Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course his explanations are far more logical and provable then what your side say's.
Benefits of science
Enjoy. I will not educate the blind who cover their ears when I speak.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
Can i get a link that says in all cases amino acidsd cannot form in water?
I don't believe that to be the case.
(and again a link from a science based website, not religion based)
Solubility
Amino acids are generally soluble in water and insoluble in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons.
This again reflects the presence of the zwitterions. In water, the ionic attractions between the ions in the solid amino acid are replaced by strong attractions between polar water molecules and the zwitterions. This is much the same as any other ionic substance dissolving in water.
The extent of the solubility in water varies depending on the size and nature of the "R" group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: At this point I would normally try to relate the actual values for solubility of the various amino acids to their structures. Unfortunately, from the solubility values that I have got (and I'm not convinced they are necessarily right), I can't find any obvious patterns - in fact, there are some very strange cases indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of solubility in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons is because of the lack of attraction between the solvent molecules and the zwitterions. Without strong attractions between solvent and amino acid, there won't be enough energy released to pull the ionic lattice apart.
an introduction to amino acids
Amino acids are generally soluble in water and insoluble in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons.
Generally? Yes
Always? No
Solubility
Amino acids are generally soluble in water and insoluble in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons.
This again reflects the presence of the zwitterions. In water, the ionic attractions between the ions in the solid amino acid are replaced by strong attractions between polar water molecules and the zwitterions. This is much the same as any other ionic substance dissolving in water.
The extent of the solubility in water varies depending on the size and nature of the "R" group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: At this point I would normally try to relate the actual values for solubility of the various amino acids to their structures. Unfortunately, from the solubility values that I have got (and I'm not convinced they are necessarily right), I can't find any obvious patterns - in fact, there are some very strange cases indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of solubility in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons is because of the lack of attraction between the solvent molecules and the zwitterions. Without strong attractions between solvent and amino acid, there won't be enough energy released to pull the ionic lattice apart.
an introduction to amino acids
Amino acids are generally soluble in water and insoluble in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons.
Generally? Yes
Always? No
Explain how they get into hydrocarbons to protect themselves from dissolving in water ?
If they're in water they dissolve period.
gen·er·al·ly/ˈjenərəlē/
Adverb:
1.In most cases; usually.
2.In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.
Of course his explanations are far more logical and provable then what your side say's.
Benefits of science
Enjoy. I will not educate the blind who cover their ears when I speak.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
I'm converted, I think the only reason why that link Photonic posted was made in order to turn little christian kids into heathen atheists.
The devil is at work at Cal-Berkeley and he's also at work at all the publications who give that school off the chart rankings.
Amino acids are generally soluble in water and insoluble in non-polar organic solvents such as hydrocarbons.
Generally? Yes
Always? No
Explain how they get into hydrocarbons to protect themselves from dissolving in water ?
If they're in water they dissolve period.
gen·er·al·ly/ˈjenərəlē/
Adverb:
1.In most cases; usually.
2.In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
One with a degree in molecular biology would also understand the benefits of evolutionary biology in modern medicine.
Explain how they get into hydrocarbons to protect themselves from dissolving in water ?
If they're in water they dissolve period.
gen·er·al·ly/ˈjenərəlē/
Adverb:
1.In most cases; usually.
2.In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Without particulars or exceptions. Why do you think it is so hard for scientists to demonstrate abiogenesis ?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Without particulars or exceptions. Why do you think it is so hard for scientists to demonstrate abiogenesis ?
You mean like this?
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Because, as you know from being a molecular biologist, scientific hypothesis and theories go through several cycles before confirmation. Some go through more than others.
Why do you not understand this?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Without particulars or exceptions. Why do you think it is so hard for scientists to demonstrate abiogenesis ?
You mean like this?
Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Because, as you know from being a molecular biologist, scientific hypothesis and theories go through several cycles before confirmation. Some go through more than others.
Why do you not understand this?
Without particulars or exceptions. Why do you think it is so hard for scientists to demonstrate abiogenesis ?
You mean like this?
Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Because, as you know from being a molecular biologist, scientific hypothesis and theories go through several cycles before confirmation. Some go through more than others.
Why do you not understand this?
One more thing to have ooze you have to have water,are you telling me all the water in the ocean evaporated and then rained again ?
You can't see the problems I am pointing out to you ?
Without particulars or exceptions. Why do you think it is so hard for scientists to demonstrate abiogenesis ?
You mean like this?
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Because, as you know from being a molecular biologist, scientific hypothesis and theories go through several cycles before confirmation. Some go through more than others.
Why do you not understand this?
One more thing to have ooze you have to have water,are you telling me all the water in the ocean evaporated and then rained again ?
You can't see the problems I am pointing out to you ?
You mean like this?
Lifes First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Because, as you know from being a molecular biologist, scientific hypothesis and theories go through several cycles before confirmation. Some go through more than others.
Why do you not understand this?
One more thing to have ooze you have to have water,are you telling me all the water in the ocean evaporated and then rained again ?
You can't see the problems I am pointing out to you ?
Of course I see the problems, I also see the solution IN the problems, something you refuse to see. You don't seem to have any interest in opening your mind to the possibility you are not correct.
I am open minded to the possibility I'm wrong, but advancement isn't made by sitting around and accepting that fact. You should be WELL AWARE of that, especially if you have a degree in science. And if you weren't made aware of that, then whoever gave you a degree was an irresponsible monster.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
One with a degree in molecular biology would also understand the benefits of evolutionary biology in modern medicine.
I too can formulate my own thoughts on this subject, and what you evols preach just does not make a workable solution, with sound common sense. Maybe someone who is more astute and lectured on the subject in question can write their words and express themself better than I, still it does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.
Just because I said "man came from apes" dick weed hick wants to bust my chops because I did not correctly say Chimpanzee. Apes and Chimp are both primates both are non human but the asshat wants to bust my chops because I did not use the correct terminology.
I will admit since the stroke i am not the sharpest tool in the shed,but i try.
But still our questions go ignored. Just because we can't prove a supernatural force is the reason for life and everything we see, but it is reasonable to assume everything we see is the product of a creator. Because it is very reasonable to assume life begets life not reasonable to assume non-life begets life.
The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Finding a single fossil naturally out of place in the ground would falsify evolution. It's also a logical canard to insist that we must be able to reproduce a process that took hudreds of millions of years to occur in various different environments and atmospheres in a laboratory beaker for it to be considered "reproducible". You yourself admit that would be impossible. We can't quite recreate gravity either. That doesn't limit our study of it.
You are basically making the same absurd, albeit much more articulate points, that the anti-evolution crowd always makes. The scientific community certainly doesn't see the massive holes you claim are in the process.
Furthermore, what is your proposed alternative? If you are going to claim scientific rigor, then surely you can't claim that intelligent design or creation, which both rely on supernatural forces, can be falsified. Once you introduce an all knowing and powerful force into your model, the answer to any connundrum (i.e. the hypothetical out of place fossil) automatically becomes "God did it".
At any rate, in light of the OP, it's always entertaining to see anyone claim that they know what happens when we die. It's the final mystery and all the logic, scripture, parables, and firmly held beliefs on the planet have failed to bring a resounding answer to it. I have my doubts this thread will either. It will simply be something that we all find out in our way.
I guess you missed my point of this thread. I cannot prove what happens at death. I am a man of faith so I believe in what's written in the scriptures. I was merely pointing out what the scriptures say about Hell and death. I was setting the record straight. Because so many Christians have been taught something that is not in line with the scriptures.
I have a degree in molecular biology ,you won't teach me much more then I already know.
Good ol berkley link ,home of the atheiest and naturalist movement
Next I will be provided with your wiki support.
You guys are entertaining.
One with a degree in molecular biology would also understand the benefits of evolutionary biology in modern medicine.
And what kind of degree? I've got a bachelor's in "Management" (aka Business Finance), and I couldn't tell you a damn thing about business. I am a medical student now.
I think it's funny that people claim expertise based on a degree they got 20-30 years ago. To be an expert, you should have done graduate work in the matter and spent a significant part of your life in the professional practice of your endeavor.
I too can formulate my own thoughts on this subject, and what you evols preach just does not make a workable solution, with sound common sense. Maybe someone who is more astute and lectured on the subject in question can write their words and express themself better than I, still it does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.
Just because I said "man came from apes" dick weed hick wants to bust my chops because I did not correctly say Chimpanzee. Apes and Chimp are both primates both are non human but the asshat wants to bust my chops because I did not use the correct terminology.
Except you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this subject, and you've demonstrated it time and time again. You claiming some magical (and non quantifiable) intellectual prowess in the guise of "common sense" non-withstanding. STH is right to "bust your chops" for saying "man came from apes". Terminology aside, evolution does not, and never has, said that "man comes from (insert ape here)". In other words, you don't even have a grasp of what you are arguing about.
In other words, you can not formulate your own thoughts because you are ignorant (in the purest sense of the word) about what you are arguing against.
Did life begin in a body of water or not ?
Does this have anything to do with evolution or not ?
I already answered this once.
All cells contain water. We are made up of approximately 60% water our brain 70%. So we have 4 billion cells containing water so it is reasonable to assume life began in water according to your theory.
One major problem for your side is that amino acids cannot form in water they are to soluble. So how did we get the building blocks of life in the water to create life ?
