See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Origin of life: Chemistry of seabed's hot vents could explain emergence of life
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 29, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-04-29 03:12:21 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 478
Comments: 34
ScienceDaily... Hot vents on the seabed could have spontaneously produced the organic molecules necessary for life, according to new research by UCL chemists. The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water. The discovery, published in the journal Chemical Communications, explains how some of the key building blocks for organic chemistry were already being formed in nature before life emerged -- and may have played a role in the emergence of the first life forms. It also has potential practical applications, showing how products such as plastics and fuels could be synthesised from CO2 rather than oil. "There is a lot of speculation that hydrothermal vents could be the location where life on Earth began," says Nora de Leeuw, who heads the team. "There is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the water, which could provide the carbon that the chemistry of living organisms is based on, and there is plenty of energy, because the water is hot and turbulent. What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms." The team combined laboratory experiments with supercomputer simulations to investigate the conditions under which the mineral particles would catalyse the conversion of CO2 into organic molecules. The experiments replicated the conditions present in deep sea vents, where hot and slightly alkaline water rich in dissolved CO2 passes over the mineral greigite (Fe3S4), located on the inside surfaces of the vents. These experiments hinted at the chemical processes that were underway. The simulations, which were run on UCL's Legion supercomputer and HECToR (the UK national supercomputing service), provided a molecule-by-molecule view of how the CO2 and greigite interacted, helping to make sense of what was being observed in the experiments. The computing power and programming expertise to accurately simulate the behaviour of individual molecules in this way has only become available in the past decade. "We found that the surfaces and crystal structures inside these vents act as catalysts, encouraging chemical changes in the material that settles on them," says Nathan Hollingsworth, a co-author of the study. "They behave much like enzymes do in living organisms, breaking down the bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms. This lets them combine with water to produce formic acid, acetic acid, methanol and pyruvic acid. Once you have simple carbon-based chemicals such as these, it opens the door to more complex carbon-based chemistry." Theories about the emergence of life suggest that increasingly complex carbon-based chemistry led to self-replicating molecules -- and, eventually, the appearance of the first cellular life forms. This research shows how one of the first steps in this journey may have occurred. It is proof that simple organic molecules can be synthesised in nature without living organisms being present. It also confirms that hydrothermal vents are a plausible location for at least part of this process to have occurred. The study could also have a practical applications, as it provides a method for creating carbon-based chemicals out of CO2, without the need for extreme heat or pressure. This could, in the long term, replace oil as the raw material for products such as plastics, fertilisers and fuels. This study shows, albeit on a very small scale, that such products, which are currently produced from non-renewable raw materials, can be produced by more environmentally friendly means. If the process can be scaled up to commercially viable scales, it would not only save oil, but use up CO2 -- a greenhouse gas -- as a raw material. Journal Reference: A. Roldan, N. Hollingsworth, A. Roffey, H.-U. Islam, J. B. M. Goodall, C. R. A. Catlow, J. A. Darr, W. Bras, G. Sankar, K. B. Holt, G. Hogarth, N. H. de Leeuw. Bio-inspired CO2conversion by iron sulfide catalysts under sustainable conditions. Chem. Commun., 2015; 51 (35): 7501 DOI: 10.1039/C5CC02078F University College London. "Origin of life: Chemistry of seabed's hot vents could explain emergence of life." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 April 2015. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427101635.htm Poster Comment: Something for you non-evolutionists to ponder.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
(Edited)
We've finally found them -- our original parents, the sea vents! MOM! DAD!!!...
LMAO Exactly! Any boob that would believe something like that needs an adjustment.
What's so hard to believe about it? As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. Our Universe is very much more alive than most people think. It's not the vents. It's the idea that live evolved from simpler to more complex forms. Where are the transitional forms in the fossil record?
Is it easier to believe that some guy in the sky wished it into existance?
I don't really know, because I've never heard that as an explanation. But evolutionism is no less a matter of faith than the creation account in Genesis. Looks like we'll have to put the transitional forms to bed, e.g. a fossil or skeleton of something like 1/4 of the way to a bird with wings. They should be available at many stages of the process -- a little bump on an adult creature that's going to grow into a wing, a little appendage on its way to being a wing, halfway to being a wing etc. There are none, that's how it is. I agree with the immortal Fred Reed on this. I honestly don't know where it all came from. I'd love to just believe Genesis, but humanity is such a disaster I'm left wondering what God would have deliberately created it. But macro-evolution is absolutely impossible, and evolutionism has -- yea even as creationists complain -- been a a bit of a blight on things. Hey, how true can it be if it's central to the entire psychosis of liberalism -- public skools, the works? If the commie-Jew media ram it down our throats in every possible and conceivable TV program, somebody should smell a rat. When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.) GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too. The posphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol— a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete.
Nice, but they can't stop this horrible tinnitus in my head that is driving me insane. Or am I just not "elite" or jewish enough? Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. I dunno. Everybody believes that "The next Savior to save us from the previous Savior" is going to happen every election cycle. So how is religion any different than politics? Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. Great point from Brother Reed, but I'll still go with God as the Creator of things. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I said it metaphorically. In other words, most who are opposed to the idea of anything other than the word for word verbiage of the Genesis Creation story usually consider "God" to be a manlike yet sprititual creature who exists somewhere undefined called "Heaven", which is often considered by religious folk as "up there in the sky somewhere". There is Genesis, there is Darwin, there are countless other beliefs, yet there is but ONE Truth. I doubt any of us here on Earth know for certain what that Truth is. In terms of what is possible, who's to say that the Universe (and what exists beyond it, before it, and after it) is/are not actually "God" itself. Just a thought, but as you illustrate with the scientific truths you cut and pasted, it's readily apparent that the formulation and functional aspects of biological entities (or much else for that matter) did not occur by random chance. As far as the concept that certain building blocks of life can begin in ocean vents, I find that highly plausible, especially given that life on Earth began in the oceans. You mention creatures with "half wings". Compare dinosaur skeletons with those of modern day birds. They are close to identical in general structure, although their sizes are obviously different. It's not. That's why I try to avoid it, and just look at things philosophically, while maintaining a degree of spirituality mixed with logic. Good!
I have no idea what you mean, but will take any replies I can get anymore.
Esso was in a near-deadly car wreck a while back and hasn't yet enjoyed a full recovery.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I don't really know, because I've never heard that as an explanation. But evolutionism is no less a matter of faith than the creation account in Genesis. I said it metaphorically. In other words, most who are opposed to the idea of anything other than the word for word verbiage of the Genesis Creation story usually consider "God" to be a manlike yet sprititual creature who exists somewhere undefined called "Heaven", which is often considered by religious folk as "up there in the sky somewhere". Right. And I answered both your literal and facetious angles. There is Genesis, there is Darwin, there are countless other beliefs, yet there is but ONE Truth. I doubt any of us here on Earth know for certain what that Truth is. We could probably agree on that -- big concession from one who's defended and expounded the Bible as the inerrant Word of God for ages. In terms of what is possible, who's to say that the Universe (and what exists beyond it, before it, and after it) is/are not actually "God" itself. That is a possibility often considered -- or that we're his thoughts. Science is even now saying every thought we have may instantly be becoming reality in some plane of existence. Just a thought, but as you illustrate with the scientific truths you cut and pasted, it's readily apparent that the formulation and functional aspects of biological entities (or much else for that matter) did not occur by random chance. Definitely -- and it would support creation rather than the big bang or whatever. See, the problem with all that is that it goes against -- what is it, Newton's second law? -- that says everything that happens has a cause. To say natural selection brought about advances in species differentiation ignores the fact that there has to be a cause behind that. It's sort of like the people who try to get us off the theistic hook by saying God didn't create us, we were put here to people this beautiful world by interplanetary beings. Fine, but who gave them life? The lame dodges and subterfuges evolutioneers throw in are simply incredible. As far as the concept that certain building blocks of life can begin in ocean vents, I find that highly plausible, especially given that life on Earth began in the oceans. Who says it did? Now this is sounding like a religion! You mention creatures with "half wings". Compare dinosaur skeletons with those of modern day birds. They are close to identical in general structure, although their sizes are obviously different. ROTF!!!! Absolutely hopeless. Doesn't help you at all. You might want to quit while you're, uh, ahead.... but I can't wait to see what you say next! :-)
None of the astronauts or space probes have come across this guy in the sky but maybe He's basking in an alternate universe if there is such a thing.
Creator must have a PhD in chemistry and then some to have worked out this series of reactions. Evolution, on the other hand would keep discarding reactions that don't quite work until coming across one that does the desired job. Freddie come up with a similar description of the electro-chemical reactions for the necessary muscle contractions in a heart beat, including response to energy demands of the body?
Most atoms of the elements and molecules have inherent properties/forces which cause them to bind or otherwise interact with other atoms and/or molecules, usually expedited or otherwise affected by temperature, light, radiation, wandering electrons, electrical discharges,motion, maybe cosmic rays.
Right. And they've never found a mind inside a human being, but it does exist of course. A brain isn't a mind anymore than a radio is a broadcast.
Love you Tat but I wouldn't pile it any higher! Molecules and their puppy love are just another dodging attempt to get around the law of entropy -- "the electro-chemical reactions for the necessary muscle contractions in a heart beat" ditto. I posed you that one first in effect with all those visual processes. You mowed right over and then cannibalized it! Let the record show there are no transitional forms and no known FIRST CAUSE in science, ergo by the basics of the scientific method macro-evolution is a total BUST. Whatever the truth is, we do know that the less Christian America gets, the worse it gets -- a fact that I'd think would be of vastly more interest to you and any conservative because it concerns what we're all living through right now.
Who says it did? Now this is sounding like a religion! From The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Earth was able to support life only after the planet had cooled enough for a rocky crust to solidify. Once that happened, water vapor from volcanoes condensed in the atmosphere, fell as rain, and collected on the Earth’s surface. Besides water vapor, volcanoes also produced gases rich in the basic ingredients of life: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Toxic gases such as ammonia and methane were common. At this point, Earth's early atmosphere consisted entirely of these volcanic gases, and there was no free oxygen. In the primordial “soup” of the early seas, organic molecules concentrated, formed more complex molecules, and became simple cells. The transition from complex organic molecules to living cells could have occurred in several environments. Small, warm ponds are one possibility, but recent work has suggested that deep-sea hydrothermal vents, such as those found along mid-ocean spreading centers today, may have been the cradle of Earth's life. These environments contain the chemicals and the source of energy needed to synthesize more complex organic structures. Although scientists have not succeeded in creating life from organic molecules in the laboratory, they have reproduced many of the intermediate steps. So what were the first living things and when did they appear? Studies of genetic material indicate that a living group of single-celled organisms called Archaea may share many features with early life on Earth. Many Archaea now live in hot springs, deep-sea vents, saline water, and other harsh environments. If the first organisms resembled modern Archaea, they also may have lived in such places, but direct evidence for early life is controversial because it is difficult to distinguish between complex inorganic structures and simple biological ones in the geologic record. The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5- billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites. Stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for photosynthesis. Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize. In the Archean structures, layers similar to those seen in living stromatolites are evident, and secondary structures interpreted as simple filamentous microfossils have been recovered from the layers. The biotic origin of the structures has, however, been questioned. Both the supposed Archean stromatolites and the microfossils may have been produced by inorganic processes. Regardless, uncontested microfossils and chemical traces of life were present at least by 2.7 billion years ago. Stromatolites that were produced by microorganisms are abundant later in the Archean and throughout the Proterozoic. These sedimentary structures, formed by organic processes, provide important evidence of early life. At present, we can say with certainty that life had evolved by 2.7 billion years ago, and possibly as early as 3.5 billion years ago. Care to explain? I'm not one of those who deny there is a "Creator", I just disagree on HOW that Creation occured where I feel that TRUE Creation would involve making things happen as we observe them to be, at least in terms of planetary creation and evolution of life. In terms of how the Universe itself was created, well that is perhaps more of a matter of energy, matter, space, time, plus whatever we don't already know about existence, appearing all at once. Where are the transitional forms in the fossil record? Exactly! Besides, Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven at the core elements of it beyond any residual credibility whatsoever, except to those blinded by inundation media. Darwin's original theory is tantamount to insisting that monsters will come out of your tap when you turn the water on. Really, it's exactly that trivial when it comes to substantiation. It was originally called a theory that morphed into something much larger for socio-political subversion purposes and for no other reason. Get The Living God, get Mammon in! It's worked like a charm!
So you're denying the existance of primitive species such as Neanderthal and such? All over...one was just discovered in China... www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/asia/china-dinosaur-yi-qi/ A transitional record in the evolutionary chain isn't just one fossil...it's any of a series of fossils which show the progression of a species from its precursor traits relative to a future or present day relative. It's the idea that live evolved from simpler to more complex forms. You started with one sperm and one egg. You were toothless and then you weren't...the concept is hardly mind boggling... --Fuck your breath.
Darwin's *core* theory of evolution is that traits are inherited and that through natural selection some traits endure and others do not. How has that been disproven in any way? Darwin's original theory is tantamount to insisting that monsters will come out of your tap when you turn the water on. Really, it's exactly that trivial when it comes to substantiation. Wha...chuckle...huh? That's easily falsified. There is no trait of the water that would immediately result in the transformation of a non living compound, water, into a living entity, monster. Nor is there anything in Darwin's theory that would so posit...Darwin advocated *gradualism* and not *punctuated equilibrium* which post dated Darwin and is closer in form to what you describe above... BTW, biblically all creations were made of either "the land" or "the water" --Fuck your breath.
If you can't explain that then you need to do a whole lot more research. I can direct you, but it is impossible for me to explain here in a forum what's taken me years to learn, kinda like 9/11. What I said stands. There's no self-respecting biologist or scientist otherwise alive today that will back Darwin's original basis for his theory. Hence, anything driving evolution today has little if anything to do with Darwin other than that he's a poster-boy for the movement. It would be very close to using a man that shot a violent home-intruder to defend himself in his home as a poster-boy for our global wars in the name of "self defense." Like I said, it's absurdly trivial, equivalent to me saying that this forum evolved from the internet without human interaction. It's so preposterous that like all other FFs in this country, none of the mainstream ever defers to Darwin's original premise other than generally speaking. That's a fact. The entire debate on evolution A, keeps changing from the side of those pushing evolution, another Zio-establishment sponsored goody to deteriorate morality in this country, which has been successfully accomplished mind you, and B, is based entirely on a revolving door of info to keep people confused. Once one thing/"basis" is disproven, another is floated. It's the same as with say coverage of 9/11 or OKC, BB, etc. And before we get off on another wrong tangent here, this is not to say that organized religion is right either. Organized religion is no different than mainstream media. I learned this years ago which is why I do not go to church anymore. I used to be in Bible studies, but no one wanted to use the Bible. They all wanted to study a book written about the Bible. Most people, the vast majority, that go to church do not read and study their Bibles independently. Of the few that do read them, most of them do so in accordance with the structure of a formal Bible study and a preordained syllabus or guide of some sort, usually errant in terms of what the Bible actually teaches for one or more reasons. Same as with being informed from a "news" and societal perspective, as we know here, if you want to know the truth, you'll have to get it from non-mainstream sources. The mainstream sources all deceive, lie, and cover-up, sometimes deliberate, sometimes ignorantly, but nonetheless.
The way you have phrased that makes your statement 100% incorrect. Darwin's finches, his observational differences between which, formed the basis for his theory. These finches and what Darwin posited, natural selection, are STILL studied to this day in evolutionary biology. There is no 21st century evolutionary biologist who rejects either natural selection or Darwin's observations. What has been *rejected* of Darwin's is gradualism, i.e. the continued, gradual change of a species as it adapts. Darwin was a Naturalist not a biologist...his theory developed out of observation rather than biological investigation. Darwin knew very little of the biological aspects of heredity...but, as a keen observer, he was able to discern how members of the same species had developed different traits that served their needs of survival. Had Darwin and Mendel been able to collaborate, Darwin's theory - and Mendel's work, for that matter - would have taken on a totally different face within the scientific community... --Fuck your breath.
Which is sort of like saying "the part of global warming theory that's been abandoned is that there's a rise in temperature." You know, it's been changed to "climate change" now so they're covered either way.
No it's not. Darwin advocated universal gradualism. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that some changes are gradual but most are not... You know, it's been changed to "climate change" now so they're covered either way. How do you boil water? By increasing its temperature... Given that fact, what you are saying is that a) water does not boil because the temperature of it was increased and b) no significant change to the water has occurred... Everything that you need to know about the effect of rising temps on climate you should have learned in elementary school Earth Science... --Fuck your breath.
Prior to October of 1947, some avionic engineers were emphatic that the sound barrier was unbreachable. After Yearger broke the sound barrier, the whole field of aerodynamics was not falsified. --Fuck your breath.
Wrong. His theory developed out of pure speculation from a scientific perspective. His "scientific" methodology was non-existent to laughable. I'm not going to respond further to you and your continued estatblishment sided idiocy and lack of wisdom, suffice it to say that I would have been more concerned had you agreed.
Uh...no...Darwin was a Naturalist, You obviously don't know what that means and it's not my job to educate you. His theory developed out of pure speculation from a scientific perspective. ROFLMAO...as opposed developing from what? A Burning Bush? The accusation that you have leveled at him can be leveled at any scientific theory...they all begin the same way...OBSERVATION... E.G.: 'E pur si muove. I'm not going to respond further to you and your continued estatblishment (sic) sided idiocy I couldn't care less if you stopped responding to me because the Mother Ship gave you strict orders not to. We don't fly off of the earth in to space because of some false flag operation by the Dragoons. --Fuck your breath.
#2. To: NeoconsNailed (#1)
#3. To: Katniss (#2)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#4. To: FormerLurker (#3)
What's so hard to believe about it?
#5. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#6. To: FormerLurker (#5)
Is it easier to believe that some guy in the sky wished it into existance?
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too. The posphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol— a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#8. To: FormerLurker (#5)
Is it easier to believe that some guy in the sky wished it into existance?
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#9. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
I agree with the immortal Fred Reed on this. I honestly don't know where it all came from. I'd love to just believe Genesis, but humanity is such a disaster I'm left wondering what God would have deliberately created it.
#10. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
(Edited)
I don't really know, because I've never heard that as an explanation. But evolutionism is no less a matter of faith than the creation account in Genesis.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#11. To: Esso (#8)
So how is religion any different than politics?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#12. To: Lod (#9)
(Edited)
Great point from Brother Reed, but I'll still go with God as the Creator of things.
#13. To: Esso (#7)
#14. To: NeoconsNailed, Esso (#13)
#15. To: FormerLurker (#10)
#16. To: FormerLurker (#5)
#17. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
(Edited)
#18. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)
there has to be a cause
#19. To: Tatarewicz (#16)
None of the astronauts or space probes have come across this guy in the sky but maybe He's basking in an alternate universe if there is such a thing.
#20. To: Tatarewicz (#17)
(Edited)
#21. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)
As far as the concept that certain building blocks of life can begin in ocean vents, I find that highly plausible, especially given that life on Earth began in the oceans.
The First Life on Earth
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#22. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)
ROTF!!!! Absolutely hopeless.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#23. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)
It's sort of like the people who try to get us off the theistic hook by saying God didn't create us, we were put here to people this beautiful world by interplanetary beings. Fine, but who gave them life? The lame dodges and subterfuges evolutioneers throw in are simply incredible.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#24. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
It's not the vents. It's the idea that live evolved from simpler to more complex forms.
#25. To: Katniss (#24)
Besides, Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven at the core elements of it beyond any residual credibility whatsoever, except to those blinded by inundation media.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
Where are the transitional forms in the fossil record?
#27. To: Katniss (#24)
(Edited)
Besides, Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven at the core elements of it beyond any residual credibility whatsoever, except to those blinded by inundation media.
#28. To: FormerLurker (#25)
(Edited)
So you're denying the existance of primitive species such as Neanderthal and such?
#29. To: Katniss (#28)
There's no self-respecting biologist or scientist otherwise alive today that will back Darwin's original basis for his theory.
#30. To: war (#29)
What has been *rejected* of Darwin's is gradualism, i.e. the continued, gradual change of a species as it adapts.
#31. To: NeoconsNailed (#30)
Which is sort of like saying "the part of global warming theory that's been abandoned is that there's a rise in temperature."
#32. To: NeoconsNailed (#30)
Which is sort of like saying "the part of global warming theory that's been abandoned is that there's a rise in temperature." c
#33. To: war (#29)
his theory developed out of observation
#34. To: Katniss (#33)
Wrong.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest