Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3
If you listen long enough (and only) to pretty much any crackpot conspiracy theory, it can start to "make sense".
In this regard, the creationists are little (if any) better than the 9/11 crackpots.
Rehashing the 2nd law horse apples?
Focusing on one tiny constituent in a mineral matrix to counter all other observed data over the last 3 centuries?
Please!
Evolutionism strikes me as being a sort of "group autism". They only allow into their self-contained fact-space those things which agree with their theory. Anything else is filtered out by the cone of silence and fails to register.
> Evolutionism strikes me as being a sort of "group
> autism". They only allow into their self-contained fact-
> space those things which agree with their theory
Through the 17th century it was nearly universally believed in the West that the Bible's historical accounts were, more or less, accurate.
Then people actually started to measure things. The measurements did not support the idea that the earth was 6-10,000 years old, or anything like it.
The geologists and other natural scientists tried, really tried, to resolve them, but by about 1830 pretty much every sensible geologist had come to the irrefutable conclusion that the earth was much, much older than that.
Revisiting the conclusion repeatedly because it doesn't comport well with what you'd like to be true is the sign of a weak (or possibly deranged) mind.
Again, there is solid scientific evidence that, in the very least, casts doubt even on an old age for the earth. But, your cone of silence will not allow you to consider it, hence your self-contained fact space is maintained.
One thing I *will* say for evolution - if I find out who it is that's trying to break into my shed, they're going to earn themselves a Darwin award....
I vote for both. IMHO he is an ignoramus. At least this article lends itself to that conclusion.
Oh, I get it, you're one of those people who thinks that convection currents prove that random forces can overcome the law of entropy (reference to dissipative structures). Now THAT is deranged...
Focusing on one tiny constituent in a mineral matrix to counter all other observed data over the last 3 centuries?
"One tiny constituent" that happens to demonstrate that long ages for rock strata are questionable. Of course, there are also the appearance of radiohalos which show that millions of years worth of radioactive decay occurred within months, and so forth. And since much of the theorisation about geological strata that has been generated in the last three centuries relies upon circular reasoning, simply pointing to types of fossils in types of rocks is not actually all that strong of an argument. But, since these evidences don't square with your self-contained fact space, feel free to go back to watching Wapner now.
In full agreement as to the ignoramus. As for his believer qualification - hard to judge.
Ahh! Brain chemistry! An interesting point that you bring up, which I would be delighted to discuss with you.
Human neurons contain channels that each contain a single, positively charged ion of potassium.
According to quantum physics (Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, to be precise), an observer can know either the position of a single particle or its state, but never both.
Take a few genetically pre-determined dispositions, add life experiences, and THEN throw in this quantum randomness and multiply it by a trillon (roughly the number of neurons in a human brain), and you've got a fully conscious, self-aware human being with a will of his or her own.
The unpredictability of the functioning of the human brain throws any kind of determinism right out the window regarding, as you stated, "a complex result of positive and negative charges in combination over time".
In other words, we are not organic robots and predestination is a lie, thanks to the laws of quantum physics working in our nerve cells.
"Are life and consciousness connected to the fundamental level of reality?" (link pops)
....crickets chirping....
For a chemist, you are expressing a very restricted view. Le Chatilier's Principle applies to reactions in equillibrium, not to the reaction rates themselves. Secondly, you neglect catalysis in your model. If condensation is catalyzed but hydrolysis is not, an accumulation of amino acids will occur. Do you not remember the differences between acid and base catalyzed reactions? I use condensation chemistry every day to make polymers in water. These commercial products have extremely long shelf lives and the only issue is continued condensation. Hydrolysis is not an issue. This is done by dropping the pH very slightly. Such a pH is readily found in nature. Le Chatiliers's has minimal, if any, effect. It only comes into play once equillibrium is reached and even then does not predict final concentrations unless you have specific knowledge of the reaction rate constants involved.
I mean, for you to claim that equilibria have nothing to do with this discussion is, frankly, ludicrous.
What is ludicrous is trying to purposefully mislead people by throwing around chemical terminology without understanding its chemical context.
In the lab, if you wish to make a step condensation reaction proceed to anything like completion (or, in the case under discussion, to a large molecular weight protein), you have to constantly remove the water produced as a product of the reaction, via vacuum, heat, or some other method. If you don't, your reaction halts due to equilibria concerns.
Again, you are making a lot of assumptions by restricting the chemistry to an equillibrium, step condensation reation and assuming 'completion.' You are neglecting the role of catalysts. You are neglecting the possible fates of the produced dipeptides. You are assuming an ocean of pure water and amino acids only. My point is that the early Earth will be a very, very diverse place in terms of chemistry and not the over simplified model you present.
At least that's what I was taught in my grad school course on polymers....
You need to work in the real world. I've been to ACS meetings were a professor stood up and complained a certain chemistry was impossible to use an rejected a paper being presented. The plain fact of the matter was that many companies were making commercial products with chemistry the prof said wasn't doable. What they teach you in school is just a starting point. It gets a lot more complicated than that real fast in real life. And if this is the chemistry they taught you in grad school, you need to get your money back. That should have been taught to you in freshman organic chemistry class.
Let's look at the stability of amino acids in an open environment. If the "early earth atmosphere" were really reducing as is claimed, then there would be essentially no ozone layer protection of the earth's surface from even hard UV light. Amino acids and proteins are degraded by ultraviolet, which means that any proteinaceous oligomer product formed by a hypothetical amino acid condensation as is proposed by evolutionists would be degraded pretty much anywhere it appeared on earth, except of course past a certain depth of the ocean (where it would be hydrolysed instead).
This is more over simplification on your part. You don't need to go too deep to get away from UV radiation. ANd things can form in the deep ocean around hydrothermal vents. I already trashed your hydrolysis argument. Secondly, you assume that early organics are fixed in exposure to UV. Mobility in water can move them to sheltered areas. When amino acids, or nuceotides, are concentrated on a surface, UV radiation can promote the formation of more complicated organics. Such surfaces existed back then, too. Not only that, but amino acids exist in space where there is no atmosphere and even more intense UV! And it has been shown that circularly polarize UV in space, which does exist, actually favors the formation of amino acids with the chirality we have today! So UV may well be an essential element for the formation of life, not an inhibitor as you claim.
You use a lot of chemical terms, but you apear to be very niave in chemistry. You remind me of the interns we get at work where it takes months to get them acclimatized to real world chemistry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.