Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
I'm not sure that England can be accurately characterized as a "crank." His theories, AFAICT, have not been dismissed as woo and in fact the respected science historian Edward John Larson declared that if England can demonstrate his hypothesis to be true, "his name would be remembered, he could be the next Darwin." That's still a pretty big "if."
I would not remotely consider Jeremy England a 'crank,' nor would I consider him 'a second Darwin'
The 'Cranks' and downright liars are Miller Inc, at the Discovery Institute.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-18-2020, 08:08 AM.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
I would not remotely consider Jeremy England a 'crank,' nor would I consider him 'a second Darwin'
Larson said he'd only be the latter if his theory was confirmed. It has a few hurdles.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
You know, it seems to me that if you're going to present this as an argument, then you'd have to explain how thermal vents support entire ecosystems today—including large animals, which are notoriously energy-intensive—but are apparently insufficient for individual cells.
Well, the proton flows are too small, Miller says, I take this to mean that the gradient created by the vents is way too small compared with the gradient created by living cells. And vent creatures don't use this gradient that I know of, they feed on bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Well, the proton flows are too small, Miller says, I take this to mean that the gradient created by the vents is way too small compared with the gradient created by living cells. And vent creatures don't use this gradient that I know of, they feed on bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide.
Blessings,
Lee
Not documented by a scientific reference outside an assertion by Miller. 'Miller says' does not cut the mustard.
In fact the energy involved is not even related to supposed proton flow(?) any more or less than life processes themselves. The energy from the volcanic events has been demonstrated to be more than adequate for the formation of the organic molecules needed for life, even on Mars, as cited.
I have cited before and may cite them again the natural processes that lead to the formation early life, was assisted by catalysts such iron minerals.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2020, 03:25 PM.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
Well, the proton flows are too small, Miller says, I take this to mean that the gradient created by the vents is way too small compared with the gradient created by living cells. And vent creatures don't use this gradient that I know of, they feed on bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide.
Does "i take it" mean "i guess", or does it mean "i have done detailed research into this debate"?
Also, if present day bacteria can use the chemical energy embodied in hydrogen sulfide, why couldn't earlier cells do the same?
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Not documented by a scientific reference outside an assertion by Miller. 'Miller says' does not cut the mustard.
Well, this thread was opened to discuss what Miller said, so what he said is pertinent in this thread.
In fact the energy involved is not even related to supposed proton flow(?) any more or less than life processes themselves.
Life processes are indeed very much dependent on proton flow, there are proton pumps in cell membranes that maintain a critical gradient.
I have cited before and may cite them again the natural processes that lead to the formation early life, was assisted by catalysts such iron minerals.
Yet we are far from an origin-of-life scenario, as evidenced by the many types of proposals for this.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Does "i take it" mean "i guess", or does it mean "i have done detailed research into this debate"?
I read the article that Rogue posted, and have checked some other references.
Also, if present day bacteria can use the chemical energy embodied in hydrogen sulfide, why couldn't earlier cells do the same?
They could indeed use hydrogen sulfide, and they need proton pumps as well. The latter was what was in question.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
They could indeed use hydrogen sulfide, and they need proton pumps as well. The latter was what was in question.
Do they really? What do you base that on?
Incidentally, the fact that you made this statement suggests that the answer to my earlier question is no, you haven't looked into the issue in detail.
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Who are either of these people and why should we care what they think?
Well, that's a bit harsh. It shouldn't matter who they are, as long as they present coherent and valid arguments. Also, I usually don't defend Lee, but maybe he just thought that ''these people'' presented interesting points (in his opinion, of course) that he felt he could share with others (that's the function of an internet forum, after all)...
Well, this thread was opened to discuss what Miller said, so what he said is pertinent in this thread.
Are you saying just because Miller made the claims, than that makes it true?
. . . but Miller has made some claims that he does not corroborate with scientific references that support his assertions, and I have provided references that say no energy is not an issue concerning abiogenesis. and the Lurch has described situations cerning the energy relationships in primitive life that demonstrate Miller's claims are unsupportable. Again Miller simply making claims is not a coherent argument.
Still waiting for supporting scientific literature supporting Miller's claims.
Life processes are indeed very much dependent on proton flow, there are proton pumps in cell membranes that maintain a critical gradient.
True, but there is more than abundant energy available and the requirement for abiogenesis is in the forming the basic particles of life as demonstrated in my reference. The development of the proton pump is not necessary for the energy required for the initial formation of life, when there is abundant energy from natural sources. .
Yet we are far from an origin-of-life scenario, as evidenced by the many types of proposals for this.
Blessings,
Lee
You have not cited any of these proposals for this.
First this is an argument from ignorance, as usual, as you claiming that you believe the solution for abiogenesis is not achieved.
Pease note from your source. Did you read it?
"So far, we have hydrogen ions moving downhill through transporters and releasing energy. We also have these ions moving uphill, into areas of higher concentration, using a proton pump. Pumping against a gradient can be difficult, so the job of proton pumps is hard work. There is one pump that isn't as strong, and so acts a little out of the ordinary. It is called the Proton Pyrophosphatase Pump. "
You have not cited one peer researched article to support Miller.
Actually if memory serves me right this is a Ground Hog Day topic and has been covered before. More sources to follow.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-20-2020, 09:21 PM.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
Well, that's a bit harsh. It shouldn't matter who they are, as long as they present coherent and valid arguments. Also, I usually don't defend Lee, but maybe he just thought that ''these people'' presented interesting points (in his opinion, of course) that he felt he could share with others (that's the function of an internet forum, after all)...
I'd be ok with that if there actually were "coherent and valid arguments." Unfortunately, what I got instead was stuff like this: "Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions." Which is a combination of excessively fancy language to say the obvious (ie - cells need energy) and terms like "information" that are completely undefined in this context.
So, there's nothing here to evaluate. And, as i'm sure you're aware, there's no shortage of uninformed opinions on the internet. Since i'm going to have to figure out what the arguments are on my own, i think it's perfectly fair to determine in advance whether that's worth my time.
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Well, that's a bit harsh. It shouldn't matter who they are, as long as they present coherent and valid arguments. Also, I usually don't defend Lee, but maybe he just thought that ''these people'' presented interesting points (in his opinion, of course) that he felt he could share with others (that's the function of an internet forum, after all)...
I do not think The Lurch is being to harsh since this is a Ground Hog Day topic that has been around for a looong time. I find my self citing the same literature I cited before.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Since i'm going to have to figure out what the arguments are on my own, i think it's perfectly fair to determine in advance whether that's worth my time.
So proton pumps would seem to be widespread, in eukaryotes, and then in bacteria, some of these would apply:
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment