This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#111ThuggernautzPosted 11/21/2012 7:05:48 AM
ave1 posted...


If oxygen doesn't oxidize polypeptides (amino acid chains), then why did the Talk Origins webpage I cited above say that oxidation inhibitors were needing to be added in with the amino acids to keep them from breaking down?


Because you're a disingenuous, biased ****. Because, the very next line from the text which you wilfully chose to omit was this:

Oxidation inhibitors such as ferrous ions may have been in excess over nitrite/nitrate on the early Earth (Walker and Brimblecombe 1985). The group of Bada also re-analyzed samples from Miller’s 1950s spark experiments simulating water vapor-rich volcanic eruptions. Such eruptions would have released reducing gases. In these samples amino acids were more varied than in the classical Miller experiment, and yields were comparable or even higher, indicating that even if the Earth’s atmosphere had been neutral, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective


Further, if you had read the Talkorigins summary correctly, you would have noticed this:

However, new calculations indicate that hydrogen escaped from the early atmosphere at a much slower rate than previously thought, yielding an atmosphere where hydrogen was a major component (about 30 %) and which was therefore highly reducing (Tian et al. 2005 , see also press release). The authors measured the production of organic molecules through UV photolysis under those conditions, and conclude that at 10^10kg/year it “would have been orders of magnitude greater than the rate of either the synthesis of organic compounds in hydrothermal systems or the exogenous delivery of organic compounds to early Earth”.


Highly reducing != completely reduced. There is still free oxygen, and coupled with the last publication I gave you, there is absolutely no reason organic compounds wouldn't form in that environment, let alone being bombarded from meteorites rich with the stuff. And that's for a reducing atmosphere.

You must think we're either all very stupid or very lazy not to check up on the very same link you posted which clearly shows your selective bias from the text.
#112Wandering__HeroPosted 11/21/2012 7:37:47 AM
ave1 posted...
There's evidence that the Earth has always had free oxygen- and amino acids come about when there's no oxygen.

Check out a quote from March 1982 Geology magazine:


"Geologic evidence often presented in favor of an early anoxic atmosphere is both contentious and ambiguous.... Recent biological and interplanetary studies seem to favor an early oxidized atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide and possibly containing free molecular oxygen. ... It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 b.y. ago, earth had an oxygenic atmosphere"

Scientific American in April of 1984 discussed an international conference of the Precambrian Paleobiology Research Group that assessed evidence of preCambrian oxygen levels. They reported low levels of oxygen present- "It was not, however, oxygen free; the bands [oxidized iron] represent a large sink for the reactive oxygen." It said that oxidized iron bands appear at about the same time as the first bacterial cells. Also, at about the same time that the first life appeared, carbon dioxide was present, perhaps even abundant. Actually, the report said that the earliest rusted iron bands were 3.8 billion years old and the oldest fossils of cells were 3.5 billion years old. So, according to this group of Precambrian specialists, there is evidence of free oxygen at least 300 million years before there were living cells. (credit goes to creationism.org for the accurate info)

According to John Gribbin, "All we have to do now is rewrite all those textbooks and ensure that 'every schoolchild knows' what the best theory of the evolution of the earth's atmosphere and the origins of life is today."


This thread was dead for 4 days after people realised the pointless of it and you brought it back. Why?
---
This site gives 1.1 cups of food for each click a day. Please click it
http://www.thehungersite.com
#113Cloud_6671Posted 11/21/2012 5:32:20 PM
Because its fun to hear "arguments" against evolution
---
http://i41.tinypic.com/5ug5c1.jpg
#114CoyoteTheGreatPosted 11/21/2012 5:49:17 PM
Why can't users whose names I actually recognize ever call each other out?
---
Disobedience is the stamp of the hero. -Ragnar Redbeard
Also, this is Kagata.
#115ave1Posted 11/27/2012 8:10:53 AM(edited)
Thuggernautz posted...
ave1 posted...



You called me disingenuous because I didn't pay much attention to the speculation about volcanos spewing out smoke with chemicals promoting a reducing atmosphere (specifically, ferrous ions oxidation inhibitors which could keep the atmosphere in a neutral state (as opposed to one where oxidation would readily occur). Let's consider that.

Here's some evidence from a 1976 journal article ( Dimroth, E. & Kimberley, M.M., Can. J. Earth Sci. 13 1161, (1976). ) ( I do invite you to refute this with newer evidence that shows the authors' conclusions to be wrong):


"The sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and ferric and ferrous iron depend greatly upon ambient oxygen pressure and should reflect any major change in proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere or hydrosphere. The similar distributions of these elements in sedimentary rocks of all ages are here interpreted to indicate the existence of a Precambrian atmosphere containing much oxygen. . .

Dimroth and Kimberly also state this in "The Early History of the Earth":
We know of no evidence which proves orders-of-magnitude differences between Middle Archaean and subsequent atmospheric compositions, hydrospheric compositions, or total biomasses." (Answers in Genesis has provided me with the knowledge of these sourcews)

This evidence stands against a neutral or reducing atmosphere ever being present on Earth. . .

So does the evidence concerning pyrite which is a minor source of sulfide sulfa (This is found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v3/n4/first-atmosphere ):

"Kimberley and Dimroth found that:

"The distribution of sulfur in Archaean and Proterozoic rocks is similar to that in Phanerozoic rocks of comparable type."


"The preservation potential of detrital pyrite [coming from volcanos and having a correlation with sulfide sulfa because it is a source of it] in present day sedimentary environments is now being eliminated largely by biochemical oxidation and oxidative corrosion....pyrite should have been a consistent and important component of sediments deposited under a hypothetical oxygen-deficient atmosphere. Pyrite is common in all source rocks but detrital pyrite is just as rare in Proterozoic and Archaean sedimentary rocks as it is in present day sediments. Absence of pyrite from many Proterozoic and Archaean sandstones, for instance, despite the common presence of the mineral in the source rocks, is evidence for oxidation during transport and/or diagenesis."

In other words the atmosphere we have today is not neutral or reducing just as the atmosphere was when the proterozoic and archaean sandstones were laid down. It's been an oxidizing atmosphere the whole time.

This is why certain scientists are pushing for life coming from space and seeding the Earth. There is strong evidence against the idea that volcanos put out enough reducing gases and chemicals to make the atmosphere neutral or reducing.

...
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#116ave1Posted 11/27/2012 8:08:05 AM
...

Also see the evidence presented in the article concerning uranium in precambrian deposits compared to more recent deposits:

"Dimroth and Kimberley conclude:

Although it is thermodynamically possible that this mobility could have occurred at exceedingly low oxygen pressures, it is more likely that the carbonaceous replacements indicate an oxygenic groundwater atmosphere system more like that at present.

Similarly Simpson and Bowles (footnote 28 in the article) state:

The retention of sulfate and uranyl ions in solution . . . suggests that the atmosphere was oxidizing at the time of deposition."

Can you explain how tthe Earth's atmosphere was neutral or reducing when the comparative evidence of precambrian and more recent rock distributions of iron, sulfur, uranium, and pyrite all seem to indicate otherwise?
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#117ThuggernautzPosted 11/27/2012 8:49:05 AM(edited)
ave1 posted...

Here's some evidence from a 1976 journal article ( Dimroth, E. & Kimberley, M.M., Can. J. Earth Sci. 13 1161, (1976). ) ( I do invite you to refute this with newer evidence that shows the authors' conclusions to be wrong):


Haha, really? Well that was silly. Sure, I'll happily oblige. Also, it must be noted that this here is a big part of your problem:

(Answers in Genesis has provided me with the knowledge of these sourcews)


So, you've cited a single journal article which is about 40 years old. Well, let's start with something that's only 12 years old that completely refutes your article with better, more modern techniques:


Mass-independent isotopic signatures for (33)S, (34)S, and (36)S from sulfide and sulfate in Precambrian rocks indicate that a change occurred in the sulfur cycle between 2090 and 2450 million years ago (Ma). Before 2450 Ma, the cycle was influenced by gas-phase atmospheric reactions. These atmospheric reactions also played a role in determining the oxidation state of sulfur, implying that atmospheric oxygen partial pressures were low and that the roles of oxidative weathering and of microbial oxidation and reduction of sulfur were minimal. Atmospheric fractionation processes should be considered in the use of sulfur isotopes to study the onset and consequences of microbial fractionation processes in Earth's early history.

Farquhar, J., H. Bao and M. Thiemens. 2000. Atmospheric influence of earth's earliest sulfur cycle. Science 289: 756-758. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5480/756.abstract)


Want an even better and thoroughly exhaustive study, written in 2004, that compiles and summarizes the last few decades of research on this? Try this book, which you can read in its entirety on Google Books:

A Geologic Time Scale 2004
edited by Felix M. Gradstein, James G. Ogg, Alan G. Smith

The conclusion?

Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conclusion is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.

In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.


There is also the 2001 Study of oxygen in Nature magazine, which comes to the same conclusion, but it's behind a paywall:

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v410/n6831/full/410862a0_fs.html

In conclusion, your 40 something year old study has been eclipsed by volumes of new research, using far better and more accurate techniques. In your copypasta, you noted that Kimberley et al. said "We know of no evidence which proves orders-of-magnitude differences between Middle Archaean and subsequent atmospheric compositions, hydrospheric compositions, or total biomasses."

Well, they sure as hell should now.
#118Moorish_IdolPosted 11/27/2012 12:41:36 PM
CoyoteTheGreat posted...
Why can't users whose names I actually recognize ever call each other out?
Who are you?
---
Ezekiel 23:20
#119ave1Posted 12/3/2012 1:16:48 PM(edited)
So, you've cited a couple journal articles which are 12 and 8 years old. Well, let's start with something that's only 3 years old that completely refutes your article with better, more modern techniques:

The article "Deep sea rocks point to early oxygen on earth." (which I found out about by reading a news article on icr.org) found in the Pennsylvania State University press release (March 24, 2009) reported research published in Hoashi, M. et al. 2009. "Primary haematite formation in an oxygenated sea 3.46 billion years ago." Nature Geoscience. 2 (4): 301-306.

Thug, it looks like your articles from 8 or more years ago have turned out to be wrong. Photosynthesis was supposed to have developed around 2.0 to 2.5 billion years ago, and this produced all the oxygen on Earth, but if that's true why are we now seeing evidence of oxygen being abundantly present on Earth as long as the rocks that have been dated to be 3.46 billion years old have been around? We're now seeing that the evidence that was uncovered close to 40 years ago is consistent with the latest evidence indicating Earth has had plenty of oxygen from the beginning.

In conclusion, your 8 and 12 year old studies have been eclipsed by newer research.

Here's what the Penn State University publication stated about the new research: "To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth's history than previously thought.”

So they push the date of the dawn of life back even further- and it's getting dangerously close to the date that the scientists purport Earth began (4.54 billion years ago). The amount of time for abiogenesis to occur needs to be a vast amount of time, but the margin of time is narrowing (making it even a less viable idea than it ever was before).
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#120TheRealJiraiyaPosted 12/3/2012 1:10:27 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
CoyoteTheGreat posted...
Why can't users whose names I actually recognize ever call each other out?
Who are you?


He is Kagata
---
"If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable" -Seneca
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt