Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
A variety of experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus with different gas mixtures to match different possibilities for the composition of the early atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids and a wide variety of other organic molecules. Sidney Fox showed how amino acid chains could form non-organically on a rock, sand, or clay substrate. Mixing his chains with water resulted in the formation of microspheres surrounded by selectively permeable membranes.
The Earth also receives organic molecules from space. We've continually discovering new varieties organic molecules in space. NASA astrobiologist Peter Jenniskens observed the Leonid meteor shower in 1999 and discovered that the organic materials in the meteors survived re-entry and impact with the Earth. Molecules as complex as amino acids have been discovered in such meteors.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: cquark
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Riprorin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus with different gas mixtures to match different possibilities for the composition of the early atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids and a wide variety of other organic molecules. Sidney Fox showed how amino acid chains could form non-organically on a rock, sand, or clay substrate. Mixing his chains with water resulted in the formation of microspheres surrounded by selectively permeable membranes.
The Earth also receives organic molecules from space. We've continually discovering new varieties organic molecules in space. NASA astrobiologist Peter Jenniskens observed the Leonid meteor shower in 1999 and discovered that the organic materials in the meteors survived re-entry and impact with the Earth. Molecules as complex as amino acids have been discovered in such meteors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
=====================
You are asking us to explain how some proteins could have naturally occurred but you expect us to believe that an omnipotent God either just appeared full blown or always existed before or outside of time.
How come you get to assume the infinitely complex just is but we gotta explain what is clearly a natural but as yet unknown infinitely less complex phenomenon. It's just not fair I tell you.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: cquark
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Riprorin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus with different gas mixtures to match different possibilities for the composition of the early atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids and a wide variety of other organic molecules. Sidney Fox showed how amino acid chains could form non-organically on a rock, sand, or clay substrate. Mixing his chains with water resulted in the formation of microspheres surrounded by selectively permeable membranes.
The Earth also receives organic molecules from space. We've continually discovering new varieties organic molecules in space. NASA astrobiologist Peter Jenniskens observed the Leonid meteor shower in 1999 and discovered that the organic materials in the meteors survived re-entry and impact with the Earth. Molecules as complex as amino acids have been discovered in such meteors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
=====================
You are asking us to explain how some proteins could have naturally occurred but you expect us to believe that an omnipotent God either just appeared full blown or always existed before or outside of time.
How come you get to assume the infinitely complex just is but we gotta explain what is clearly a natural but as yet unknown infinitely less complex phenomenon. It's just not fair I tell you.
So in other words, you can't explain how abiogenesis occured, but you just accept it by faith.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
I don't know how you can get O2 from the classes of organic compounds you listed in a reductive enviroment.
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
A variety of experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus with different gas mixtures to match different possibilities for the composition of the early atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids and a wide variety of other organic molecules. Sidney Fox showed how amino acid chains could form non-organically on a rock, sand, or clay substrate. Mixing his chains with water resulted in the formation of microspheres surrounded by selectively permeable membranes.
The Earth also receives organic molecules from space. We've continually discovering new varieties organic molecules in space. NASA astrobiologist Peter Jenniskens observed the Leonid meteor shower in 1999 and discovered that the organic materials in the meteors survived re-entry and impact with the Earth. Molecules as complex as amino acids have been discovered in such meteors.
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
Back in 1986 a biologist named Cindy Lee Van Doverwas poking around the innards of shrimp from the bottom of the sea. They came from a hydrothermal vent in the Atlantic, where boiling, mineral-rich water came spewing up from cracks in the Earth's crust and supported rich ecosystems of tube-worms, microbes, crabs, and other creatures. The animals that lived around these vents were generally blind, which wasn't surprising considering that no sunlight could reach them. But Van Dover noticed that they had two flaps of tissue running along their backs that connected to nerves. Closer inspection revealed that the tissue was actually made of light-sensitive pigments and photoreceptors. What, Van Dover wondered, could these shrimp possibly be looking at. Dives to mid-ocean ridges later revealed that the vents produce a faint light of their own.
In 1996 I wrote a story for Discover about Van Dover's obsession with deep-ocean light. At the time she was fascinated by the possibility that vents might make enough light to support photosynthesis. The sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is a million times brighter than vent light, but scientists have found microbes 240 feet down in the Black Sea that can survive on an equally scanty supply of photons. But at the time it was just speculation.
It is very cool to see that nine years later Van Dover hasn't lost the obsession. In a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she and her colleagues report their discovery of photosynthetic bacteria living around deep-sea vents. On a cruise to the East Pacific Rise, the scientists bottled vent water and then took it to a lab to culture the microbes they had trapped. One species was able to grow only in the presence of light, which it absorbed with photosynthetic pigments. The researchers doubt that the microbes drifted into the bottles from somewhere else because they seem well-adapted to the vents. They feed on sulfur compounds that are spewed up through the vents. The water around the vents is poor in oxygen thanks to chemical reactions there, and the bacteria thrive in the absense of oxygen. The nearest place where the bacteria might enjoy these features is thousands of miles away from the vents.
Over at Cosmic Log, Alan Boyle discusses what this discovery means for the search for life elsewhere in the universe. Short answer: photosynthetic organisms might be dwelling in the dark on other planets. I found myself thinking about another implication of the discovery, which I discussed in my 1996 article. Photosynthetic life may have existed on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, and scientists would like to know how the necessary chemistry for harnessing sunlight first evolved. Van Dover and her colleagues suggested that it might have gotten its start around hydrothermal vents. It could have evolved from a means for simply detecting light. Like shrimp, microbes don't want to get too close to the water coming directly out of a vent because they'll get fried. Over time, these bacteria might have evolved the ability to harness the energy of the light as well. Later, some of these deep-sea photosynthesizers might have been carried to shallower vents, where they might also be able to catch light from the sun. From these migrants came the sunlight-harnessing molecules that allow bacteria to consume trillions of tons of carbon. Some algae acquired this machinery as well, probably by eating photosynthetic bacteria, and they in turn gave rise to land plants. In other words, our forests and lawns got their start at the bottom of the sea.
These newly discovered bacteria don't clinch this argument by any means. They are not living fossils unchanged for four billion years. But they at least show that a key part of this evolutionary scenario is plausible: that photosynthetic organisms can survive around deep-sea vents. That's certainly an idea that nobody thought of before Van Dover began poking around in dead shrimp.
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
I'm going to reply to 3 of your previous points.
First, what exactly am I trying to prove? I thought I was rather explicit about it - you have no education in any of the scientific disciplines that are concerned with evolutionary questions, your knowledge is poor (and that is being generous), and otherwise you are basically a troll who cuts and pastes without any understanding of the underlying reasons for anything that you argue.
Secondly on your little claim that
I don't know how you can get O2 from the classes of organic compounds you listed in a reductive enviroment.
You should have stopped simply at "I don't know." That would have been the most factually correct thing you have said in this entire thread. It is possible in some of the molecules that I mentioned and all that I have asked you to do was identify which ones and give your reasons why it would be possible.
This isn't some elementary school playground where you can shoot the same question back at me with a sneer - I actually know the answer and you do not. I actually have an education in science and you do not. My opinion on scientific issues is worth something while yours is completely worthless, and even worse, harmful to the scientific education of other people's children.
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
That is what I asked you. If you seem to know so much about the Miller experiments this would be a piece of cake.
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
There are more than 20 amino acids. There are as many amino acids as there are substitutes in organic chemistry.
In modern mammals we only use about 20 (I think the real answer is 26 but I am not sure).
And your little point about random chance producing equal numbers of left and right handed chiral molecules is actually fairly substantial evidence for evolution.
Why do all living things use left handed x?
Because the earliest living thing to use it randomly chose the left handed version rather than the right handed one. Everything that has evolved from it has the same molecular machinary and uses the same left-handed version, if one thing evolved from another this is exactly what we would expect.
And not everything uses an L form. Some of the archeobacteria use the R form, indicating that the modern molecular machinary that has evolved to form all of our kingdoms chose one version and the archeo chose the other. So that dates us back to the protok/archeo split, or roughly 3 billion plus years ago.
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
I'm going to reply to 3 of your previous points.
First, what exactly am I trying to prove? I thought I was rather explicit about it - you have no education in any of the scientific disciplines that are concerned with evolutionary questions, your knowledge is poor (and that is being generous), and otherwise you are basically a troll who cuts and pastes without any understanding of the underlying reasons for anything that you argue.
Secondly on your little claim that
I don't know how you can get O2 from the classes of organic compounds you listed in a reductive enviroment.
You should have stopped simply at "I don't know." That would have been the most factually correct thing you have said in this entire thread. It is possible in some of the molecules that I mentioned and all that I have asked you to do was identify which ones and give your reasons why it would be possible.
This isn't some elementary school playground where you can shoot the same question back at me with a sneer - I actually know the answer and you do not. I actually have an education in science and you do not. My opinion on scientific issues is worth something while yours is completely worthless, and even worse, harmful to the scientific education of other people's children.
Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.
That is what I asked you. If you seem to know so much about the Miller experiments this would be a piece of cake.
Actually, Urey-Miller and other scientists were able to produce only 10 of the 20 amino acids.
Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiment produced equal quantities of both right handed and left handed organic compounds while in nature, nearly all amino acids are left handed, and alsmost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed.
Please explain how you go from a random collection of amino acids, to proteins and consequently, to life.
There are more than 20 amino acids. There are as many amino acids as there are substitutes in organic chemistry.
In modern mammals we only use about 20 (I think the real answer is 26 but I am not sure).
And your little point about random chance producing equal numbers of left and right handed chiral molecules is actually fairly substantial evidence for evolution.
Why do all living things use left handed x?
Because the earliest living thing to use it randomly chose the left handed version rather than the right handed one. Everything that has evolved from it has the same molecular machinary and uses the same left-handed version, if one thing evolved from another this is exactly what we would expect.
And not everything uses an L form. Some of the archeobacteria use the R form, indicating that the modern molecular machinary that has evolved to form all of our kingdoms chose one version and the archeo chose the other. So that dates us back to the protok/archeo split, or roughly 3 billion plus years ago.
Originally posted by: tss4
Thank god there are some people actually educated in biology debating this. I heard some guy on the radio the other day try to say that the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) proved the existance of an intelligent designer.
Wow, this guy has a really good point...:beer:Originally posted by: Stunt
Good to hear this will not be implemented into the curriculum.
If parents want their kids to learn about religion and ID, do it at home as this is where they spend most of their time anyway.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm still wating for "ForThePeople" to explain to me how you can form O2 from organic compounds in a reductive enviroment.
Originally posted by: abj13
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm still wating for "ForThePeople" to explain to me how you can form O2 from organic compounds in a reductive enviroment.
I won't make you wait any longer, since you "care" so much.
2H20 + 8Photons + 2 NADP+ -> O2 + 2NADPH + 2H+
This is for the production of O2 today. NADP is reduced, while H2O is oxidized.
The "older" reaction for the generation of O2 is:
2H20 + 4Photons -> O2 + 4e- + 4H+
These are only the photo-dependent reactions. Other ancestors of bacteria could use many sources of electron donors other than water, ie acetate, succinate, malate, or sulfide. However, it must be noted that life evolved primarily in water initially. A reductive atmosphere would have little effect on the ancient form of life because of the ability of water to form a barrier between life and the atmosphere. In addition, the early forms of O2 production would also require a nuclear membrane system, something that further insulates against oxidation/reduction.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Forthepeople, put forth that O2 can be produced from organic cmpds.
You gave an example of how O2 can be formed from water from photons and NADP. I'm curious how NADP came about on primitive earth.
Originally posted by: abj13
The "older" reaction for the generation of O2 is:
2H20 + 4Photons -> O2 + 4e- + 4H+
These are only the photo-dependent reactions. Other ancestors of bacteria could use many sources of electron donors other than water, ie acetate, succinate, malate, or sulfide.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
And how did the bacteria come about? You're aware, of course, that the simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is very highly complex life form.
Dear Mr. xxxxxxx,
Thank you for your interest in our district and please forgive the lateness of my response. My son has been in the hospital, so for obvious reasons, this was not upper most in my thoughts.
I have taken the liberty to outline some of your e-mail quotes and provided you with a factual account of the events.
1. ?The ad hoc committee that was formed to reach a resolution on the issue, which was made up of 7 people including the two teachers who were teaching ID, voted 5-2 against teaching ID, with those two teachers obviously being the 2 yes votes.?
Clarification: The ad hoc committee voted 5-2 against teaching ID in the District?s science curriculum, but recognized that ID could be an appropriate topic for certain high school classes in social studies, political science, philosophy or humanities.
2. ?It was then sent to all of the junior high and high school science teachers, where again, only the two teachers in question thought it should be taught?.
Clarification: Although a formal vote was not taken, the consensus of the secondary science teachers (except the two teachers advocating for ID) was that ID should not be included in the Districts science curriculum.
3. ?It was then sent to the District Curriculum Council, which voted 15-0 against teaching ID.?
Clarification: The District Curriculum Council voted 15-0 against teaching ID as part of the district?s science curriculum, but recognized that ID could be an appropriate topic for certain high school classes such as social studies, political science, philosophy or humanities.
4. ?And last night, the school board vote to reject ID in the science classrooms was unanimous. They did accept the committee?s recommendation that the board approve ID as a potentially suitable subject for a high school level elective course in social studies, humanities, political science or philosophy, but that would have to go through the normal process of being approved separately by the administration and could not begin until at least the fall of 2006.?.
Clarification: the board unanimously approved the following motion:
Motion by Jeff Brown:
?I move that the Board support the conclusions/findings of the Study Committee, Secondary Science Faculty and District Curriculum Council. I further move that the study of Intelligent Design and the book ?Of Pandas and People? shall not be included in the district 7th grade science curriculum. Finally, I move that Intelligent Design be approved as an appropriate topic in an elective high school class in social studies, political science, philosophy or humanities.
As clarified by the Superintendent, if ID becomes an addition to an already existing class,
in one of the approved areas, then it does not have to come back through the entire process, as it has already been approved for that. If however, a new class was formed, (in the stated areas of approval) that relates to this topic, then it would have to be approved by the normal process, which is through the DCC and then the board.
I hope this helps you understand the process and the resolution of the matter. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Deb Ryan
President
Gull Lake Board of Education
I'm still wating for "ForThePeople" to explain to me how you can form O2 from organic compounds in a reductive enviroment.
Other ancestors of bacteria could use many sources of electron donors other than water, ie acetate, succinate, malate, or sulfide.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: abj13
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm still wating for "ForThePeople" to explain to me how you can form O2 from organic compounds in a reductive enviroment.
I won't make you wait any longer, since you "care" so much.
2H20 + 8Photons + 2 NADP+ -> O2 + 2NADPH + 2H+
This is for the production of O2 today. NADP is reduced, while H2O is oxidized.
The "older" reaction for the generation of O2 is:
2H20 + 4Photons -> O2 + 4e- + 4H+
These are only the photo-dependent reactions. Other ancestors of bacteria could use many sources of electron donors other than water, ie acetate, succinate, malate, or sulfide. However, it must be noted that life evolved primarily in water initially. A reductive atmosphere would have little effect on the ancient form of life because of the ability of water to form a barrier between life and the atmosphere. In addition, the early forms of O2 production would also require a nuclear membrane system, something that further insulates against oxidation/reduction.
We were talking about how O2 can be produced on primitive earth in a reductive environment.
Forthepeople, put forth that O2 can be produced from organic cmpds.
You gave an example of how O2 can be formed from water, photons and NADP. How do you propose that NADP came about on primitive earth.
And how did the bacteria come about? You're aware, of course, that the simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a very highly complex life form.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Yeah, I know what an epoxide is.
So how do you generate O2 from an epoxide in a reductive atmosphere?
Also explain how epoxides fromed on primitive earth.
Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Originally posted by: Riprorin
You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?
No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...
c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.
I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:
A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH
All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.
So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.
Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.
So prove us wrong!