| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2006 07:24:12 PM |
| Object: |
Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission for TOA |
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm
Miller's experiment had shown that amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, arose among other small
organic molecules spontaneously in the lab under
conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth.
What are these "other small organic molecules"?
What are these "conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth"?
Do you consider the early atmosphere:
mildly-reducing/ weakly-reducing?
highly-reducing/ strongly-reducing?
If you answer 'highly-reducing':
for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere highly-reducing?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Shapiro (1986), 332pp., sentence on 111-112.
1996 Steven J. *****: "The major assumption that the Earth's primitive
atmosphere had been strongly reducing grew weaker with increasing
geochemical evidence that...."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1159544167.277751.305350%40m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 01:38:39 PM |
|
|
wrote in "Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission
for TOA":
david ford wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm
Miller's experiment had shown that amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, arose among other small
organic molecules spontaneously in the lab under
conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth.
What are these "other small organic molecules"?
According to the analysis listed in the Miller/Urey article in Science,
1959:
Glycine
Glycolic acid
Sarcosine
Alanine
Lactic acid
N-Methylalanine
alpha-Amino-n-butyric acid
alpha-Aminoisobutyric acid
alpha-Hydroxybutyric acid
beta-Alanine
Succinic acid
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
Iminodiacetic acid
Iminoacetic-propionic acid
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Urea
N-Methyl urea
possibly: polyhydrol compounds (sugars)
Have "polyhydrol compounds (sugars)" ever been definitively detected in
experiments done using Miller-Urey type atmospheres?
Which of the above "small organic molecules" are used in biology?
Further to that question, how many atoms do each of those
biologically-relevant molecules have?
Were the above "small organic molecules" in a solution of water?
If 'yes': can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino
acids are in water?
Also, do any of the not-biologically-relevant "small organic molecules"
you listed above get in the way of amino acids joining together?
What are these "conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth"?
Water as the "ocean", hydrogen, methane and ammonia as the
"atmosphere". Sparks as "lightning".
Did the "sparks" do anything to the "small organic molecules" they had
formed?
How frequently did the "sparks" spark?
Do you consider the early atmosphere:
mildly-reducing/ weakly-reducing?
highly-reducing/ strongly-reducing?
If you answer 'highly-reducing':
for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere highly-reducing?
For these questions, see my revised version of the article. I wanted to
post the URL tomorrow, but I can do it now too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife-rev.htm
It now contains a new chapter called "Conditions for synthesis of
organic molecules on the early Earth" which talks about the issue of a
reducing atmosphere on the early earth.
For how many years at-most could there have been "a reducing atmosphere
on the early earth"?
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of
Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin Books), 332pp. On 111-112:
Geologists now realize that a methane and
ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed
within a few thousand years by chemical reactions
caused by sunlight.
I supplemented my FAQ in this
manner in order to be more in synch with the Index to Creationist
Claims on abiogenesis at Talk.Origins, which has several questions
about that.
Your questions show too that it's good that I wrote that chapter.
The remainder of the FAQ is unchanged, except that note 1), which
superficially had touched on the issue, is now correspondingly shorter.
(Tonight I had planned to upload a few minor changes to this chapter,
and also a re-write of the paragraph "Inside the vesicles, RNA could
have started copying itself", from the chapter "Gradual build-up of
complexity.)
The last question, "for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere
highly-reducing?",
I cannot answer. It is not discussed in the articles that I cite.
Do you think there was a primordial soup?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Perplexed in Peoria on 6 October 2006
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=SovVg.2274$NE6.1027%40newssvr11.news.prodigy.com
....I doubt that the post-lunar-impact Earth ever had
a strongly reducing atmosphere, and I think that the
soup is a myth - a now discredited attempt at a
theory of abiogenesis based on pre-molecular-era
misunderstandings of how life actually works. But
supporters of the soup still exist....
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Listermann" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 05:50:30 PM |
|
|
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1160487519.631624.173890@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
amoritz@cellsignal.com wrote in "Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission
for TOA":
david ford wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm
Miller's experiment had shown that amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, arose among other small
organic molecules spontaneously in the lab under
conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth.
What are these "other small organic molecules"?
According to the analysis listed in the Miller/Urey article in Science,
1959:
Glycine
Glycolic acid
Sarcosine
Alanine
Lactic acid
N-Methylalanine
alpha-Amino-n-butyric acid
alpha-Aminoisobutyric acid
alpha-Hydroxybutyric acid
beta-Alanine
Succinic acid
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
Iminodiacetic acid
Iminoacetic-propionic acid
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Urea
N-Methyl urea
possibly: polyhydrol compounds (sugars)
Have "polyhydrol compounds (sugars)" ever been definitively detected in
experiments done using Miller-Urey type atmospheres?
Which of the above "small organic molecules" are used in biology?
Further to that question, how many atoms do each of those
biologically-relevant molecules have?
Were the above "small organic molecules" in a solution of water?
If 'yes': can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino
acids are in water?
Also, do any of the not-biologically-relevant "small organic molecules"
you listed above get in the way of amino acids joining together?
What are these "conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth"?
Water as the "ocean", hydrogen, methane and ammonia as the
"atmosphere". Sparks as "lightning".
Did the "sparks" do anything to the "small organic molecules" they had
formed?
How frequently did the "sparks" spark?
Do you consider the early atmosphere:
mildly-reducing/ weakly-reducing?
highly-reducing/ strongly-reducing?
If you answer 'highly-reducing':
for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere highly-reducing?
For these questions, see my revised version of the article. I wanted to
post the URL tomorrow, but I can do it now too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife-rev.htm
It now contains a new chapter called "Conditions for synthesis of
organic molecules on the early Earth" which talks about the issue of a
reducing atmosphere on the early earth.
For how many years at-most could there have been "a reducing atmosphere
on the early earth"?
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of
Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin Books), 332pp. On 111-112:
Geologists now realize that a methane and
ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed
within a few thousand years by chemical reactions
caused by sunlight.
I supplemented my FAQ in this
manner in order to be more in synch with the Index to Creationist
Claims on abiogenesis at Talk.Origins, which has several questions
about that.
Your questions show too that it's good that I wrote that chapter.
The remainder of the FAQ is unchanged, except that note 1), which
superficially had touched on the issue, is now correspondingly shorter.
(Tonight I had planned to upload a few minor changes to this chapter,
and also a re-write of the paragraph "Inside the vesicles, RNA could
have started copying itself", from the chapter "Gradual build-up of
complexity.)
The last question, "for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere
highly-reducing?",
I cannot answer. It is not discussed in the articles that I cite.
Do you think there was a primordial soup?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Perplexed in Peoria on 6 October 2006
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=SovVg.2274$NE6.1027%40newssvr11.news.prodigy.com
....I doubt that the post-lunar-impact Earth ever had
a strongly reducing atmosphere, and I think that the
soup is a myth - a now discredited attempt at a
theory of abiogenesis based on pre-molecular-era
misunderstandings of how life actually works. But
supporters of the soup still exist....
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 07:09:41 PM |
|
|
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Listermann" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 08:36:01 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1160507380.988747.119170@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Don't know. Do you have a reason that they can't?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 08:48:05 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Yes, amino acids react pretty readily, they need much catalysis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 09:49:52 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <mykandrewz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1160513284.946738.67690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
david ford wrote:
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Nope. Not much from the lab. But then there isn't much lab work that
actually supports any other abiogenesis scenario either.
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Yes, amino acids react pretty readily, they need much catalysis.
I think that it is pretty unlikely that anything similar to proteins
was involved in the origin of life - at vents or anywhere else. The
belief that amino acids and proteins are essential are an unfortunate
residue of a pre-molecular-era understanding of the nature of life.
But I have to comment on the confusions here regarding water, reactivity,
and catalysis.
For every protein ever made, the amino acids were joined in water.
For that matter, every protein ever made was made using ribosomes,
tRNAs, mRNAs and the rest of the machinery of translation.
Peptides (such as many anti-biotics) are also made in water. Fairly
elaborate molecular machinery is still involved.
Sidney Fox was able to get amino acids to combine in some very
non-standard ways by heating to dryness without catalysts. He
thought this was significant with respect to the origin of life.
Few people believed it was significant then, and practically no one
believes it is significant today.
Amino acids don't 'want' to combine in water. It is thermodynamically
'uphill' to join two amino acids in a peptide bond at standard
temperature and pressure in aquaeous solution, because the reaction
releases water and this is a case of 'coals to Newcastle'. The coals
want to get out of Newcastle. Providing a catalyst doesn't help
matters - it is like building a road or railroad line to Newcastle.
The coals still want to leave, and they will just use that road
to get out of town.
(Incidentally, there has been some speculation that peptide bond
formation might be favored at the high pressures deep in vents.
Maybe true, but irrelevant, IMO. The polypeptides formed would
still be random polypeptides, probably not even homochiral, and
hence would not help at all to form life.)
So the way that proteins and peptides are formed in living things
today is not by simply joining amino acids together. Instead,
'activated' amino acids are used, and no net water is produced.
Activation for protein synthesis involves first adenylating the
amino acid, and then transferring the amino acid to a tRNA where
it is *still activated*. Activation for creating antibiotic peptides
involves activating the amino acid as a thioester (with pantetheine).
(If you don't understand this jargon, then IMHO, you have no business
even discussing the subject of abiogenesis. Educate yourselves, or
STFU.)
So Ford's water is relevant in that it makes the protein-forming
process uphill thermodynamically, even if you have catalysts.
But it is probably irrelevant to the origin of life because there
probably were not anything like proteins present at the origin of life.
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nic" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
11 Oct 2006 12:27:05 AM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
<snip>
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
Do you mean we can't have the lightening in there anymore? I always
liked the idea of lightening.
NIc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Jones Says \Drink More Koolaid" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
11 Oct 2006 02:44:19 AM |
|
|
"Nic" <harrisondalen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160526425.020976.226200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
<snip>
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
Do you mean we can't have the lightening in there anymore? I always
liked the idea of lightening.
Especially if it's like the lightning on the cover of that one Metallica
album. That was so bad-*****.
--
******************************************
Rev. Mercutio Jones
http://www.myspace.com/therightreverendjones
http://www.myspace.com/dayofthesick
************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
13 Oct 2006 02:01:47 AM |
|
|
Rev. Jones Says "Drink More Koolaid" wrote:
"Nic" <harrisondalen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160526425.020976.226200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
<snip>
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
Do you mean we can't have the lightening in there anymore? I always
liked the idea of lightening.
Especially if it's like the lightning on the cover of that one Metallica
album. That was so bad-*****.
on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Lightning-Metallica/dp/B000002H2H/sr=8-5/qid=1160704724/ref=pd_bbs_5/104-0464989-2750369?ie=UTF8&s=music
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
13 Oct 2006 01:56:24 AM |
|
|
Nic wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
<snip>
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
Do you mean we can't have the lightening in there anymore? I always
liked the idea of lightening.
Me, too. Especially when I'm carrying something heavy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: atheism-adherent Singer OK with necrophilia & breeding kids for organ harvesting |
20 Oct 2006 03:45:45 PM |
|
|
27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Singer can't: oppose pedophilia while being consistent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1151326524.293477.235520%40b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
pro-pedophilia political party & Peter Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150293456.499703.156520%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Is atheism [MMC]"associated with mass murderers and the like"?; views
of atheism-adherent Singer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141777876.224926.284110%40j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
executed Chinese prisoner organ material used in biotech
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156072938.650848.292250%40i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
cash for sub-persons' organs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143252326.064753.206420%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Put to use killed sub-persons' brains before their cremation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143212186.992727.233750%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Sub-persons/ sub-humans are expendable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149820884.102362.221630%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1139372980.005787.15450%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: atheism-adherent Singer OK with necrophilia & breeding kids for organ harvesting |
20 Oct 2006 04:59:48 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987
From the article:
'For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if
two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual
relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said,
"There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should
people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he
responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more
fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral
sense."'
I guess it takes a Christian columnist to ask a question like that.
See, Dave, morality isn't about following a list of arbitrary rules
(chicken is good, clams are evil), but rather how you treat people. In
this hypothetical case, nobody is being hurt. Typically, the
interviewer depends on Christians' yuck response to associate yucky
feelings with atheists.
Here's my question: "If God tells you to kill every boy, man, and wife
in a conquered country, but take the girl children as sex slaves, is it
wrong to do so?"
Biblical literalist: "Of course not!"
Me: "Is slavery wrong?"
BL: "Not according to the bible!"
Me: "What should we do with convicted rapists?"
BL: "Kill him. Unless she was a virgin, in which case we should give
her to him as a wife."
Me: "What is the difference between 'God telling you to do X' and 'You
believing that God told you to do X'?"
BL: "I don't understand the question."
<snip self references>
David, if you want to repeat a claim, simply repeat it. Nobody follows
your links to your own interminable posts. Certainly not more than
once. Do you think that a refuted assertion, BTW, may be more
convincing the next time around?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
10 Nov 2006 02:34:45 AM |
|
|
Kermit wrote in "Re: atheism-adherent Singer OK with necrophilia &
breeding kids for organ harvesting":
david ford wrote:
27 November 2004
Blue-state philosopher
Culture: Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the
avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer
by Marvin Olasky
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987
From the article:
'For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if
two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual
relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said,
"There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should
people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he
responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more
fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral
sense."'
I guess it takes a Christian columnist to ask a question like that.
Do you consider engaging in necrophilia immoral?
Do you consider engaging in pedophilia immoral?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
6 November 2006
kill disabled babies, say doctors
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20706992-23289,00.html
Singer can't: oppose pedophilia while being consistent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1151326524.293477.235520%40b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
See, Dave, morality isn't about following a list of arbitrary rules
(chicken is good, clams are evil), but rather how you treat people. In
this hypothetical case, nobody is being hurt.
Do you think "nobody is... hurt" during over-18, consensual homosexual
activity?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Judson, F.N. 1984. "Sexually transmitted viral hepatitis and enteric
pathogens" _Urology Clinics of North America_ 11(1):177-85. Abstract,
from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6424296&dopt=Abstract
Hepatitis viruses, enteric pathogens, and anorectal
infections may commonly be transmitted by various
sexual practices. Because of their larger numbers
of sexual partners and sexual practices such as
anilingus and anal intercourse, homosexual men
are at particularly high risk of acquiring hepatitis B,
giardiasis, amebiasis, shigellosis,
campylobacteriosis, and anorectal infections with
Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis,
Treponema pallidum, herpes simplex virus, and
human papilloma viruses. The evidence for sexual
transmission of these infections as well as their
diagnosis and treatment are discussed.
spread of a quite nasty chlamydia strain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145045688.509125.221080%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
HIV/ AIDS statistics; chlamydia charts & tables
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1150976556.997755.85000%40c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Typically, the
interviewer depends on Christians' yuck response to associate yucky
feelings with atheists.
Here's my question: "If God tells you to kill every boy, man, and wife
in a conquered country, but take the girl children as sex slaves, is it
wrong to do so?"
Biblical literalist: "Of course not!"
Me: "Is slavery wrong?"
BL: "Not according to the bible!"
Me: "What should we do with convicted rapists?"
BL: "Kill him. Unless she was a virgin, in which case we should give
her to him as a wife."
Me: "What is the difference between 'God telling you to do X' and 'You
believing that God told you to do X'?"
BL: "I don't understand the question."
<snip self references>
David, if you want to repeat a claim, simply repeat it. Nobody follows
your links to your own interminable posts. Certainly not more than
once. Do you think that a refuted assertion, BTW, may be more
convincing the next time around?
Yes. For example, new students are still being taught that spontaneous
generation can occur.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
14 Nov 2006 11:04:14 PM |
|
|
Is homosexual activity a healthy activity?
What percentage of individuals that engage in homosexual activity die
of old age?
14 November 2006
Homosexuality: What Do You Say to a Gay Friend?, 2
by Chip Ingram
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/living_on_the_edge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
15 Nov 2006 12:03:45 AM |
|
|
In article
<dford3-1163545454.623244.67700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Oh, it's you. Are you trolling? I'll be polite and assume you're not.
Is homosexual activity a healthy activity?
It doesn't by itself cause injury or disease, so I'd say, yeah, it's
healthy.
Now there are plenty of assholes in the world who try to make gay people
feel guilty about their love lives, and these assholes are often
successful at creating feelings of doubt and guilt in gay people. In
that way, they make it unhealthy, and have led to a disproportionately
high suicide rate among gay teenagers. But that's not the fault of the
gay people or of homosexuality; that's the fault of the assholes.
What percentage of individuals that engage in homosexual activity die
of old age?
About ten or fifteen years ago some idiot did "research" into this. He
looked at the obituaries in a mainstream newspaper and the obituaries in
a gay newspaper and he found, lo and behold, that gay men die much
younger than straight men. Of course, what he didn't take into account
was that was in the middle of an epidemic, there were no reliable data
on the numbers of gay men, and the gay men who were still alive were not
counted in his "research".
There have been efforts to find out these sorts of questions, but this
involves government organizations such as the Census Bureau and police
departments. Every time someone suggests that we ought to find out how
many gay people there really are, various assholes make an awful lot of
noise about wasting taxpayer money or supporting deviant lifestyles or
some such rot. It's particularly entertaining to watch a homophobic
***** say out of one mouth that it's too expensive to ensure civil
rights for gay people because there are so many of us and out of his
other mouth that ensuring civil rights for gay people isn't important
because there are so few of us.
To sum up, nobody really knows, but I'm sure that an ***** will appear
shortly to tell us his version of the correct answer.
14 November 2006
Homosexuality: What Do You Say to a Gay Friend?, 2
by Chip Ingram
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/living_on_the_edge/
I liked Miss Manners' answer to the question, "What is the correct
response when introduced to a gay couple?"
"How do you do? How do you do?"
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
14 Nov 2006 11:46:26 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Is homosexual activity a healthy activity?
What percentage of individuals that engage in homosexual activity die
of old age?
We'll never know.
14 November 2006
Homosexuality: What Do You Say to a Gay Friend?, 2
by Chip Ingram
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/living_on_the_edge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
21 Nov 2006 03:30:08 PM |
|
|
cactus wrote:
david ford wrote:
Is homosexual activity a healthy activity?
What percentage of individuals that engage in homosexual activity die
of old age?
We'll never know.
What percentage of individuals that engage in male homosexual activity
whose 2000-2005 obituaries appear in the top-3 homosexual periodicals
have listed as their cause of death what amounts to 'old age'?
Same question, for female homosexual-activity engagers?
1993 "Violence and Homosexuality"
by Paul Cameron
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html
* 0.6% of gays and 5.7% of lesbians committed
suicide (rates dozens of times those of non-gays); ....
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Am I "part of the problem" when it comes to the:
low self-esteem of pedophiles?
depression of some women following their having had abortions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1154446587.893000.133550%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
14 November 2006
Homosexuality: What Do You Say to a Gay Friend?, 2
by Chip Ingram
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/living_on_the_edge/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
13 Nov 2006 02:38:55 AM |
|
|
Ymir wrote:
In article <B-mdnRdD_719HcnYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@comcast.net> wrote:
And of course, we all know that there are no such things as
heterosexually transmitted diseases; including AIDS, chlamydia, and HPV.
Save sex is the key, no matter what the gender relations, the only
reason that people don't know that is that we dasn't talks about sex in
real terms, only in fear-hushed terms and with incomplete information.
Personally, I think we should ban skiing. Do you realise how many people
get injured every year while skiing?
Going to church also has some serious hemorrhoid risks.
I do "realise how many people get injured"-- and even killed-- "every
year while skiing."
Do you think "we should ban" driving?
Do you think "we should ban" "going to church"?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ymir" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
13 Nov 2006 10:20:03 PM |
|
|
In article
<dford3-1163385535.908883.243780@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ymir wrote:
In article <B-mdnRdD_719HcnYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@comcast.net> wrote:
And of course, we all know that there are no such things as
heterosexually transmitted diseases; including AIDS, chlamydia, and HPV.
Save sex is the key, no matter what the gender relations, the only
reason that people don't know that is that we dasn't talks about sex in
real terms, only in fear-hushed terms and with incomplete information.
Personally, I think we should ban skiing. Do you realise how many people
get injured every year while skiing?
Going to church also has some serious hemorrhoid risks.
I do "realise how many people get injured"-- and even killed-- "every
year while skiing."
Do you think "we should ban" driving?
Do you think "we should ban" "going to church"?
Sarcasm apparently isn't one of your strong points. But then we already
knew that.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
22 Nov 2006 12:01:42 AM |
|
|
Ymir wrote:
In article
<dford3-1163385535.908883.243780@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ymir wrote:
In article <B-mdnRdD_719HcnYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@comcast.net> wrote:
And of course, we all know that there are no such things as
heterosexually transmitted diseases; including AIDS, chlamydia, and HPV.
Save sex is the key, no matter what the gender relations, the only
reason that people don't know that is that we dasn't talks about sex in
real terms, only in fear-hushed terms and with incomplete information.
Personally, I think we should ban skiing. Do you realise how many people
get injured every year while skiing?
Going to church also has some serious hemorrhoid risks.
I do "realise how many people get injured"-- and even killed-- "every
year while skiing."
Do you think "we should ban" driving?
Do you think "we should ban" "going to church"?
Sarcasm apparently isn't one of your strong points. But then we already
knew that.
I don't understand. Are you saying that employing "sarcasm apparently
isn't one of" my "strong points"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: correct?: nobody's hurt during homosexual activity |
13 Nov 2006 01:58:58 PM |
|
|
bullpup wrote:
"Ymir" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:invalid-BFD660.11254610112006@news.telus.net...
In article <B-mdnRdD_719HcnYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy@comcast.net> wrote:
And of course, we all know that there are no such things as
heterosexually transmitted diseases; including AIDS, chlamydia, and HPV.
Save sex is the key, no matter what the gender relations, the only
reason that people don't know that is that we dasn't talks about sex in
real terms, only in fear-hushed terms and with incomplete information.
Personally, I think we should ban skiing. Do you realise how many people
get injured every year while skiing?
Bird watching was listed as a 'hazardous activity' because bird watchers
sometimes fell down while trying to catch a glimpse of the elusive yellow
bellied tassled puffin (Or some other bird).
Going to church also has some serious hemorrhoid risks.
And brain damage.
Do you "think we should ban" "going to church" with one's children?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
13 Oct 2006 02:26:58 AM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Mike" <mykandrewz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1160513284.946738.67690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
david ford wrote:
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Nope. Not much from the lab. But then there isn't much lab work that
actually supports any other abiogenesis scenario either.
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Yes, amino acids react pretty readily, they need much catalysis.
I think that it is pretty unlikely that anything similar to proteins
was involved in the origin of life - at vents or anywhere else. The
belief that amino acids and proteins are essential are an unfortunate
residue of a pre-molecular-era understanding of the nature of life.
Do you "think that it is pretty unlikely that anything similar to"
nucleotides "was involved in the origin of life - at vents or anywhere
else"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
control - f/ "find" for: uphill
http://www.crbmb.com/cgi/content/full/39/2/99
But I have to comment on the confusions here regarding water, reactivity,
and catalysis.
For every protein ever made, the amino acids were joined in water.
For that matter, every protein ever made was made using ribosomes,
tRNAs, mRNAs and the rest of the machinery of translation.
Peptides (such as many anti-biotics) are also made in water. Fairly
elaborate molecular machinery is still involved.
Sidney Fox was able to get amino acids to combine in some very
non-standard ways by heating to dryness without catalysts. He
thought this was significant with respect to the origin of life.
Few people believed it was significant then, and practically no one
believes it is significant today.
Amino acids don't 'want' to combine in water. It is thermodynamically
'uphill' to join two amino acids in a peptide bond at standard
temperature and pressure in aquaeous solution, because the reaction
releases water and this is a case of 'coals to Newcastle'. The coals
want to get out of Newcastle. Providing a catalyst doesn't help
matters - it is like building a road or railroad line to Newcastle.
The coals still want to leave, and they will just use that road
to get out of town.
(Incidentally, there has been some speculation that peptide bond
formation might be favored at the high pressures deep in vents.
Maybe true, but irrelevant, IMO. The polypeptides formed would
still be random polypeptides, probably not even homochiral, and
hence would not help at all to form life.)
So the way that proteins and peptides are formed in living things
today is not by simply joining amino acids together. Instead,
'activated' amino acids are used, and no net water is produced.
Activation for protein synthesis involves first adenylating the
amino acid, and then transferring the amino acid to a tRNA where
it is *still activated*. Activation for creating antibiotic peptides
involves activating the amino acid as a thioester (with pantetheine).
(If you don't understand this jargon, then IMHO, you have no business
even discussing the subject of abiogenesis. Educate yourselves, or
STFU.)
So Ford's water is relevant in that it makes the protein-forming
process uphill thermodynamically, even if you have catalysts.
But it is probably irrelevant to the origin of life because there
probably were not anything like proteins present at the origin of life.
The whole subject of the Miller experiment and an amino-acid laden
soup is an enormous red herring that has set abiogenesis research
back by 50 years. We are only now beginning to recover from this
fiasco.
Well, fortunately you're here clearing the decks.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
control - f/ "find" for: decks
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 09:37:18 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Yes, amino acids react pretty readily, they need much catalysis.
Whoops, I meant 'not much'. They actually need to catalysis to break
the bonds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 10:02:51 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <mykandrewz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1160516238.747165.67000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dan Listermann wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
Do any lab experiments support this "latest thinking"?
Can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino acids are
in water?
Yes, amino acids react pretty readily, they need much catalysis.
Whoops, I meant 'not much'. They actually need to catalysis to break
the bonds.
I think you misunderstand how catalysts work. Any bond that takes
a catalyst to break it would also require a catalyst to make it.
Catalysts are bi-directional - they increase the speed of the reaction
in both directions. They cannot shift the point of equilibrium.
The direction that a reaction takes is determined by the thermodynamics.
The presence of catalysts cannot change that direction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 06:57:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:50:30 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<dan@listermann.com> wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
The "black smoker" theory has been around for at least 20 years that I
can recall. For my money, it's a good bet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
12 Oct 2006 06:36:50 AM |
|
|
In article <l6rni2lnu9spoqrdovq60gdsq1lseivkif@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:50:30 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<dan@listermann.com> wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
The "black smoker" theory has been around for at least 20 years that I
can recall. For my money, it's a good bet.
If I may recommend a book, read "Genesis" (No, not that Genesis!) by
Robert Hazen, Joseph Henry Press. It was published in 2005 and is a
pretty good compilation of all the studies done on the origin of life up
to that point. It's not too technical, but a little chemistry helps.
It covers the thermal vent theories as well as other work. I found no
mention of pixies at work.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
12 Oct 2006 08:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:36:50 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <l6rni2lnu9spoqrdovq60gdsq1lseivkif@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:50:30 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<dan@listermann.com> wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
The "black smoker" theory has been around for at least 20 years that I
can recall. For my money, it's a good bet.
If I may recommend a book, read "Genesis" (No, not that Genesis!) by
Robert Hazen, Joseph Henry Press. It was published in 2005 and is a
pretty good compilation of all the studies done on the origin of life up
to that point. It's not too technical, but a little chemistry helps.
It covers the thermal vent theories as well as other work. I found no
mention of pixies at work.
Thanks, John. I'll definitely check it out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
13 Oct 2006 05:37:25 AM |
|
|
In article <h29ti2h6tdj74sso6fftmj5vde6die26rc@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:36:50 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <l6rni2lnu9spoqrdovq60gdsq1lseivkif@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:50:30 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<dan@listermann.com> wrote:
As I understand it, the latest thinking is starting to consider that life
started around volcanic vents on the ocean floor where organisms live on
various gases instead of other life.
The "black smoker" theory has been around for at least 20 years that I
can recall. For my money, it's a good bet.
If I may recommend a book, read "Genesis" (No, not that Genesis!) by
Robert Hazen, Joseph Henry Press. It was published in 2005 and is a
pretty good compilation of all the studies done on the origin of life up
to that point. It's not too technical, but a little chemistry helps.
It covers the thermal vent theories as well as other work. I found no
mention of pixies at work.
Thanks, John. I'll definitely check it out.
You're welcome! :-)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 02:17:18 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
amoritz@cellsignal.com wrote in "Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission
for TOA":
david ford wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm
Miller's experiment had shown that amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, arose among other small
organic molecules spontaneously in the lab under
conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth.
What are these "other small organic molecules"?
According to the analysis listed in the Miller/Urey article in Science,
1959:
Glycine
Glycolic acid
Sarcosine
Alanine
Lactic acid
N-Methylalanine
alpha-Amino-n-butyric acid
alpha-Aminoisobutyric acid
alpha-Hydroxybutyric acid
beta-Alanine
Succinic acid
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
Iminodiacetic acid
Iminoacetic-propionic acid
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Urea
N-Methyl urea
possibly: polyhydrol compounds (sugars)
Have "polyhydrol compounds (sugars)" ever been definitively detected in
experiments done using Miller-Urey type atmospheres?
Which of the above "small organic molecules" are used in biology?
Further to that question, how many atoms do each of those
biologically-relevant molecules have?
Were the above "small organic molecules" in a solution of water?
If 'yes': can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino
acids are in water?
Also, do any of the not-biologically-relevant "small organic molecules"
you listed above get in the way of amino acids joining together?
What are these "conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth"?
Water as the "ocean", hydrogen, methane and ammonia as the
"atmosphere". Sparks as "lightning".
Did the "sparks" do anything to the "small organic molecules" they had
formed?
How frequently did the "sparks" spark?
Do you consider the early atmosphere:
mildly-reducing/ weakly-reducing?
highly-reducing/ strongly-reducing?
If you answer 'highly-reducing':
for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere highly-reducing?
For these questions, see my revised version of the article. I wanted to
post the URL tomorrow, but I can do it now too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife-rev.htm
It now contains a new chapter called "Conditions for synthesis of
organic molecules on the early Earth" which talks about the issue of a
reducing atmosphere on the early earth.
For how many years at-most could there have been "a reducing atmosphere
on the early earth"?
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of
Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin Books), 332pp. On 111-112:
Geologists now realize that a methane and
ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed
within a few thousand years by chemical reactions
caused by sunlight.
I supplemented my FAQ in this
manner in order to be more in synch with the Index to Creationist
Claims on abiogenesis at Talk.Origins, which has several questions
about that.
Your questions show too that it's good that I wrote that chapter.
The remainder of the FAQ is unchanged, except that note 1), which
superficially had touched on the issue, is now correspondingly shorter.
(Tonight I had planned to upload a few minor changes to this chapter,
and also a re-write of the paragraph "Inside the vesicles, RNA could
have started copying itself", from the chapter "Gradual build-up of
complexity.)
The last question, "for how many years was the early earth's atmosphere
highly-reducing?",
I cannot answer. It is not discussed in the articles that I cite.
Do you think there was a primordial soup?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Perplexed in Peoria on 6 October 2006
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=SovVg.2274$NE6.1027%40newssvr11.news.prodigy.com
....I doubt that the post-lunar-impact Earth ever had
a strongly reducing atmosphere, and I think that the
soup is a myth - a now discredited attempt at a
theory of abiogenesis based on pre-molecular-era
misunderstandings of how life actually works. But
supporters of the soup still exist....
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
Of course there was a primordial soup, I had a can of it the other day
and it was delicious!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: anybody here think there was a primordial soup? |
10 Oct 2006 03:18:52 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
Of course there was a primordial soup, I had a can of it the other day
and it was delicious!!!
Did intelligence/ mind play a role in preparing what you ate?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
david ford wrote:
amoritz@cellsignal.com wrote in "Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission
for TOA":
david ford wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm
Miller's experiment had shown that amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, arose among other small
organic molecules spontaneously in the lab under
conditions that simulated those on the primitive
earth.
What are these "other small organic molecules"?
According to the analysis listed in the Miller/Urey article in Science,
1959:
Glycine
Glycolic acid
Sarcosine
Alanine
Lactic acid
N-Methylalanine
alpha-Amino-n-butyric acid
alpha-Aminoisobutyric acid
alpha-Hydroxybutyric acid
beta-Alanine
Succinic acid
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
Iminodiacetic acid
Iminoacetic-propionic acid
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Urea
N-Methyl urea
possibly: polyhydrol compounds (sugars)
Have "polyhydrol compounds (sugars)" ever been definitively detected in
experiments done using Miller-Urey type atmospheres?
Which of the above "small organic molecules" are used in biology?
Further to that question, how many atoms do each of those
biologically-relevant molecules have?
Were the above "small organic molecules" in a solution of water?
If 'yes': can amino acids join together to form protein when the amino
acids are in water?
Also, do any of the not-biologically-relevant "small organic molecules"
you listed above get in the way of amino acids joining together?
[snip]
From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ratio of detrimental over favorable mutations in human
germline cells?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:56:39 GMT
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <HHEVg.9625$vJ2.6975@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1160183884.719085.50060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Perplexed in Peoria wrote in "Re: CFV: Origin of Life FAQ submission
for TOA":
I was unable to find mention of "interfering cross-reactions" in the
Kenyon quote that Ford provided.
Do you disagree with any of this?:
1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net
In most cases the experimental conditions in such
studies have been so artificially simplified as to
have virtually no bearing on any actual processes
that might have taken place on the primitive earth.
For example, if one wishes to find a possible
prebiotic mechanism of condensation of free amino
acids to polypeptides, it is not likely that sugars or
aldehydes would be added to the reaction mixture.
And yet, how likely is it that amino acids (or any
other presumed precursor substance) occurred
anywhere on the primitive earth free from
contamination substances, either in solution or the
solid state? The difficulty is that if sugars or
aldehydes were also present polypeptides would
not form. Instead an _interfering cross-reaction_
would occur between amino acids and sugars to
give complex, insoluble polymeric material of very
dubious relevance to chemical evolution. This
problem of _potentially interfering cross-reactions_
has been largely neglected in much of the published
work on the chemical origins of life. The possible
implications of such an omission merit careful study.
No David. I completely agree. As did Shapiro. As have most
OOL researchers that I am aware of. The only serious people I know
of still pursuing OOL explanations along the lines that Kenyon
is criticising are Stanley Miller himself, Freeman Dyson (not
a chemist), and Stuart Kauffman (for whom no one has an explanation).
The Miller experiment and abiotic amino acids are completely
irrelevant in any conceivable scenario for abiogenesis. IMnsHO.
Regarding the question which prompted your thread title change,
I have no idea, and I don't see its relevance to abiogenesis.
If you know the answer, why not tell us, and describe its relevance?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
