Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
No, it isn't. What makes you think that it is?
Also, this appears to be a non sequitur -- the post you are responding to wasn't talking about abiogenesis, it was responding to your incorrect claim about the nature of the theory of *evolution*, which as you already know is a separate process from abiogenesis.
But I will wait patiently for a suitable hypothesis.
There are many -- the biological literature is full of explorations of this field. For some good introductory material, see:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cellsThe references in the first paper are an excellent place to start if you want to get deeper into the subject.The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations.
Exactly.
But not in the way you presume.
It can, and it does, corroborate what the Bible teaches of origins, destination, and purpose.
No, it doesn't. ID is simply "what the Bible teaches of origins, destination, and purpose" in a restated form.
You cannot "corroborate" anything merely by restating it and then claiming that the restatement is "independent support" of the original thing.
How about a $1.35 million reward for the person who first makes a scientifically acceptable hypothesis that results in the proper testing and explanation for the mechanism that caused life to come forth out of the basic elements?
If your sources have this information, they really ought to step forth and claim their reward. Or just put it in your own words and claim the reward yourself.
[Ich.:] No, it isn't. What makes you think that it is?
[FC:] How about a $1.35 million reward for the person who first makes a scientifically acceptable hypothesis that results in the proper testing and explanation for the mechanism that caused life to come forth out of the basic elements?
How about it? Are you under the mistaken impression that a prize for a breakthrough proves that a field is a "bitch for evolution"?
If your sources have this information, they really ought to step forth and claim their reward. Or just put it in your own words and claim the reward yourself.
I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who wasn't here to play games. I won't make that mistake again.
You requested information, I provided it. But rather than try to learn from the information, you play "it must not be very good if it can't win a million dollars" games. Go waste someone else's time.
As for the "prize offer", it's obviously a sham. The first clue is that the submitter must pay $300 to have their submission "evaluated" for the million bucks. Yeah, right -- I've heard less transparent schemes from the telemarketers who call to tell me I've won a "free" cruise.
Second, the "requirements" read like a sequence of hurdles the length of a marathon race.
Finally, it's larded through with scientific howlers and creationist buzzwords. This smells of "Dr. Dino's" bogus "challenge to evolution" which is designed specifically to be impossible, even in theory, to win. Then after a few years the "failure" of anyone to pass the "test" is waved around as "proof" that those silly scientists don't have a leg to stand on.
Nice try.
On the contrary, nice try yourself. Your sources merely describe presumed processes in the emergence of life. They do not define, or even propose a test to find, the mechanism behind those processes.
Why did you evolve my words from a "b*itch for science" to "a bitch for evolution?" Or do you have games of your own to play?
Why do you waste everyone's time here when you understand neither science nor evolution?
Yes, exactly. You asked for a "hypothesis". I pointed you to several.
If you need help understanding what a scientific hypothesis is, I'll be glad to help.
They do not define, or even propose a test to find, the mechanism behind those processes.
Which processes do you believe they didn't "define the mechanism behind"? The "mechanism" is basically ordinary organic and inorganic chemistry. If you want to learn more about that there are plenty of good textbooks, but surely you didn't expect the authors of the papers to "define the mechanism" of every chemical process they mention.
As for the less well-known processes, that's what the references are for. For example, here's a passage from the second paper:
Individual nickel and tungsten atoms, in conjunction with proteins containing Fe4S4 (and in one case Fe3S4) centres, variously comprise enzymes that catalyse electron transfer reactions at extremely low redox potentials (Cammack 1988, 1996; Adams 1992; Volbeda et al. 1995). The redox switch would have operated by gain and loss of electrons as Ni(II) or W(VI) converted to Ni(I) or W(IV) and back, the Fe4S4 centres providing the electron pathway to the electron sink (Volbeda et al. 1995; Kletzin & Adams 1996). Both hydrogenation and aldehyde oxidation take place at such low potentials. During hydrogenation, nickel-iron hydrogenase cleaves hydrogen as an electron is lost to the Ni(II) centre. An adjacent iron centre is the binding site for the carbon oxides which are reduced to simple organic molecules (Cammack 1995).The portions in red are citations to what are known as "references". At the end of the paper are the full citations, which you can use to learn more about "the mechanism behind" the processes mentioned in the paper. In the above case the first two references are:
CAMMACK, R. 1988. Nickel in metalloproteins. Advances in Organic Chemistry 32, 297–333.CAMMACK, R. 1996. Iron and sulfur in the origin and evolution of biological energy conversion systems. In: BALTSCHEFFSKY, H. (ed.) Origin and Evolution of Biological Energy Conversion. VCH Publishers, Deerfield Beach Florida, 43–69.
Why did you evolve my words from a "b*itch for science" to "a bitch for evolution?"
That's an easy one -- because my wife was hurrying me to run to the store to get something, and I didn't have time to proofread my posts as usual.
Or do you have games of your own to play?
Not at all -- you'll notice that my point still stands when that snippet of quote is corrected.
The other one.
If you'd like to repost just your salient points while leaving off the namecalling personal attack this time, I'll be glad to address them.
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.