maybe im not sure but i guess it could be real
no but if yes this god is a jerk
yes but i do wonder sometimes if its true
Since when is gods name Ted?
Edit: oh nevermind you deleted your post for some reason.
Edit #2: nevermind found it.
Originally Posted by Nerd with Specs
[Reference: last post wins]
Yay, 286 people have been saved!
-Girls were far more likely to believe in an after-life than boys.
-People who believed in god usually believed that because they wanted an afterlife, rather than subscribing to a specific religion.
-'Whatever you believe happens to you when you die happens to you', was the most popular belief among those people.
O'course, this was UK so it's probably a little less fundamenalist than the internet.
[Reference: last post wins]
Oddly enough, I'm not one of those stereotypical 'atheists' who jumps onto the belief of the Big Bang or Evolution. Although, I just solely believe mother nature just took it's course to whatever happened, but no one can be 100% sure. Until all primates turn into humans, sure I'll believe it, until Jesus descends from the heavens, sure I'll admit I was wrong, and until the galaxies finally come back to the origin point, yep.
And to be honest, why should we continue to fret over how we got here? Live for tomorrow, right?
I'm not saying to halt any research of that kind history, but the way humans take to the extremes of Scientology and religion is pretty...blah.
Thanks for Crown Divine Striker and Dry Bowser45
Proud member of XPA!'s army.
No because I need proof. Science gives proof. Religion does not. I have nothing against people who are religious but really, how can you believe in something so far-fetched
removed by mod -- continue with this behavior and your account's privileges will be removed
I dont even remember what the sig even was^^ by the way allah is gay sad f*ckers believe in allah anyway.
Sorry for being inactive, it's mid semester here, so I had some tests to do...
There are certain constraints that control polymerization reactions. For instance, a basic chain of amino acids is fairly easy to make; however, to form a protein, you'll need several specific chains all linked together in the right order. Further, the molecules linking the chains together must be molecules with two functional groups [bifunctional].
For instance, lets say you have a train track; to connect the train tracks, you must have a piece that has the ability to connect to another piece, and that piece must be able to connect with another piece, etc. However, if you have a piece that connects with the original piece but CANNOT connect with another piece (ie ending the train track), you won't be able to continue the train track.
In a similar way, if a unifunctional [molecule that only reacts one way] monomer reacts with the end of a chain, that chain will no longer be able to react at that end. Now in an environment where both unifunctional and bifunctional chains are made in fairly equal amounts, the chance of making long strands of amino acids would be low; but still possible. However, in all experiments that are based on the early atmosphere/conditions of the ‘primordial soup’, the number of unifunctional monomers outweighs bifunctional monomers 3 to 1. What does this mean? It means that there is a large chance that a unifunctional monomer will terminate an amino acid chain which means it will not result in a functional protein. (As a side note, I believe there is a Wikipedia article on chain termination of Polymerization, I'll post it if it is pertinent enough to my argument.)
You then go on to talk about RNA and TNA. However, their existence in the prebiotic soup has yet to be explained. There are numerous ideas out there, but as with most abiogenesis hypothesises, they are vague and are only tested in highly modified environments.
Also, I had a question about your statement that it takes millions of years for this process [creation of proteins] to occur. Wouldn’t the amino acid chains break down after millions of years? According to you, all it takes to prove your theory is to throw a bunch of random amino acids into a sterilized container with choice bits of clay and anything else you need. Let that sit for a couple years, and you have fully functional proteins and maybe even RNA, TNA, DNA, and possibly a living cell, right?
Nope. No matter what conditions you make this experiment in; oxygen, no oxygen, light no light, UV, no UV, heat, no heat, pretty much anything and you still will not get life. Further, you cannot just say that life wasn’t produced because it takes millions of years for this to happen. Anyone involved in criminal justice can tell you that DNA breaks down in a matter of years if left in an open environment [as would be expected in some mud puddle with water.]
By the way, if polymerization requires water, wouldn’t that tend to break down the chain since polymers are known to pretty much "dissolve" in water?
EDIT: Just as a note, there seem to be some people thinking that the majority of Jvers are Christians. No, just because around 50% of Jvers voted for God does not mean they are religious. While most of the people voting for God are under the age of 12, they most likely have not studied any religion [including Christianity] in depth enough to actually consider what it says and to choose whether or not its valid. In fact, its the same with some scientists out there; they believe that the evidence points towards a creator, but they are not willing to attribute that evidence to the Bible, the Koran, or any other holy book for that matter.
Belief in God does not necessarily constitute a religious belief. Especially if your deist.
Last edited by Blackie6789; 1st April 2012 at 11:59 AM.
Pr2: Rank 35 Hats:9Pr3: Rank 37 Hats:11
It's not 'my' mechanism, blackie, this is professional biologist and chemist's work, and your complaints just show that you don't understand chemistry.
-the nature of a chain can determine the probability of the next constituant.
-some polymers are more stable than others therefore more likely to form
-amino acids are by definition blessed with two functional groups, that's why they're amino acids, and that's why they form zwitter-ions
-experiments with clay catalysts herralded the production of amino-acid polymers, wow it really works.
TNA and RNA...hmm, why don't you actually look something up, or should I write another page of text-book science out for you in simpleton-talk?
No, blackie, I'm not suggesting a polymerisation reaction takes millions of years[gosh you couldn't have understood any worse could you?], I'm stating that getting the right conditions for such reactions to be sustainable is often dependant on equilibria which take a damn long time to establish in many cases, even geological aeons in some cases [such is the case with our current atmosphere]
According to 'me' [or rather scientists] what you need to make life is an earth sized planet covered in oceans and clay beds, with a lot of spare nutrients, in the vacinity of a nice warm star.
Do amino acid-polymers hydrolyse? Well, let's make this clear: the hydrolysis of proteins [not dissolving, but breaking up] requires alkali and acid catalyst, if you think that it's easy to destroy proteins like this, I dare you: get some silk and wash it, according to you it should 'dissolve' in the water. Come on, blackie, think about the absurdity of your claims; you're suggesting that cotton should dissolve when washed, that sheep should melt in the rain, etc