photosynthesis be needed for that which is early life?

Consider

There;d be more than enough stuff for said early bio-systems to 'injest' and it would only be much later when all the 'easy' 'edible' stuff is simply lying around?

It's been so long that I've completely forgotten my High-school biology and just how simple the chemistry is/was for photosynthesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 11:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 08:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Where are your videos ?

He's finding it hard to shit them out. VCR tapes have such an awkward shape.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 01:27 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 04:55 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 02:51 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  What chemicals, why and how do they behave differently?

And again, you are claiming a boundary between living systems and inanimate objects.
Please explain where this boundary is where the "chemicals behave diffrently".
In context of your statement above, how can this be irrelevant?

I am discussing the basic story of abiogenesis.
Start with a replicator molecule that is clearly not alive. It replicates and mutates to RNA (All of the research into replicators has squelched that idea.)
It finds a membrane and then somehow develops a metabolic system. Eventually you have a microbial life form that nobody would deny is alive.

Somewhere in that pathway (that is a huge climb up a thermodynamic mountain ) these chemical systems had to develop self-preservation and seek energy from the environment to continue to lower their entropy. Exactly where that occurred is not that critical.

Only chemical reactions in living systems increase energy and lower entropy spontaneously. That violates the basic drive of chemistry.

Sorry, but i cant see you having properly adressed a single point i asked for.

1) what chemicals behave differently
replicator molecule? RNA? Or why are you talking about them? You state that replicator is not alive, so it cant be this one behaving differently. Still unclear to me.

2) why
your basic argument seems to be Gibbs?

3) how
i dont see anything remote to an explanation from you how living chemistry works different and against "driving forces" of chemistry
Repeating your assertion of "Only chemical reactions in living systems increase energy and lower entropy spontaneously. That violates the basic drive of chemistry" doenst make it more plausible to me.

4) where the boundary is
"Somewhere in that pathway" isnt precise enough, sorry.


Quote:Exactly where that occurred is not that critical.
It is critical, since you claimed there is a fundamental difference in the chemistry of living and non-living things. Now its up to you to demonstrate where exactly living chemistry starts and non-living chemistry stops, otherwise you have no way in proving your assertion. Saying "its not critical" or "irrelevant", like in an earlier post, is like shrugging off your burden of proof.

Plese remember, i am not an expert in (bio)chemistry, unlike you, although i have some basic understanding. So when you provide your answers, a short explanation would be nice.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: