Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,783 Year: 12,895/6,534 Month: 178/2,210 Week: 119/390 Day: 28/47 Hour: 6/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 211 of 337 (664462)
06-01-2012 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by swensenpower
06-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: Utter nonsense
Hi Swensenpower,
It is too volatile the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by itself is enough to disrupt the chemical reactions needed for abiogenesis
This is typical from creationists or those who havent' studied the underlying science. You end up not understanding why we know the info we know and then querying it.
Oxygen is highly reactive and in the absence of a mechanism to generate oxygen (that only happens on Earth via plants producing oxygen via the process of photosynthesis) then any oxygen rapidly depletes and disappears. It is safe to say that if photosynthesis stopped today, then Earth would have a reducing atmosphere (oxygen free) in a very short space of time.
This is why we know the early Earth was a highly reducing atmosphere free from oxygen. The chemistry at that time would have been reducing chemistry (rather than our familiar oxidising chemistry) and abiogenesis would have come about in this environment.
We have reducing organic chemistry still today. Yeasts cut off from oxygen are forced to use different biochemical pathways (giving us the delightful by-product of alcohol) and deep sea vents are very oxygen deplete and the organisms that abound there live in a highly reducing sulpurous environment.
Please review your elementary chemistry and biology before posting your opinions - you may find that once you have done the proper study, your doubts will evapourate.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by swensenpower, posted 06-01-2012 12:13 AM swensenpower has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 293 of 337 (665023)
06-07-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 12:18 AM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Hello Genomicus
Can the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered explain this? Yes. Engineers very often re-use parts in different systems.
But to the best of my knowledge, designers (human ones at least) don't re-use parts in dangerous configurations. Which fool decided that we should have a food pipe and a breathing pipe so connected to allow a choking option. Why do we have monstrosities like the recurrent laryngeal nerve which is an engineering disgrace. And why do cephlapods get a much better deal in the wiring up of their eyes than we do?
A human designer will always take the best he has from not only his product lines but other ones - antilock braking systems first appeared on aircraft but didn't stay confined to them!
A human designer who put together Earth's ecosystem would easily lose his licence for engineering stupidity. I fail to see how the Earth's ecosystem provides a support for ID in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 12:18 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 10:28 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022