₦airaland Forum

Bob Dylan ends the song With God on our Side with the sentiment, "if God is on our side, he'll stop the next war". Many of the theists assured of their God(s) favour would do best to remember that ideal.

What's this? Another Creationist lying for Jesus? Colour me surprised. In any case, like I said in the last thread on the theory of evolution (you remember the one that you, Davidylan, abandoned after the whole ERV debacle. See thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.msg3545649#msg3545649), I will generally refrain from responding to you until:

KAG: Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Simply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.

bawomolo:
KAG and co haven't shied away from debating you on the issue of Evolution.  Lots of the proponents of Evolution have actually being Christians. The support for evolution has been overwhelming in the scientific community.

It sure has, considering biology and anthropology classes talk about it till this day.

That's true enough. In fact, anyone willing to do a little digging can find the thousands of words pther posters and myself have written to show why and how the theory of evolution remains unfalsified and is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. Of course what tends to happen is that the Creationists either ignore and lie for Jesus like David~ is currently doing, or they, in spite of dogma, accept the evidence presented.

davidylan:
I wont call KAG's style "debate", its more use of condescending language with plenty of verbose grammar to avoid answering critical questions.

Lol. Dishonest Christian is dishonest. My posting history says otherwise 

What is free will and why is it in opposition to "cause and effect"?

We may of necessity have to accept that not every effect has a cause, nor every "cause" an effect

dexmond:
HUXLEY

It does not cease to amaze me the veracity with which you attack the Christian faith, the people I pity are those who did not know much, I mean those who are not really grounded in the Truth. Not withstanding, the scriptures said in Mark 4:25
“For whoever has will be given more, but 1 whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” I pray that the simple will not fall for your antics.

Veracity - Definition:

1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness. See synonyms at truth.
2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity.
3. Something that is true.

Hmm. Conflicting message is conflicted. Freud would like a word with you.

Bastage:
I don't think you saw my post but I wrote earlier:

Lol. I did miss it - my eyes aren't what they used to be.

Pastor AIO:
Okay, but why the hammer? Why should a thunder god almost always wield a hammer? If it was from exchange of ideas and migration then why can we not see similar patterns in, say, technologies, or other cultural artifacts?
The Norse were seafaring people, the Greeks were sea faring people, if they had contact with the Yoruba then how come the yoruba didn't build boats that could travel on the high seas too. Okay, that's just one technology. How come the musical instruments that they used are so different from each other?

To add to Bastage's response, there really might be a simpler reason for the similarities between Mjolnir and Sango's thingy in the two different cultures: sparks fly when a hammer like object is struck against a hard surface. It is not inconceivable that the two cultures would have noticed that and unconsciously created deities with heavy objects to cause heavenly sparks, that is, lightning. It's actually not disimilar from the example of flints in your earlier post.

By the way, that is not to say syncretism didn't happen.

It is interesting that the one thing that most shows the commonality of all the human race is in fact religious forms and the depiction of the dieties and myths.

Archetypes, perhaps?

OLAADEGBU:
Now you see how frustrating it can be when you cannot perceive the biblical language that you try to interprete the Word of God by, especially due to your darwinian mind.

Is that what you really think it is? Look, it has nothing to do with me being unable to understand Biblical language, it's your inability to understand a play on texts that is the problem.

This might also be a good place to let you know that it's not really Biblical language but King James' English. That's right, English

I did not recall you attempting to answer any of the questions and challenges that I posed to all atheists and evolutionists, unless you disguised yourself under a different name just as you have been changing your gender like a chameleon.

Here's one example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.544.html You can start from that page and just skip to the end to see how you turned the thread into a spam session.

Also, chameleons don't change their genders.

Does the "angel of light" ring any bell? 

I don't think he can ring any bells at the moment, because that king of Babylon has been dead a long time.

What evidence, do you mean scientific evidence?  I thought for a hypothesis or theory to become an scientific fact or law it has to be observed, then the formulation of hypothesis concerning the phenomenon, experimentation to demostrate whether the hypothesis is true or false and a conclusion to validate or modify the hypothesis. This is called the scientific method, formulated by a creationist, called Bacon.  Who was there to observe the singularity explode into the universe 15 billion years ago?  I learnt that your cronies were trying to simulate how the big bang happened by inventing the big white elephant project that went Kaput, yet you call all this scientific theory or fact.

No, scientific theories or hypothesis don't become facts or laws. Facts and laws are incorporated in theories, and hypothesis become theories if they are potentially falsifiable. So, to recap:

- Scientific theories are made up of facts, laws, observable phenomena, etc, whatever, and are flasifiable
- Hypothesis may become theories with added evidence and falsifiability.

Now, about the singularity, no human was present to observe its expansion; however, that doesn't mean that, like forensic science, traces of the past can't be observed. Going back in time through observation of the cosmos, scientists have been able to decipher a starting point of planck time - the glimpse of a singularity.

Finally, the Large Haldron Collider wasn't intended to simulate the Big Bang. It was made to discover and test apsects of quantum physics and elusive particles.

Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Balls. Most evolutionists have considered design of the Creationist mould and found it seriously wanting.

[list]
[li]Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so.  He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible".  [/li]
[/list]

Well, evolution isn't meant to be proved, because science doesn't do proof. The evidence indicates that it occurs, though. Special creation is incredible.

This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural.  Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with.  This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Nonsense. Evolution the foundation of evolution is science. The evidence was found before the theory was formulated. You're mistaking creationism for evolution again.

By the way, is it evolution you want to discuss or the Big Bang? Make up your godforsaken mind.

My question still is: Where and how did this matter and energy or as you prefer, "[i]singularity," originate[/i]?

Did you say quantum fluctuations?  Is that not another name for magic?  I thought you guys don't believe in anything supernatural.

There is no certainty as to the "origin" (if any) of the singularity. No, quantum fluctuations isn't another name for magic. For one thing, quantum fluctuations aren't illusions. For another, they are testable.

Evolution is supposed to be based on materialism, that is, all that exists is matter and energy, you do not give any room for any supernatural phenomenon, this is where I believe your problem lies.

Yes, evolution is based in the material world. No, it isn't a problem.

Does quantum fluctation not mean that something arose from nothing?  If that is not magic, or a miracle I don't know what it means, can you explain that to us?  Can something create itself or rather can nothing create something?  The Latin phrase: "ex nihilo, nihil fit" means, from nothing, nothing comes.  Are you now saying that this singularity came from nothing?  Does that not violate the law of Cause and effect that says nothing cannot be greater than something?

Quantum fluctuations don't necessarily mean something coming from nothing. However, in a case like virtual particles, it is something coming from nothing because a of a quantum fluctuation. No, it isn't magic, but a scientific phenomenom that was outside the scope of usual human experience. Another interesting point to consider, by the way, since the singulairty exists outside of time, could it then have had a beginning?

Finally, there is no such "law of cause and effect".

Richard Dawkins, the local champion of the darwinian evolution, was clueless when asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase information in the genome?"  Watch him stammering and gazing at the ceiling ( The ai gb'ofa l'anwoke syndrome)

Watch this short video and then read  the background story about it.
http://bsa-ca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=1

Read all about it here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp#f1

That's funny cause he was able to give several examples in his book and essays that preceded and came after that clip. Do you think maybe there's a bit pf Creationist dishonesty at play there?

OLAADEGBU:
You keep proving the point Psalm 53:1 when you insist that you talk aloud then think about it later, more like what is called putting your foot in your mouth, speak now and think about it afterwards syndrome.

That wasn't what I said. Thinking silently is different from saying something aloud; the first being the . . . you know what, forget about it. It really isn't important.

The question about the origin of the universe is still unanswered by you and your cronies, we've heard your theory about how the universe got formed by an explosion, can you now tell us where and how the matter and energy did originate?  How did you get something that went bang before it went bang?  It will do you no harm if you admit that you have no clue instead of sweeping it under the carpet.

Actually, you'll find, if you had an iota of honesty that "my cronies" and me have answered the questions several times. In fact, the last time I tried to engage you in a discussion on the issue (or similar), you were unable to respond without spamming with Answer in Genesis (et al.) articles , several of which didn't even have anything to do with the subject at hand.

I'll give it another shot here.

How did the universe start: the evidence suggests that there was an expansion from a singularity that resulted in space and time. Matter wasn't what expanded, as matter came into existence after the universe. The properties of the singularity are generally dimly known as it existed beyond time. However, several hypotheses are exploring the question. That brings me to energy. Energy, and in turn quantum objects like virtual particle, don't need a cause to pop into existence; as quantum fluctuations can result in a state that produces them without an external underlying cause.

That's a start. We can expand from there.

See Richard Dawkins put his foot in his mouth in an interview with Ben Stein who is not even a Christian. Typical.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6IG7amnhyQ&feature=related

That's nice.

Just finishing up.

P.s. Don't you just love how the functionality of ervs has been turned into a strawman? Who didn't see that coming? Maybe at some point marked cells will come up?

OLAADEGBU:
Did you realise the implication of your Big Bang theory that explains that the universe was formed as a result of an explosion some 13-15 billion years ago is the same thing as saying that an aeroplane was constructed as a result of an hurricane crashing into a metal scrapyard. And let it enter your mind that before you say anything out loud you must have thought about it in your head, or "said it in your heart" because out of the abundant of the heart the mouth speaketh"

Um, no, it's nothing like an aeroplane thingymajig. And while you may have thought something in your head - oh, for the bad old days when humans thought with their hearts and not brains - it is different from saying it aloud. Hence, mine works better than yours. nyah!

davidylan:

Good heavens, no, man. Did you even read anything I posted, links and all? It isn't just that humans share ervs with other apes, it's the way they are shared hierarchically. Further, ervs are sites of failed viral invasions. You dig.

we are back to the same poor use of words to convey false meanings. Can you please CLEARLY explain what you mean by "shared hierachialy" with relevant examples pls? I will share an example at the end of this post myself.

It would have been pretty clear to anyone who had bothered to become acquainted with the subject. Anyway, for example, humans and other apes will share an erv in one location because the reotroviral insertion was made in common ancestor they all share' However, as the splitting in the species occurs, certain ervs should be found located in immediately related species, but not in remotely related species, hence, an heirarchy. To give you an idea, see the picture:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Aimply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.

sorry, i seem to have noticed this trend among atheists . . . they NEVER answer a question you put to them, rather the burden of proof for creationism AND evolution they shift to others. You answer the question yourself. You told us man evolved from apes no?

You're kidding, right? What a pathetic excuse. Look, I don't know if you're just trolling for effect or you really are as sorry as you're proving, but I'm done with you after this post. Okay.

Humans are apes that developed human traits.

Good. Pls keep this in mind for later.

Oh dear . . .

Um, do you know what ervs are? in fact, Davidylan: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about."

i've been explaining them for ages . . . you and bastage have simply been mentioning them with NO explanation of what they are. If you know any better then tell us. I know its easier for you to use condescending language to avoid facing your own claims. Its the KAG style so no surprises.
HIV behaves like an ERV . . . but it still produces viruses from proviruses . . . why not ERVs?

You're lying again. No, you weren't explaining what ervs were. What you did, instead, was bluster about for a few posts hoping others would be as ignorant on the subject as you are. If you look in my first post I gave a very basic introduction to what ervs are. I was hoping it would be easy to understand.

Hopefully, at some later date you can realise why HIV isn't a n erv, then you can pretend you knew that all along and that you had been explaining it to those athiests from the beginning.

Pls pay close attention here:

1. ptERV1 and 2 are found ONLY in chimps but not humans - so if humans descended from chimps (as you earlier claimed) we only have 2 possibilities: either these were a result of more recent viral infections in chimps after humans had evolved OR humans just did not inherit these genes from her chimp ancestors.

Humans didn't descend from chips, they share a common ancestor with chimps. If it isn't already obvious, the term "ape" isn't a synonym for chimps - at least not to anyone with a working knowledge of biology.

2. However the ptERV1 insertion has very close similarities to those found in baboons and rhesus monkeys

3. Infact the ptERV2 has an 88% ORF similarity to the Baboon ERV . . .

4. Since both ptERV1 and 2 unlike the HERV's still have full length copies and 2 intact LTRs (most older HERVs have one LTR due to recombination), this suggests very recent infections . . . how then do we find strikingly similar ERVs in baboons and rhesus monkeys? Where did they evolve from? Where they infected by similar viruses at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME INTERVAL?
Why then do we NOT find any such ERVs in other simians and humans?

Um, you were almost on the money at the last. Relatively speaking, it was a a viral attack a few million years ago. There's nothing spetacular about a similar viral attack on similar species. Humans beat the viral infelction, several other apes didn't. So, humans lack the ptErv because we successful combated it. However, ptErv differs from the shared ERV's that show common descent because those shared ERV's that act like "paternal genetic markers" are all in unique sites. That is, the ERV's aren't found in different parts of the genome, but in very specific sites that indicate either heredity or magic. Again, you should read Winace's write up.

It's important ot understand the distinction. What's more, it's remarkably easy to understand.

I think we have had enough of rhetoric, now is the time to discuss facts and specifics.
Thanks.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I bothered to point out some of the times you did just that. In any case, since I'm tired of your shennanigans, I won't be responding to your posts until you answer the simple questions that were put to you. I'll probably get a better return from jacking off, anyway.

Ad hom: Besides, I'm not a special-ed teacher.

davidylan:
Talkorigins? What a laughable irony on its own. Huxley has posted false claims from that same website.

Davidylan: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric"

The above is nothing but unproven speculation THAT HAVE NO SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.

Davidylan: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric"

Lets use common sense -

1. 99% of ape DNA is shared with humans, it therefore is no surprise that ERV insertions in humans are similar in apes. I mentioned earlier the clear fact that hundreds of genes are virtually identical in several species . . . NF-kB is found from yeast to man, ditto for HDACs which is virtually the same in terms of amino acid compositions in chickens and mice. Does that mean man and yeast evolved from the same ancestor? The beta globin gene from chickens has been key to understanding the functions of the human homolog . . . was a chicken on the road to evolving into man?

Good heavens, no, man. Did you even read anything I posted, links and all? It isn't just that humans share ervs with other apes, it's the way they are shared hierarchically. Further, ervs are sites of failed viral invasions. You dig.

Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Aimply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.

2. Why have apes FAILED to develop human traits in millions of yrs since their bones were first discovered? Has evolution suddenly stopped?

Humans are apes that developed human traits.

3. ERVs do NOT generate independent viruses in human cells like exogenous RVs do, why?

Um, do you know what ervs are? in fact, Davidylan: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about."

4. We know that the vast majority of germline mutations in man are actually deleterious, why are the ERV mutations all beneficial? why are modern RVs which sometimes behave like ERVs deadly to man? Ebola, HIV, Marburg to name a few.

You remember what I said about you spouting? You're doing it again, so:

Davidylan: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about."

These are the pertinent questions neither you nor those from which you copy long meaningless stuff want to tackle. Its easy to write an entire textbook to bambozzle people on talk forums.

I'd give you a rope, but I'm afraid you'd hang yourself with it. You know it would probably be easier on the people cringing for you if you bothered to read and understand the things we're talking about here. Sadly, I don't think you can blame your last couple of posts on Morton's demon.

OLAADEGBU:
The more reason I believe that if there were to be no God there will be no atheists. QED.

Oh dear, somebody is going to have to tell those kids that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy really do exist as ontologically entities separate from those who represent them. Only you can do it. Run, run like the wind!

Even a little child knows that aeroplanes don't get constructed as a result of hurricane that blew into a metal scrapyard, unless you are an atheist/evolutionist, which only goes on to prove Psalm 53:1 accurate when it says "A fool says in his heart that there is no God."

No atheists or evolutionists believe that aeroplanes are constructed that way. Theydo accurately point out, though, that snowflakes, despite being beautiful, etc, weren't formed by dancing goblins. That probably explains why "although the fool says in his heart that there is no god, the wise declare it out loud.

davidylan:
we share 99% of our DNA with apes . . . we still have no proof that we and apes descended from a similar ancestor.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. What we have, instead, is strong evidence for shared ancestry. Shared endogenous retroviruses is one piece of strong evidence.

Out of curiousity what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?

Thousands of genes share homologs with other species . . . for instance the protein i study (HDAC2) is virtually identical in mice, chicken, yeast and C.elegans. NF-kB is found in virtually EVERY organism on earth . . . what does that tell us about evolution? Did we all evolve from the same ancestor then?

Depends. Ubiquity is usually a sign of common ancestry.

Arent we all tired of vague statements that strive so hard to avoid specifics? We know that proviruses are not useless pieces of ancestral junk, we know that they have cis-acting elements in their LTRs (TF binding sites, promoters and enhancers) that influence other sorrounding genes. We know that the cell evolved unique mechanisms not to get rid of ERVs but to control their expression . . . indicating that ERVs are very important mechanisms by which the cell regulates its genome.

One other important factor - why have we not seen ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ERVs with beneficial effects on the cell genome? Why is it that ALL other exogenous retroviruses are virtually deleterious to the organism (HIV for example)? Did the process of ERVs being integrated into the genome suddenly stop millions of yrs ago?

Please next time i'd be expecting specifics . . . i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric. Better not to bring up a subject you are less informed about.

You're doing it again, spouting without bothering to read or understand. What I love is that after all that you wrote: "i for one get disgusted by clueless rhetoric." Irony is a shameless bitch.

I'll try again, this time with some links so you don't - hopefully - make the above mistakes again:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.

I wrote something about this a while back, but I can't find it on the web. In any case, here a couple you can read to appreciate the subject:

One of the best write ups on the subject by our wonderful, dearly departed Winace: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=5bc8cba86c3148856c8fc3cda2e204d2&p=1828408#post1828408

Talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses


Tout comprendre? Non.

OLAADEGBU:
Using your own logic, does it not then imply that the existence of  God is the reason we have atheists who don't believe in Him, no?

That's an excellent point, because, you know, if Pere Noel and the tooth fairy didn't really exist I wouldn't have to go to primary schools to tell the kids those things aren't real . . . wait, what?

What do you think?  If there was a building does that not imply that there must have been a builder?  A wise man would know that a painting is the evidence of the existence of a painter, no?  Do you think that it would be absurd for a design to be as a result of a designer?  We can all recognise design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence, is it too hard to recognise that our intelligence is the handiwork of One who is infinitely intelligent?  No wonder the Bible says that "A fool says in his heart that there is no God."  Psalm 53:1

I saw a mountain range, eroded by the elements and time. It looked like a beautiful pathway to heaven. It made more sense for me to believe it was shaped by angels riding on pins. I saw a tree with a human face once. Strange to say, it looked like it had been shaped naturally, because a nose was offset here, and an eye was unbalanced there. I decided, though, that it was evidence that humans turn into trees.

dalaman:
KAG you choose to be male today?

If you can't change your sex on the internet then what's the point of having interwebs. It's time we all returned to the good old days of the interwebs, anyway.

What was my wider point? I've forgotten most of it now. It had something to do with religion and science. If I had to guess, I'd say I wanted to talk, first of all, of the fallacy of assuming that any discussion about the existence or non-existence of gods must have atheists teaming up with science and theists having religion as their fellow. I realise that it's hard to keep from falling into those moulds, but it makes a great difference when it is realised that an athiest doesn't need to know all the sciences currently existing (or to pin it down, sciences that deal with the points of origins) to be an atheist and to, if so desiring, argue that gods are unlikely to exist. Alternatively, theists don't have to know everything about their religion either to believe a god or several gods exist. I should probably also mention that theists don't have to be Creationists to believe in gods - even the Christian god.

I mention those things because in quickly skimming through this thread I notice that the fallacies mentioned occur implicitly again and again.

If I remember anything else I'll be sure to give my unwarranted opinion

I want to make what I think is a larger point, but before that I found these interesting enough to warrant further responses (not that preceding responses weren't adequate; just that I would like to add to them)

davidylan:
You are the one being deliberately decietful. I ask again - HOW did the earth get here?

Either science knows or it doesnt . . . period.

slowpoke . . . your analogy is foolish. The car radio is an ACCESSORY NOT A VITAL component of the car . . . just like the earth is not simply an appendage of the universe but a CRITICAL PART OF IT . . . if not we wont be here AT ALL . . . universe or not.

Now look at a more appropriate analogy you dickhead . . . if you buy a car and the fuel pump is not fitted, how do you expect to drive the car? How can BB be interested in the universe but NOT the earth which is really the reason anyone has an idea of the universe in the first place?

This bastage makes you wonder what they teach in schools these days.

First, there is a mean between either "science" doesn't know or it knows. Rather than a dichotomy, it's more like: scientists have ideas of how the different types of planets are formed - the earh being one of them; and continue to collect evidence that indicate the processes.

Further, um, no the earth isn't a critical part of the universe. Not even close. Sure, in the mind of the humancentric creationist the entire universe is built just for the purposes of humans; however, the wider reality suggests otherwise: that the earth is, as Sagan puts its, a pale blue dot in the blackness of the universe.

In fact, calling the earth a pale blue dot is to exaggerate its position. In relation to the inky blackness of the universe the earth is hardly even an atom.

What It hink you mean is that the earth is integral to the existence of humans. Humyns are not the universe, again, contrary to what some athropocentrists would have you believe.

Here's a picture of the pale blue dot:
https://i41.tinypic.com/2a9uy4m.jpg

For more, you can also refer to the picture of the many galaxies that was taken by the hubble telescope and the picture of the scaled sizes of the earth, sun and other stars.

davidylan:
We are back again with the vapid "go read up" game whenever you press these trolls to substantiate their noise making.

1. RNA is a complex structure . . . how did it occur by evolution? Where did these alleged ancient retroviruses come from? Where did they get the enzymes that convert RNA to DNA in human cells?

2. The human cell maintains very tight regulation of transposable elements within the genome (which is why you fools have not mutated into new species in the last 3000yrs!!!) ensuring that the probability of retroviruses being responsible for causing large genome shifts to cause us to evolve into such highly complex structures is close to ZERO. One example - transposable elements (from retroviruses) possess inverted repeats at the ends of their genes . . . these elements can form an RNA hairpin structure that can be cleaved by dicers (RNAi pathway). These short 19-21 nucleotide inverted RNA repeats are what are known as shRNA (used widely in science to silence genes). These endogenous RNAis is one of the cell's most important mechanisms for controlling transposable elements.

If you block the RNAi pathway you end up with increased expression of transposable elements.

If we could manipulate retroviruses that well in human cells, we'd long have eradicated most diseases in the body and found a cure for HIV (an exogenous retrovirus which can lie dormant in CD4 cells or macrophages for yrs before suddenly behaving like an endogenous retrovirus).

3. Endogenous retroviruses are not merely pieces of ancient, useless RNA but actually have regulatory functions since their LTRs do possess transcription factor sites, Poly A sites, promoters and enhancers that clearly influence the regulation of surrounding genes.

It looks like you missed the point of being pointed in the direction of ERVs. What is particularly interesting about them is how several ERVs are shared between species in unique ways. Without reorting to magic or handwaving, it's, IMO, remarkably difficult to offer any other explanation for how the different species that were though to be immediately related share ERVs in such unique, identifiable ways.

benedictac:
Ps 14:1 ¶ The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, "there is no god", but the wise say it aloud. Therefore, let your thoughts on the issue be known, etc.

op: I am intrested in becoming an Atheist,

I would ask why, but that already seems redundant. I suspect your post is one of those mundane attempts at satire, but I find it interesting anyway.

i am tired of people telling me things i can not verify or question, exploiting me in the name of God, Telling me that i will go to hell if i dont believe them, and that i will go to heaven and stay in peace forever if i believed, only for me to believe and see that i am following man like a fool , making him powerful

The worst is that they tell me that i am already perished and i need to be part of them in other to be saved, Giving me empty promises that never come to pass, creating unneccesary hope for me, telling me about , war, subjection, mystry, and things that can not be satisfactorily explained, puting guilt and comfusion in me , after believing them, i go and see that i am better than people who had earlier condemmed me.

Becoming an atheist won't cure you of those ills. People will always tell you things you can't verify, try to exploit in the name of gods, etc. Sounds like you need a change of location instead.

i was told Atheism is all about free thinking, and i love to be part of it, who can put me through,

No, atheism is all about not believing any gods exist. Free thinking isn't a requisite. If you want someone to put you through the steps anyway, contact your local EAC* representative.

* The Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Like Fight Club, it doesn't exist, but it really exists. Now with more virgin sacrifices and orgies.

I guess we are sticking with the Miller-Urey experiment, then. That's fine.

davidylan:
Monoatomic oxygen can readily combine to give diatomic oxygen so we're back to square one eventually. Did O2 exist then or not?

Not quite, no. "Because of low air density at these altitudes, the collision of two oxygen atoms into a molecule is infrequent. At lower altitudes, below 100 km, the rate of recombination of oxygen atoms exceeds the rate of photo-dissociation of oxygen molecules." (http://userpages.umbc.edu/~tokay/chapter1.html). Also, the findings of Schaefer et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005DPS, 37.2915S) indicates that out-gassing would have kept the atmosphere reductive.

Free O2? Little to none.

Then monoatomic O could not have existed then and would make your wiki equations irrelevant.

We know that O + O --> O₂

I'm not sure you think through your responses at all.

No. As mentioned above, that would have been infrequent. Further, the presence of other elements and compounds in water to which monoatomic oxygen could more easily bind itself should be taken into account. I was hoping you'd make the connection a few posts earlier, but as time is running out we better move things on.

[quote]this is the equation for the photolysis of water - H2O (l) + hν ---> H2 (g) + ½ O2 (g)

Yes.

Earlier you said it wasnt possible.[/quote]No, I didn't.

The equation showed: how carbon monoxide and monoatomic oxygen could have been produced. Both necessary for the Miller-Urey expreriment. Further, it showed the path that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would have taken. Finally, it gives the reaction that produced glycine, indicating that, contrary to what you seemed to have been indicating when you posted your assumed equation, the production of glycine wasn't problematic.

You do realise that CO is a gas and can be easily produced in the lab no?

No shit. The question then becomes how it was produced as it is a necessary component in the eventual outcome.

You do realise that Miller does not talk about "producing" CO and monoatomic oxygen ANYWHERE in his papers?

Yes.

You do know that CH₄ and NH₃ can readily generate HCN no?

The BMA process? Didn't that become known much after the Miller-Urey experiment?

You do know that even with the wiki equations . . . you would still need to remove the glycine produced to drive the forward reactions?

You do know that glycine itself can inhibit its own production via feed-back mechanism no?

No. In the original process and subsequent recreations there is no mention of glycine inhibiting the production of any other amino acids nor itself. For someone who as made a point of being faithful to the Miller paper, you are taking a surprising departure now.

You do think through your responses at all no?

Of course.

Oh, you didn't try to pass it off as the equation? Okay, my mistake. I'll amend my point: What you posited as the most probable equation to explain the formation of glycine was misleading.

Based on what evidence? I hate when people just leave such comments and FAIL to prove why their position is correct. the equation for the production of glycine i gave is very valid based on:

a. it utilises ONLY those compounds found in Millers flask

b. has been proven to be at least efficient at generating glycine.

First, if you hate people leaving comments without proving their veracity of their comments, then you must really hate yourself.

Second, you forgot to add hydrogen, so even a cursory glance indicates that not everything in the Miller flask is accounted for.

I called it "the equations for the production of glycine", but, really, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the equation I posted gives the formula for the formation of important compounds present in the Miller-Urey experiment. It also indicated how the Miller-Urey experiment formed glycine - this, perhaps, is the most important point.

Carbon dioxide was not in Millers flask . . . period, so your above is false.

Your red-herring is duly noted. Since I didn't say Miller had CO2 in his flask, your response is moot.

Depends on your idea of "relative minority" . . . i find out quite a lot of recent scientists do believe oxygen was an integral part of the primitive atmosphere. Take a look at nature reviews instead of silly kiddie websites for a change.

I find the opposite.

Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.

Ah now its Miller that is wrong. What else do you think Miller was wrong about?
Quite a lot of scientists seem to think he was also wrong about the presence of oxygen . . . i still find it hard to believe that primitive earth would contain plenty of oxygen in compounds (water and carbon dioxide) but NO free oxygen at all. please help us rationalise that issue.

Wait, what's wrong with Miller being wrong? I didn't know Miller well, so I don't know how much more he was wrong about things in general. Anyway, quite a lot of scientists think he was right about the presence of oxygen. I don't know why you find it hard to understand the presence of oxygen in compounds but no gaseous oxygen (and with that we are getting close to the point I made earlier about distinguishing water from free oxygen). In some extraterrestrial bodies the phenomenon can be observed.

How else to get hydrogen cyanide? Magic?

common sense aint so common - try the equations for ammonia and methane.

Caution - do not try it at home, cyanide produced could kill you.

Only if you agree to send me the platinum I'd need. So, is your argument that it was through mixing ammonia and methane that Miller created hydrogen cyanide?

[quote]Miller certainly did not believe this as even you yourself now agree. Higher CO2 in the atmosphere would have meant too low CH4 for his experiment to have been feasible. So if there was abundant CO2 then Miller's entire experiment would have made no sense. Besides Miller had already argued that carbon dioxide and water just yielded only formaldehyde and formic acid.

I've addressed the issue of CO2 above. By the way, could you post the context of Miller's statement about carbon dioxide and water?

You didnt.[/quote]I most certainly did. See: "Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4."

Go read the paper yourself . . . its in the abstract for the 1959 paper.

I don't have any access to any abstract. I've read the paper, now if only I could get that abstract, it would be great.

The fact that O would readily combine with O to form oxygen and oxygen to form ozone makes nonsense of your claims that there was no free oxygen in primitive earth. Which is it? Oxygen was there or not? you can't keep running around claiming that forms of oxygen existed as elements and as compounds with NO free oxygen . . .

Already addressed.

How did Miller get carbon monoxide?

simple . . . burn zinc oxide in the presence of coke. Its an ordinary lab experiment that high school students can perform.

Was that how you think Miller got carbon monoxide?

CH4 and NH3 together are both very good sources of HCN. But it is also possible that CO can help generate HCN too. Which is probably why Miller had all three in his flask.

Yes, CH4 and NH3 could help generate HCN. That wasn't the point, though. We all know it's possible that CO can help generate HCN - that's what the equation was showing. Did you have a point?

the point is simple . . . carbon dioxide was not in Millers tank so the wiki equations make no sense.

I still have one issue . . . WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THE WIKI EQUATIONS?

Leslie Orgel's analysis was a primary source:

"Careful analyses elucidated many of the chemical reactions that occurred in the experiment and thus might have occurred on the prebiotic planet. First, the gases in the "atmosphere" reacted to form a suite of simple organic compounds, including hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and aldehydes (compounds containing the group CHO ). The aldehydes then combined with ammonia and hydrogen cyanide to generate intermediary products called aminonitriles, which interacted with water in the "ocean" to produce amino acids and ammonia. Glycine was the most abundant amino acid, resulting from the combination of formaldehyde (CH2O), ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. A surprising number of the standard 20 amino acids were also made in lesser amounts." (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2948/orgel.html)

Okay, we will have to bring this thread to a close as I am running out of time. I can only make a few more posts, so let's make it count. We can stick with the Miller-Urey experiment, despite it being a digression - if you look back to page 2 and the beginning of page three - that has taken on a life of its own (there's an understandable psychological reason the digression was created and pushed to this stage). Or we can edge back towards the larger scope of the sciences that matter especially in regard to the original post.

davidylan:
Here we go again with maddam ITK, twisting weaving and bobbing . . .

You are projecting, David; you are projecting.

Except I didn't. You're lying again. Another ironic thing is that you've been doing so much sidestepping and contradicting of your position in this thread, that I can't help but grin when I review the thread.

Except of course each time you point out "contradictions" it turns out the problem is your own lack of understanding.

Lol. You've got to love the chutzpah. No, you are lying yet again. Several times in this thread I have pointed out the contradictions and falsehood in your statements. For the most part, those have gone ignored.

[quote][quote][quote]That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O2.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Unfortunately you need to go back to school. If Miller suggests that there was plenty of water on earth (which you also have supported previously) and also water vapor then it is impossible that there was no O2 in the atmosphere.[/quote]You can't seem to make up your mind, because you're trying to shuffle away having been caught in a lie. Reading back through my posts you'll see why having water isn't a problem for a reducing atmosphere. So,which is it? Diatomic oxygen or monoatomic oxygen? O2 or O?[/quote]This bears absolutely no relevance to the quote itself. Your posts have been nothing but a mishmash of insults and wishy-washy science . . . there's absolutely NO WHERE you make a valid and convincing argument why water can exist in a reducing environment without oxygen at all.
Again you bring up a totally irrelevant problem, trumped up by you to sidestep the main issue . . . no one is arguing about mono- or diatomic oxygen. That is your own problem.[/quote]Um, what? Of course it's relevant. In the presence of O2, the atmosphere is not reducing, not so with O. By the way, I have argued for monoatomic oxygen, while you were arguing for diatomic oxygen. Like I said, you, sir, are a liar.

So did the early water bodies contain NO disolved oxygen at all?

Free O2? Little to none.

this is the equation for the photolysis of water - [size=14pt]H₂O (l) + hν ---> H₂ (g) + ½ O₂ (g)[/size]

Yes.

Another frankly silly claim that has no basis in facts. The wiki equation indicated just WHICH salient points? Can you please name one.

The equation showed: how carbon monoxide and monoatomic oxygen could have been produced. Both necessary for the Miller-Urey expreriment. Further, it showed the path that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would have taken. Finally, it gives the reaction that produced glycine, indicating that, contrary to what you seemed to have been indicating when you posted your assumed equation, the production of glycine wasn't problematic.

No. What you tried to pass off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment was misleading. The wiki one inidicates several salient factors.

When i gave the other equation . . . i did not "try to pass it off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment" . . . as you shamelessly and falsely claim. these are the very words i used to describe it - this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.

The reason i said it was "most probable" is because the forward reaction utilises ONLY those chemical elements found in Miller's flask - CH₄, NH₃ and H₂O.

Oh, you didn't try to pass it off as the equation? Okay, my mistake. I'll amend my point: What you posited as the most probable equation to explain the formation of glycine was misleading.

Now lets go back to your wiki equation which you originally called Millers equations until it was pointed out to you that they don't exist in ANY of his original papers. It starts out with CO₂, which we already know was NOT in Millers flask and which he argued against . . . claiming that a high partial pressure of which would indicate a very low pressure for CH₄ which he added to his flask.

I called it "the equations for the production of glycine", but, really, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the equation I posted gives the formula for the formation of important compounds present in the Miller-Urey experiment. It also indicated how the Miller-Urey experiment formed glycine - this, perhaps, is the most important point.

Again . . . i reiterate . . . a little more substantive points are better than insults and carte blanche false claims

I don't need to make false claims - I leave that to you. My points have been substantive (as can be easily seen by even a quick glance at my posts in this thread). As for insults, you get what you deserve.

Maybe you should read the thread again - you'll get a kick out of it. What you were arguing for is different from what you're currently arguing for. Like I mentioned earlier, even the formula you posted - my response was to laugh at you missing the obvious - was pointing to what I made clear. Well, I did call it:

"I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know."

As usual . . . *yawn*

No attempt to address the issue from a scientific standpoint . . . just brainless insults.

Like I said, if no one else will know, you'll know and I'll know. That's enough for me.

You are right. I missed the part where Miller argues for a lowish amount of carbon dioxide. However, that doesn't mean it's false to point out that geologists and scientists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have concluded there was abundant carbon dioxide - enough, incidentally, to produce the other compounds.This is a contradiction . . .

1. Many scientists and geologists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have ALSO CONCLUDED that there was abundant oxygen. But strangely you prefer to cling to their speculations on carbon dioxide alone.

No, a relative minority of scientists claim there was abundant oxygen. Most disagree and point to data available.

2. there can be no two rights here . . . if the scientists are correct that carbon dioxide was abundant then Miller would be wrong. Miller's hypothesis for the large presence of CH₄ in the atmosphere was predicated on a low CO₂ level . . .

3. So which of these two are right? you can't have it both ways ma'am.

Actually, you are on to something. Miller was wrong in his estimation of the amount of carbon dioxide in the general atmosphere of the earth, and that was one of the major criticisms of the experiment in spite of its results. However, modern rediscovery of the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that it can be had both ways. That is, what is necessary would be small pockets of areas on earth - probably somewhere volcanic - would have a low level of CO2 and a high level of CH4.

Bla bla bla much of which makes no sense . . . so lets take it one by one.

- I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. - which begs the question why you think the Wiki equation is correct seeing as its FIRST equation started with CO₂ which was not in Millers tank.

How else to get hydrogen cyanide? Magic?

- What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. - But Miller certainly did not believe this as even you yourself now agree. Higher CO₂ in the atmosphere would have meant too low CH₄ for his experiment to have been feasible. So if there was abundant CO₂ then Miller's entire experiment would have made no sense. Besides Miller had already argued that carbon dioxide and water just yielded only formaldehyde and formic acid.

I've addressed the issue of CO2 above. By the way, could you post the context of Miller's statement about carbon dioxide and water?

[quote]Another scenario: Miller's experiment used specifically water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) [Wiki]. How was CO2 generated? The second eqn requires atomic O2 from CO2 but there was no CO2 in Miller's tank at all.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it. -

The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Since there was no CO₂ in Millers tank, if the Wiki equations are correct then WHERE did the atomic O come from? thin air?[/quote]I have included the context of this train of contention. From it we see that I was correcting an error. In any case, O would have been produced in the atmosphere, which in turn helped in the production of formaldehyde.

- Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - Miller had no CO₂ in his tank so we can conclude that at least the first equation from wiki is WRONG. Miller also had CO is his tank already so bypassing any need for splittling carbon dioxide.

How did Miller get carbon monoxide?

- That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. - CH₄ and NH₃ together are both very good sources of HCN. But it is also possible that CO can help generate HCN too. Which is probably why Miller had all three in his flask.

Yes, CH4 and NH3 could help generate HCN. That wasn't the point, though. We all know it's possible that CO can help generate HCN - that's what the equation was showing. Did you have a point?

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

I have.

davidylan:
Nice way of sidestepping all the contradictions.

Except I didn't. You're lying again. Another ironic thing is that you've been doing so much sidestepping and contradicting of your position in this thread, that I can't help but grin when I review the thread.

[quote]That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O2.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Unfortunately you need to go back to school. If Miller suggests that there was plenty of water on earth (which you also have supported previously) and also water vapor then it is impossible that there was no O2 in the atmosphere.[/quote]You can't seem to make up your mind, because you're trying to shuffle away having been caught in a lie. Reading back through my posts you'll see why having water isn't a problem for a reducing atmosphere. So,which is it? Diatomic oxygen or monoatomic oxygen? O2 or O?

1. Disolved oxygen in water is the reason fish and other aquatic life can survive there.

Yes.

2. UVlight splits water vapor into oxygen . . .

Which type of oxygen? Lol.

the wiki equations are entirely misleading.

No. What you tried to pass off as the equation of the Miller-Urey experiment was misleading. The wiki one inidicates several salient factors.

No, he doesn't have it in his papers; however, it's in the equation in wiki so as to make the formation of formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide- and even water - clear. Like I said, I guess I expected too much.

the wiki equations are entirely misleading. Infact regarding the production of formaldehyde and formic acid, Miller states in the abstract to his 1959 paper that ordinary water and CO₂ generated low amounts of those two alone but no other organic compounds.

Besides how did the equations make the formation of formaldehyde, HCN and water clear?

- CO + H₂ will give formaldehyde in low quantities. (both present in Millers flask)
- CH₄ and NH₃ will given HCN (both gases were present in Millers flask)
- Water? Miller added that already so how clearer can that be?

If formaldehyde was generated in Millers experiment then it was obviously through a method that did not involve CO₂ as it wasnt in Millers flask. That's just simple . . . basic truth.

Yes, formaldehyde wasn't generated from carbon dioxide; instead, as is pointed out in the equation, it was generated through the reaction of monoatomic oxygen with methane. That's simple basic truth.

[quote]Monoatomic oxygen is surprisingly ALSO produced by photolytic splitting of water molecules . . . an idea that is also present in Millers 1959 paper. READ IT!

Yes. I said as much in my previous post.

False. I've been singing about photolysis of water for the last 2 pages and you virulently went against it. In one post you even claimed to have researched photodissociation and that it wasnt what i was making it out to be.[/quote]Maybe you should read the thread again - you'll get a kick out of it. What you were arguing for is different from what you're currently arguing for. Like I mentioned earlier, even the formula you posted - my response was to laugh at you missing the obvious - was pointing to what I made clear. Well, I did call it:

"I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know."

Trying to be consistent helps.

It sure does. You should try it.

I've read it. However, there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, enough to lead to and help with the production of other compounds.

Again FALSE! If you go back and diligently read the 1959 paper instead of belligerently trying to sound like you know anything . . . you'd realize why Miller did not consider a high atmospheric CO₂ partial pressure possible at that time and thus did not include it in his flask.

You are right. I missed the part where Miller argues for a lowish amount of carbon dioxide. However, that doesn't mean it's false to point out that geologists and scientists dealing with the early earth atmosphere have concluded there was abundant carbon dioxide - enough, incidentally, to produce the other compounds.

[quote][quote]Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide.

- READ THE DAMN PAPER! There was no CO2 in Millers tank.

Full stop. You can continue droning.

I didn't say there was.[/quote]Read my post.Yeah, you just lied that it was abundant.

READ THE DAMN PAPER![/quote]Um, I didn't lie (you're mistaking me for you). I have never stated that there was CO2 in Miller's tank. Don't twist my words. What I said was that there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would have produced some of the compounds used in the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, I'll help you out with what I wrote: "CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it."

davidylan:
I've grown tired as this has shifted from a sensible debate into a need to sound superior.

You're telling me.

But lets take a look at the above from you:

That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. - again a subtle way of reading what you wish to read and not what i wrote. I never mistook singlet oxygen for elemental oxygen so please desist from confusing the brainless trolls egging you on. Even the wiki equation you quote named it "atomic oxygen" . . . which we all normally take as the monoatomic form of O₂.

You wrote, and I quote: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." You, sir, are a liar.

Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. - Did you even READ the reason i dismissed it at all? please go back and read Millers two papers again (one in 1953 and the explanatory one in 1959) NOWHERE does he write any such equations. Now where did the wiki writer get his equations from? you said the equations were correct . . . how? Because some anonymous troll put it on wiki and then said it was? Where is the concrete source?

No, he doesn't have it in his papers; however, it's in the equation in wiki so as to make the formation of formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide- and even water - clear. Like I said, I guess I expected too much.

Monoatomic oxygen is surprisingly ALSO produced by photolytic splitting of water molecules . . . an idea that is also present in Millers 1959 paper. READ IT!

Yes. I said as much in my previous post.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. - Actually Millers 1959 paper says it wasnt as that would have inhibited the production of substantial quantities of stable CH4 . . . a justification for his own use of CH4 and CO instead of CO₂ in his flask.

READ THE DAMN PAPER!

I've read it. However, there was abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, enough to lead to and help with the production of other compounds.

The second equation required atomic O, not O2. - Besides the fact that those equations are NOT present in either of Millers papers that is not an issue that is relevant. You can get atomic O from CO2 and water also. Since there was Water in Millers tank BUT NO CO₂ what then could have been the source for the atomic O?

Magic.

Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. - READ THE DAMN PAPER! There was no CO₂ in Millers tank.

Full stop. You can continue droning.

I didn't say there was. Read my post.

davidylan:
KAG, first let me reiterate once again that your responses are simply one-way traffic - insults! Very little attempt to address the subject matter at all, which leaves us wondering what your real goal is.

You're being dishonest. That you think my responses are simply "insults" with "very little attempt to address the subject matter" is telling in itself. It's either you aren't able to read other people's posts or won't. That, and you're being dishonest.

davidylan:

[quote]where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH3 side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen.

No proof!

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.

[/quote]I read and re-read this and i honestly don't see your point here. Besides i already posted IN BOLD FONTS the chemical equation for the Miller-Urey experiment for the generation of glycine . . . based on the fact that the eqn has a very low Km and u require the complete destruction of the produced glycine to drive the forward reaction . . . spontaneous production is IMPOSSIBLE.

Your equation was wrong. I posted the right one. The point was there is no conspiracy, no magic, and their experiment has been overly peer-reviewed and repeated several times. The Miller-Urey experiment did produce other amino acids, sugars, lipids. Heck, read the Miller-Urey link you provided.

Besides Miller could not prove where he got his ammonia from. The atmosphere has virtually no NH3 besides man-made sources.

Volcanic reactions in the early earth. The early atmosphere of the earth had ammonia.

You know, you really could debate POINTS rather than insulting me.

Or I could carry on doing both.

For the third time of asking: the Miller-Urey experiment set out to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors." The field has also produced a varied result since then.

Recent evidence shows that Miller's idea of the conditions of primitive earth ARE WRONG. We know that oxygen was present in the atmosphere then which inhibits spontaneous generation of organic amino acids.

Wrong. Recent evidence supports the idea of a minimal to nil oxygen gas in the prebiotic earth's atmosphere. It is the relative minority - often Creationists - that want and argue for an oxidised atmosphere.

[quote]actually its unimportant. For the simple reason that Ala is simply a substitution of hydrogen with a methyl side chain. Nothing new here.

You mean apart from the fact that it's a major component in organic life?

Actually no. Glycine is a "conditionally essential" amino acid. The ESSENTIAL amino acids absolutely required for organic life and which CANNOT be synthesized by organic life are - K I L H F Y T W V C and M[/quote]I don't think you know what the term "conditionally essential" means. It doesn't mean the amino acid is unimportant nor unnecessary for organic lifeforms. In reverse also, essential amino acid isn't a reference to relative importance over the conditionals. Now you know.

you know, you really could try to debate FACTS rather than insult my person.

Doing both works for me. I only insult when it's absolutely warranted - compare my initial posts in this thread to the posts I made after you showed yourself incapable of being able to understand what you were arguing and misunderstand continually simple science, despite claims of being in the field. Also, your hypocrisy provoked more "insults"

[quote]you basically said nothing but i'll take the pains to go through it:

Here is what you said - Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

which is basically nonsense because it would require that the earth was a very cold environment for the spontaneously generated proteins to have survived long enough to evolve to simple organisms. Another problem with the temperature conundrum is the fact that enzymes require varying temperatures to be effective.

Um, not quite, no. First, the part you seem to be missing is the part where I point out that, contrary to what you misunderstood, the evolution of humans would have been a long point away from the onset of abiogenesis. That is, the eventual emergence of human beings wouldn't have happened immediately or soon after abiogenesis or even the emergence of microbes.

Second, you do realise that very often one habitat can have various spots of differing temperature. You've also failed to take into account the existence of water bodies. A body of water, especially one of considerable depth, is usually cool.

By the way, I don;t see how you didn't understand my correction of your misunderstanding. It's pretty clear and concise.

What does this explain?
1. Would the reaction have taken place in water?
2. How much water would the earth have required to cool the earth to below 4 deg C?
3. Water would contain disolved oxygen which inhibits the reaction anyway.[/quote]It explains many things, not least correcting your misconception of the process of evolution. In the conceptions based on Haldane-Oparin hypothesis, which includes the work of Miller-Urey, yes the reaction would have taken place in the water. The temperature of the earth varied, with cold spots likely containing glacials - unecessary generally though it may be. Finally, not quite.

Actually, that part of my post was in response to only half of the claim: "it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins." I realise what you mean by it's putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that's just the point: the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the last nor the only experiment in the field of natural production of amino-acids. Others have been able to show the probable path for the natural emergence of the twenty amino acids necessary.

It is quite concievable that if these "other experiments" where any more successful they would have been given massive publicity by now.

That you don't know about them doesn't mean they weren't given "massive publicity" in scientific circles.

Lol. Red-herring my ass. You stated: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." I'm still not sure how anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can't see the absurdity in that statement.

Not absurd at all . . . water contains disolved oxygen and photodissociation of water produces oxygen. To say there was absolutely no trace of O2 in the atmosphere when we also had water vapour is what is truly absurd.

Monoatomic oxygen is different from O2

The reason fish can survive in water at all is because they can aspirate free disolved oxygen in water.

Okay.

If you remember solubility from ordinary high school chemistry, the higher the temperature of water, the less disolved oxygen there is. So lets assume the temeprature of water was so high as NOT to contain any disolved oxygen at all . . . the earth's temperature would thus be too high to sustain peptide bonds in its native state.

You mean as opposed to the fact that peptide bonds in amino acids would have been formed through a high temperature? There's a reason for the question.

However you argued earlier that it is possible that water was really cold . . . unless primitive earth was not obeying laws of O2 solubility, that cold water would definitely contain lots of disolved O2.

See above.

I should also point out that water is not simply pure H2O only, it contains low amounts of other disolved gases in it.

Exactly. Monoatomic oxygen would then have had a lot of mixtures and elements to which it would bond.

Lets for a second assume that O2 was non-existent in the atmosphere . . . how did water form? Lips sealed

Heavens! Terrible, simply terrible. So, how could water be on earth without oxygen? Ignoring prevalent ideas of how water may have first emerged on earth, here are a couple from the first link you posted:

CO2 + 4H2 ----> CH4 + 2H2O (liq)
CO + 3H2 ------> CH4 + H2O (liq)

But i know KAG never admits reality. She'd rather insult me. Grin

Lol. Extremely ironic considering the progress of this thread.

[Quote]

Actually, science says yes, he was right to assume that the early earth had little to no free oxygen.

Examples:

# Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
# No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases). (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

and:

"The present atmosphere of the Earth is probably not its original atmosphere. Our current atmosphere is what chemists would call an oxidizing atmosphere, while the original atmosphere was what chemists would call a reducing atmosphere. In particular, it probably did not contain oxygen. " (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html)

Actually if you are 100% honest with yourself you'd know that science says no such thing. Infact many scientists are divided on the issue of whether early earth was reducing or oxidizing. the problem i see though is that very few will take the time to run through the 2 links you posted which unfortunately are not peer-reviewed and could have been put up by just any geek willing to sell an idea.

1. I have instead put up an article written by a professor of Geological sciences detailing evidence why the atmosphere of early earth was oxidizing and not reducing. Good luck ignoring it as you usually do.

THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE[/quote]First, I should point out that much of science disagrees with him; however, that's really not the problem I perceive from the article. The article uses several things to attempt to buttress an atmosphere high on oxygen. The first of the major points is:

"Most of the exposed rocks have suffered so much that most of the evidence of their early history has been destroyed. An additional problem is the contamination of the ancient rocks with material of recent origin carried in by circulating ground water or processes of diffusion. Interpretation of the evidence is a highly subjective process and, not surprisingly, geologists are divided amongst several schools of thought. Rutten has presented the position favouring an early reducing atmosphere very persuasively in his book The Origin of Life by Natural Causes (23)."

That point assumes a sort of conspiracy amongst geologists due to subjectivity. One that seeks to simply handwave away much of the data collected by citing subjectivity. However, subjectivity can only go so far before it is swept away by continued review.

Following that, the rest of the article commits the fallacy of equivocation by ignoring that the early earth later had oxygen because some precambrians did produce oxygen. The evidence suggests that it was in this period, geologically relatively around the time of the "oxygen catastrophe", that the effects of oxygen gas bonding are notable.

By the way, if you want peer-reviewed journals that point to a reducing early atmosphere I can provide them. Promise you'll read them, though.

2. this is a Nature Science review published in 2002 and quite clearly indicates the fact that oxygen and its isotopes must have been present in the earth during primitive - Determining the composition of the Earth

I like this one. I think you should definitely read it and digest it. It's excellent, although probably not in the way you think.

3. Another nature review article - The habitat and nature of early life

- This article is very interesting in the sense that it says this - Water is a strong greenhouse gas and, at some stages early in the history of Venus and Earth, water vapour was probably present high in the atmosphere. Such water vapour would have been photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen present in the upper atmosphere would have been lost rapidly to space.

That's a thought provoking article. You should read it. At this point, however, I'm more inclined to agree with the majority of geologists who agree that it is likely that the volcanoes expelled: "nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_6_112/ai_105371471) as opposed to the suggestion in the article about the "probable oxidation state of lavas". That would mean methane and ammonia aren't improbable., etc.

KAG, it would be better to debate science than insult me.

I've done nothing but that since the beginning of the thread. Funnily enough, all the articles you posted all point to an earth that's billions of years old - something with which you disagree; the last one which you cite also points to evolution occurring. In fact, to sum it up, they all argue strongly for points with which you've made a point of misunderstanding or disagreeing. Ain't that a kicker? There is a good reason for you getting continually insulted, charlatan.

Finally, you mentioned something about ignoring things. As you already know, ignoring salient facts and pretending you didn't notice points is your forte.

*palm* *head*. If you only knew how crazy or silly you're sounding, you'd laugh too. I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know.

By the way, so it doesn't get swept away in my gales of laughter, no, the sun didn't appear by abiogenesis nor magic. Abiogenesis is the . . . aw, what's the point.

Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

Nope. Read the equation again.

The nature review article i linked to above talks about photolysis of water. you can call the authors stupid if you wish. By the way i looked up the very first web page you referenced and it has this to say:

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

Oxygen Production

Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels

KAG, it would be better if you thoroughly read the websites you link to yourself instead of insulting me.

Yeah.

I dn't see it as a strawman, per se. That is, I was trying to summarise a position that regards water as impossible with free oxygen. Anyway, see above - yeah, including the parts where I'm being a cad.

We know that isnt possible. Take a class in photlysis of water . . . it might help.

Only if you promise to take classes in chemisty, biology, and physics.

First, billions, not millions. Second, the state of the early atmosphere of the earth can be determined through the examination of early and "fossil" geological layers. That is, by testing rocks and layers one can gauge the type of elements and compounds that would have been present or absent.

the first article i posted clearly used this same technique to prove that the earth in Miller's predicted period was oxidizing and not reducing.

Here it is again for your perusal - THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE

See above.

Quote from: KAG on Yesterday at 03:12:38 AM
Except if you're wrong. These are the equations for the production of glycine:

CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

(wiki)

the presence of atomic oxygen automatically negates this entire equation as improbable. Atomic oxygen does not fly in by magic, it is produced by the splitting of O2 by UV radiation.

Oh gosh. That's monoatomic oxygen, not diatomic oxygen - O2 gas. You are right monoatomic oxygen isn't produced by magic, nor is it necessarily produced by the splitting of O2. Consider for instance the start of the Miller-Urey experiment equation which you dismissed. In it we see one of the well known examples of how monoatomic oxygen is produced.

If O2 did not exist then, according to Miller, then you don't have any atomic oxygen and thus equations 1 and 2 from your own wiki post is rendered useless.

Lol. What a tool. It's a strange thing that you are doing better with this topic than any of the other science related topics, though. That probably says a lot.

I think you just ran to copy Wiki's equations on the generation of glycine without thinking it through.

Or maybe I was hoping you would be able to understand it. Yeah, I know, I expected too much.

Another scenario: Miller's experiment used specifically water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) [Wiki]. How was CO2 generated? The second eqn requires atomic O2 from CO2 but there was no CO2 in Miller's tank at all.

CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere. The second equation required atomic O, not O2. Carbon monoxide is one of the products of the splitting of carbon dioxide. That in turn helps in the formation of hydrogen cyanide. Think about it.

Is the Wiki eqn really correct? where is the source?

Yes, it's right.

[Quote]KAGJust so you know, so far you're the only one that appears to be a charlatan. If for some reason you aren't sure why, re-read the thread.

KAG, u're better off debating facts than spending way too much time to insult me.[/quote]That's funny, especially considering the fact that this part was responding to you trying to be insulting.

davidylan:

where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH3 side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen.

No proof!

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.

Which i duly noted earlier when i said that the combined combination of Gly and Ala produced was 2% and the next highest amino acid coming in at 0.026%. too insignificant to support life.

For the third time of asking: the Miller-Urey experiment set out to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors." The field has also produced a varied result since then.

actually its unimportant. For the simple reason that Ala is simply a substitution of hydrogen with a methyl side chain. Nothing new here.

You mean apart from the fact that it's a major component in organic life?

Unfortunately most of those "variants" have needed more stringent conditions that have been shown to have been unlikely to have existed in early atmosphere.

Like which?

you basically said nothing but i'll take the pains to go through it:

Here is what you said - Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

which is basically nonsense because it would require that the earth was a very cold environment for the spontaneously generated proteins to have survived long enough to evolve to simple organisms. Another problem with the temperature conundrum is the fact that enzymes require varying temperatures to be effective.

Um, not quite, no. First, the part you seem to be missing is the part where I point out that, contrary to what you misunderstood, the evolution of humans would have been a long point away from the onset of abiogenesis. That is, the eventual emergence of human beings wouldn't have happened immediately or soon after abiogenesis or even the emergence of microbes.

Second, you do realise that very often one habitat can have various spots of differing temperature. You've also failed to take into account the existence of water bodies. A body of water, especially one of considerable depth, is usually cool.

By the way, I don;t see how you didn't understand my correction of your misunderstanding. It's pretty clear and concise.

this is putting the cart before the horse. The Miller-Urey experiment highlighted the basic problem generating amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. When you can't generate amino acids or you generate mainly glycine and alanine how then can you generate a protein? the scientists you reference had all 20 amino acids in sufficient quantities to start with so to claim that "science of abiogenesis has moved on" is redundant.

Actually, that part of my post was in response to only half of the claim:  "it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins." I realise what you mean by it's putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that's just the point: the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the last nor the only experiment in the field of natural production of amino-acids. Others have been able to show the probable path for the natural emergence of the twenty amino acids necessary.

LoL (I'm still laughing at you). I think personal abuse is warranted when a supposed biochemist (?) is unable to distinguish water from free oxygen.

I have no problems distinguishing the two, thank you and that was not the issue . . . i know you people like to chase red herrings when you come unstuck.

Lol. Red-herring my ass. You stated: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." I'm still not sure how anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can't see the absurdity in that statement.

So here i try to explain again . . . the Miller-Urey experiment was based on a reducing environment because ALL repeat experiments in the lab clearly outline the FACT that there is NO production of amino acids in the presence of O₂.

Now was Miller correct to assume that the atmosphere did NOT contain any elemental oxygen but contained water? Well science (not me) says no:

Actually, science says yes, he was right to assume that the early earth had little to no free oxygen.

Examples:

# Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
# No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases). (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

and:

"The present atmosphere of the Earth is probably not its original atmosphere. Our current atmosphere is what chemists would call an oxidizing atmosphere, while the original atmosphere was what chemists would call a reducing atmosphere. In particular, it probably did not contain oxygen. " (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html)

1. Since Miller used water vapor in his experiment, he clearly indicates that he believes the primitive atmosphere contained a lot of water vapour.

2. Miller and his group also believed that much of the gases in the primitive atmosphere came from active volcanoes that also produced lots of water vapor.

3. Since we know that the primitive earth also had a sun (for which we have no idea if that appeared by abiogenesis or magic), it is concluded that photodissociation of water in the upper layer of the atmosphere was a definite possibility.

4. H₂O --hƒ--> H₂ + ½O₂

Therefore on a photon striking water vapor, it generates elemental oxygen which would have been in substantial enough quantities to inhibit formation of amino acids from smaller molecules.

Maybe instead of laughing all the time you shld try and substantiate your vague points with FACTS.

*palm* *head*. If you only knew how crazy or silly you're sounding, you'd laugh too. I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know.

By the way, so it doesn't get swept away in my gales of laughter, no, the sun didn't appear by abiogenesis nor magic. Abiogenesis is the . . . aw, what's the point.

Oh wow! I give up. Did you just say it's impossible for the earth to have H2O without free oxygen? This is beyond absurd.

Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

I had to look up photodissociation and I don't think it means what you think it means.

Let's not pretend I don't have good grasp of science. I do. You know that. It's not worth debating. Ironically, it would seem that you think my understanding of science is "wishy-washy high school nonsense" because I happen to know, amongst other things, that free oxygen and water are different chemical entities.

Straw man alert. We are all well aware of that fact. I have hence addressed the main issue above.

I dn't see it as a strawman, per se. That is, I was trying to summarise a position that regards water as impossible with free oxygen. Anyway, see above - yeah, including the parts where I'm being a cad.

No, I read it all. I don't see why it's odd, though. His experiment set out to, as I pointed in my first post on this subject, show "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."

His conditions are based on way too many assumptions. For instance we HAVE to assume that everything as we know it on earth did not exist millions of years ago.

Environmental concentrations of inorganic precursors used by Miller:

1. Methane - 0.00017%

2. Elemental hydrogen - 0.00006%

3. Ammonia - 0%

4. Oxygen - 20.9%

5. Water - 70%

please help us ask Mr. Miller and Miss "ITK" KAG how their own primitive environnment was like millions of years ago, with a little more than mere guesses and conjectures of course.

First, billions, not millions. Second, the state of the early atmosphere of the earth can be determined through the examination of early and "fossil" geological layers. That is, by testing rocks and layers one can gauge the type of elements and compounds that would have been present or absent.

One more problem:
2 CH₄ + NH₃ + 2 H₂O  ↔ H₂N.CH₂.COOH + 5 H₂

this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.
Unfortunately this reaction yields a very very low K value . . . way too low yield.

the only way to increase the rate of the forward reaction is to continously remove the glycine produced.

However there are 2 problems:

1. Where would the produced glycine go?

2. the production of more glycine requires the destruction of the glycine already produced!

KAG . . . less laughing, more thinking and maybe we can start taking you charlatans seriously.

Except if you're wrong. These are the equations for the production of glycine:

   CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
   CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
   CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
   CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

   CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
   NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

(wiki)

Just so you know, so far you're the only one that appears to be a charlatan. If for some reason you aren't sure why, re-read the thread.

davidylan:
lol its one of the reasons i mostly avoid posts from the likes of KAG and Huxley, plenty of high-fallutin words they don't understand.

Lol. I think you mean words you don't understand.

you hear words like abiogenesis and the deluded crowd here starts clapping for them. Break down the word in simple terms and its clear KAG herself has no clue what she touts.

Yes, which is why you've managed to refute any of the points I've made in this thread. Gladrags.

davidylan:
where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH₃ side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen. No, as I already pointed out, the Miller-Urey experiment did more than produce only glycine and alanine. Further, the relation between glycine and analine are important because, if nothing else, there is an indication of relatedness because of natural formation. Further, variants of the Miller-Urey experiment have produced amino acids more complex than glycine and alanine.

[quote]Miller-Urey experiment must have assumed an earth's temperature of well below 30 deg C (a temperature that is not feasible for the equator considering most scientists indicate man evolved from there) since MOST proteins cannot survive beyond that temp.

Oh dear! You really are out of your depth here, aren't you? Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

Not out of my depth. Proteins are what i work with every single day. Leaving ordinary cell lysates on your desk at 25^oC for less than an hr is enough to degrade proteins. there is a reason we lyse cells very quickly and ALWAYS on ice.
Unless Miller's hypothesis includes a very low temperature environment, it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins.[/quote]No, out of your depth. Really. I mean that in a nice way. Read what you wrote initially (I quoted it for you). Read my response. Also, although Miller-Urey experiment is a landmark of sorts, the science of abiogenesis has moved on and a recreation of the probable way of proteins may have evolved has been done: Scientists Evolve New Proteins From Scratch: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210926.htm

[quote]Miller's experiment would have had to assume that there was no atmospheric O2, the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water. However Miller's experiment used water.

Wow! I mean, wow! Seriously? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, based on past posts, that you'd post such idiocy - and, I am sorry to seem condescending, but it is idiocy; but, dude!

You realise that free oxygen isn't the same thing as water and other compounds, right? Did someone mention that you are in some kind of a science field?

Nothing new . . . when you people get backed into a corner you resort to personal abuse.[/quote]LoL (I'm still laughing at you). I think personal abuse is warranted when a supposed biochemist (?) is unable to distinguish water from free oxygen.

Simple logic -

1. Miller's experiment would not work in the presence of experimental oxygen O₂

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE for earth to contain H₂O but NO free O₂, you may as well claim that the atmosphere contained no free H₂, N₂ or elemental carbon BUT contained compounds containing those free elements. That is frankly absurd from a scientific point of view.

3. Simple chemistry, free O₂ occurs in solution with water.

If you have a better idea how that conundrum could have been a possibility tell us.

Oh wow! I give up. Did you just say it's impossible for the earth to have H₂O without free oxygen? This is beyond absurd.

All you this pseudo-crammers just coming here to behave as if you are nobel laureates and when your science is exposed for the wishy-washy high school nonsense it is you resort to insults.

Let's not pretend I don't have good grasp of science. I do. You know that. It's not worth debating. Ironically, it would seem that you think my understanding of science is "wishy-washy high school nonsense" because I happen to know, amongst other things, that free oxygen and water are different chemical entities.

I'm not sure you read it at all . . . i reproduce it again - equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

Unless Miller can prove to us that somehow the environment was able to design specifically ONLY left-handed amino acids (all 20 amino acids are left handed), his experiment would be impossible to sustain life.

No, I read it all. I don't see why it's odd, though. His experiment set out to, as I pointed in my first post on this subject, show "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."

Even Miller was aware of that stating: "Indeed, if you[r] results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination" (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php)

Do i need to explain racemic mixtures again?

Again?

davidylan:
The amino acids produced were glycine and alanine (both amounting to a total of 2%). the next most abundant amino acid produced was a mere 0.026% . . . too little to be considered significant at all.

With "Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids" also formed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey). However, how does the quantity produced invalidate the Miller_Urey experiment, and subsequent retrials.

Miller-Urey experiment must have assumed an earth's temperature of well below 30 deg C (a temperature that is not feasible for the equator considering most scientists indicate man evolved from there) since MOST proteins cannot survive beyond that temp.

Oh dear! You really are out of your depth here, aren't you? Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

What formed DNA and enzymes?

Too long for you to care.

please read this website - it gives you a DETAILED explanation of why the MU experiment has been largely relegated to biology textbooks, wikipedia and anti-creationist websites.

Yeah, it's nonsense, but you could post the best arguments from the link if you want.

the rest of your usual long long drone isnt worth reading to be frank.

Lol (I'm laughing at you, not with you). Hardly surprising. I was wondering how long a response of that calibre would take in coming.

Maybe you should read the wikipedia entry you posted yourself before carping about:

[size=13pt]Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed.[/size]

Miller's experiment would have had to assume that there was no atmospheric O₂, the absence of O₂ would also suggest the absence of any water. However Miller's experiment used water.

Wow! I mean, wow! Seriously? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, based on past posts, that you'd post such idiocy - and, I am sorry to seem condescending, but it is idiocy; but, dude!

You realise that free oxygen isn't the same thing as water and other compounds, right? Did someone mention that you are in some kind of a science field?

Another thought for you: In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

kind of odd don't you think? But oh well who cares about tiny facts when you can just post high-fallutin words to decieve the gullible.

Why is it odd?

davidylan:
the problem is KAG comes here spewing a lot of jargon and so the dumb here keep crying about how good she is with what are largely the theories of those with nothing to do with their time but dream up conjecture.

That's nice. That the so called jargon I'm spewing hasn't been falsified nor threatened speaks volumes, though. That those theories are often the cornerstones of modern science helps a great deal too.

[quote]A theory cannot be the basis of another theory. We don't know the big bang occured.

Actually, you are wrong there. Theories are often used as the basis for other theories. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity forms the basis for many other theories in physics and cosmology, as do the theories of the Earth's movement and its orbit around the sun.

And? How have these theories proven anything about the central question?
How did earth appear here?[/quote]You do realise that the question of the Earth's origin wasn't the central question, right? Further, this aspect of my post addressed the basic error contained in the assertion that "A theory cannot be the basis of another theory". I gave examples refuting your claim.

How did the Earth, in its initial stage, emerge? That isn't too certain, but it is suspected that accretion played a part. Wikipedia has a great page detailing the possible route: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation

Further, the big bang theory is currently the best explanation for cosmological observations. So, it's as close to knowing as we currently have.

It is a desperately flawed theory that is only held by those who wish to negate the creation story. How did this big bang occur? when and through what?
What produced the big bang? Can science re-create life with a big bang?

Actually, it's anything but desperately flawed. Kinky? Yes. Also, for many theists, the Big Bang theory is, for them, their god's (be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc) method for creation of the universe; so, no, it isn't some conspired idea to simply get rid of your pet, quaint notions.

How did the big bang occur? Expansion from a singularity. The expansion could have been sparked by anything from too much constriction to a certain planck denseness or a fluctuation. At this point we can't know.

No, science can't "recreate" life with a big bang (not unless that's some kind of double entendre), as the big bang didn't create life.

[quote]You can only define space in the context of something else . . . in this case earth. Since earth didnt exist millions of years ago, what was in existence then?

No. Not at all, no. Space is a dimension of its own and, like many things in the universe, is perhaps counter-intuitive. In any case, space is define in relation to the inflation that may have occured before the big bang. Also, no, we should not and do not define space simply as a function of the earth - the earth is one tiny dot in the expansiveness of space.

bla bla bla . . . all this is big grammar that does little to educate us on the central question . . . how did we get on this planet?[/quote]I have taken the pleasure of reposting the part of your post to which I was responding in that section. Hopefully, from that you should be able to see that it was educating you on the question you were asking at that time, and not some grand central question that I can only imagine is your attempt to shift the goalposts.

Finally, I don't know where you get the idea that the earth didn't exist millions of years ago. The earth is at least 4+ billion years old.

Based on more of your flawed scientific theories? Where you there when the earth was created? Who created it? The big bang?
why is the earth the ONLY planet that supports life?

Based on sound scientific principles. I wasn't there. Forensic science doesn't require an eyewitnesss. The big bang didn't create the earth, no. The earth is probably not the only planet in the universe that can support life - the odds, based on the number of planets in the universe, give credence to that.

Why do you think the earth is less than a million years old?

Does science have an answer for how we came to arrive? Scientists have, using available evidence, concluded that we must have eveolved from other species, theorised that, going far back enough, abiogenesis occured, and further on: planetary formation, solar system, etc.

In other words . . . these scientists don't have a clue how we arrived here so they grasp at any straws to explain it away. when you probe deeper they hide under the banner of "we are still searching".

No, in other words you don't have clue.

Now you mention "available evidence" . . . what evidence?

For shared ancestry: shared unique features that are only parsimoniously explained by a common lineage. Examples of those include the presence of shared endogeneous retroviral insertions between animals that already showed, before the full emergence of genetic studies, common ancestry; the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans.

etc.

If we evolved from other species why have we suddenly stopped evolving?

We haven't.

Which species did we evolve from and HOW?

Most immediately? A species most likely in the homo range. The evolution would have occured through changes in the allele frequency of a population and natural selection.

Abiogenesis? Funny enough abiogenenesis DOES NOT occur in real life because amino acids cannot stably form peptides in the natural environment.

No, amino acids cannot do that in the earth's current environment.

We already know Miller's experiment was one huge manipulative failure.

Actually, no. The Miller-Urey experiment did work and was successful in showing what it was meant to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey).

Now, could you perhaps show the manipulation and failure in their experiment?

Planetry formation? How? why have they stopped forming? Why havent we seen any new huge planets since?

Um, planets haven't stopped forming? Many planets have been spotted. Good god, man, science has moved on since the nineteenth century!

Solar system? Why only one sun for the last million years? Why hasnt this sun died out yet?

I'll let you figure this one out by yourself as I don't think it warrants a response - other than "I'll let you figure this one out by yourself"

don't worry, your praise singers will be here to cheer you on again.

Oh, goody!

huxley:
Exodus 34:14, Ex 20:5, and Dt 4:24 are just a few. This is the flavour of what they say:

Do not worship any other god, for the Lord , whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Thanks, man. Yeah, I see what you mean.