Yes, because you were rather insolently sending me off somewhere else to go & do your homework for you. Ask specific questions. Think, don't just link.Well that was an easy out!
Chemical evolution:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Which only tremendously exacerbates the situation for unguided abiogenesis since the specific folding sequence requirements greatly increase the improbability of chance occurrence. And if you retort 'it wasn't just chance' than please offer a believable explanation as to where and how an effective level of non-chance arose naturally.
I thought it obvious. To take the last point - without specific information content acting ab initio there is no self-replication. Chicken & egg in my book.
You really took it like that?
And that piece was not actual insolence? My we have hit it off on a bad note.
Yes, the 3D folding of oligomers explores a vast array of conformational space, in which one wouldn't be surprised to find that some of the molecular conformations (stumbled-across blindly, by chance) are at lower total chemical potential energies (& hence more stable & time-persistent) than others, & similarly for ribozymic activities to be found, again by chance.
On your second point, your book is simply in plain error, as you're fixating too early on informational content. Informational theory would say that the first incipiently biopoietic oligomers would be expected to have been of random sequence and thus informationless.
Yes, the whole posture of your welcoming of a newbie on here has been less than pleasant. But as you can see, you've failed so far to scare off, dissuade, or bully me. Now one can hope that we can have discourse more respectfully.
That's it? Well if lower chemical potential is the chief natural driver, the thermodynamic tendency will be for hydrolysis and fragmentation of long peptide chains, or better yet, Maillard-type side reactions thwarting long chains ever forming in the first place.
And how can initial random informationless sequences ever realistically escape that vicious cycle? One needs a lot of specific information for self-replication to kick in, no?
If that's how you want to construe it, nothing much else to say really.
On your first point, you're wrong because you clearly haven't appreciated the elementary structural importance of (esp. intramolecular) cooperativity among weak chemical bonds (esp. Hydrogen bonding, of course).
On your second point, you're wrong because you seem to think that a lot of information's required for the first-ever kind of ribozymic-type of chemical activity to have been stumbled-across, by pure chance, in & amongst the enormous sequence & higher-order structural spaces available.
Yes, evidently an apology and a kind word of welcome to a newbie on here were indeed too much to have hoped for.
Wrong and wrong you say. Got any specific and relevant examples backing each assertion above?
You come across as thin skinned, but of a type not afraid to dish it out to others. Imagining insults where none was implied. And still have no idea of how much outright crudeness and irreverence and vindictiveness passes for the norm here.
Do you have anything beyond Grade 10 Science?
Yes. I agree that I'm evidently old-fashioned in that I expect decency. Truly, has no other person in either virtual or real life ever told you that you come across too brusquely, dismissively, & rudely?
Your response in previous post marks your current post one of hypocrisy. I think we are done conversing here.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No I hate people making stuff up and presenting it as real with no evidence..Clearly all gods are a human invention the god of the bible invented in Sumeria... JC another in the long procession of human gods modelled upon astrology...there is no evidence of super natural and speculation that it exists is mere speculation ...
I have never seen any evidence so my pronouncement is not unwarranted...you could prove me uninformed with just one piece of evidence that proves I am wrong.
I have asked for evidence and it has never been provided in the past...I look on the net and can't find any.
Anyways is this thread given your input not better in the religion section...
Alex
You are entitled to your opinion Alex but it would be safer and more accurate to include 'imo' when making such pronouncements. I invite you to take up the challenge of spending all of 50 minutes actually viewing and objectively assessing that vid I linked to elsewhere but reproduce here:
https://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
Those little numbers in parentheses link to references backing each claim. One or two possibly are outdated but the great majority won't be.
If you decline these invitations to actually seriously study material contra to your position, ask yourself how reasonable and secure is your philosophical outlook. Cheers.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I thank you. I will look at it a little later today I am looking forward to it...I am in one of those moods where I have had too much engineering, too much guitar instruction, bit sick of cage fights, know all the history, sick of fossils, been into biology lately but it gets too heavy..the molecular biology stuff...sick of looking thru microscopes, certainly fed up with other conversations here...so you could not pick a better time to suggest something different...
You see I do respect you and like you and as you may have guessed from my first post in this thread I would like to know why someone such as yourself, who comes over to me as very clever, finds religion plausible...like I know a Christian chap a very capable fellow but I won't mention religion cause I would have to argue and I don't wish to...
Talk to you after.
Alex
So I see that the Enfield case involved two sisters of pubescent ages, living alone with their clearly unstable Mum in a broken working-class home, with no man of-the-house about to dissuade intruders (or perverts), and with a burly builder (with home-renovation knowledge, & no doubt having plenty of drinking buddies at his local) living right next door. One might begin to wonder whether the thoroughly dense-sounding coppers, the mediocre newspapermen, and the willingly-gullible pseudoscientist ESP-folk were up to the challenge of recognising a clever & devious hoax, perhaps designed by Mr. Burly Builder bloke (& his buddies), in order to be able to get access to the girls' bedroom/s to offer them his 'protection,' under their Mum's very nose. What has any of this BS that you're rudely thrusting into this thread got to do with Chemical Evolution, pray tell?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Watched the movie..all of it... for no other reason that I got stuck into James for commenting negatively on a video that he did not watch all the way thru...it was a poltergeist thing?..was that the correct movie?
Alex
Alex