Organic-Rich Soup-in-the-Ocean of Early Earth [Miller experiment revisited]

REDNOVA NEWS ^ | 08 April 2005 | Staff

[MacDorcha]

Luk 6:30 and Matt 5:40 Say nothing of giving more to one who steals. It says give more than you are asked of to one who asks. And if in law they take it, give more as well.

Nothing of one who steals.

[doc30]

I see a small misunderstanding has developed so I thank you for refreshing my memory. I was responding to the description of Titan's composition and the chemistry therein. Since that is related to my professional area, I assumed the arguments were about that discussion, not the one speculation about the mechanisms of biogenisis, to which you were responding.

On that note, my musings were derived by extrapolation from current chemical concepts. It is possible for a chemical process to have an initiation which is different from propagation. There are many examples of this and I gave initiator induced free radical polymerization as an example. Other areas of chemistry from which logical extrapolations can be drawn include chemical processes that parallel cellular structures, such as micelle and liposome encapsulation including ion mobility across short chain fatty acid membranes of these structures. This would be included in the speculative extrapolation. The challenge would be getting down and doing lab work to produce a self replicating proto-cellular structure, ideally from self assembling organic materials that are not exclusive to currently living things. If that were done, then this would demonstrate that the intial conditions were different from the self replicating conditions. In other words, initiation is different from propagation.

[doc30]

And you don't understand logic. Below the ruins of "X" there is no evidence of habitation. Your logical conclusion is that "X" arose from rocks by itself.

Not the same. What I said was basically that before a point in time, there is no evidence of life, after a point in time, there was. On this much, both science and religion agree. The transition, from no life to life is where we part ways. Science looks at it as a physical process, religion claims design. The logical fallacy is how did the designer arise? Without addressing the origins of the designer, then intelligent design (a.k.a. creationism) merely puts an extra step in the start of life.

[AndrewC]

The logical fallacy is how did the designer arise?

That is not a logical fallacy, that is a question. I am not mentioning anything about ID or creationism. I am addressing your faulty logic. Your logic remains faulty, despite the validity or nonvalidity of any other argument.

[js1138]

Piffle.

Matt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloak also.

Matt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.


The general heading is "Resist not evil". But I suppose this is just a metaphor, and not an article of faith, like the six days of creation.

[Tribune7]

There is a point at which the attempt to trace a lineage becomes futile, because lineage only makes complete sense in sexually reproducing organisms.

:-)

[MacDorcha]

Turn the other cheek when wronged. Fine, how does that translate into "go out of your way to give them your property?" It just means when one disgraces you, let them.

When one sues you in the LAW, give more. That means it wasn't stolen, it was taken lawfully.

And if one compels me to go a mile, and I go extra, that means I am doing more than what is asked of me.

This is a statement of going above and beyond what is asked of you. This does not mean allow evil or give to those who would take from you illegally.

[Ignatz]

Thanks for the enlightening (and lengthy) reply.
This rather struck me: "Why *only* two sexes? Probably because while there is a direct route for the production of specialized male/female forms from hermaphroditic beginnings, there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to produce *three* types, nor would there be any obvious advantage to doing so (and several obvious disadvantages)."

If the hemaphrodites were the precursors to sexual specialists, wouldn't the hemaphrodites still exist as the "third sex", one capable of both giving and receiving? That would seem to me to be the best way of guaranteeing the species as a whole. What would be the disadvantages of hemaphrodites coexisting with sexual specialists of the same species?

[Ignatz]

The only state *know* is possible is "something" -- perhaps there is no other possible alternative.

Thanks again.
I picked up a Douglas Adams compendium last weekend, so I now have the answer for all of this.

(shhh....it's 42!)

[js1138]

So the word "compel" doesn't imply force or the threat of force?

[Ignatz]

God could cause you to see anything He wants you to see. Therefore, a meaningful test of God's existence is not possible even in principle.

Agreed.

[MacDorcha]

Not any more than "6 Days" implies 144 hours.

[js1138]

http://www.reefscapes.net/articles/articles/2002/hermaphroditism.html

[Doctor Stochastic]

As badly as things have turned out, it is evidence for too many cooks.

[Doctor Stochastic]

[MacDorcha]

Another translation of that is

"And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one kilometre, carry it two kilometres."

This would still imply lawfulness, as it is an occupying force, not a brigand.

[MacDorcha]

Can we pull this yet please?

[js1138]

Post #616 is not technically unlawful. Should I copy it?

[js1138]

The thread or the post?